When it comes to real science all AGW whackos have is excuses
Claudius Denk
> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> . . . infrared absorbers are also
> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
"greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
> And then that radiation is absorbed by another CO2 molecule
> and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
careful not to let get out to the public. (In fact, this is the
reason they refuse to do any real science. It would be a death
sentence to the AGW industrial complex if this truth ever got out to
the public.)
> Summing all this up, the thickness of the layer of CO2 is
> important,
Evidence?
> but in any event half the IR is reflected back
> to the earth. In most cases the fraction reflected back
> is even greater. And then there is the complication of
> a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
> molecule in the atmosphere...
Speculative nonsense. Despite the fact that what you are saying might
have some truth the fact is you can't/won't measure any of this and so
you can't/won't test it. If you can't/won't test it it isn't
science. It's propaganda.
> All of this can be worked out with paper and pencil to an
> amazing degree.
Yes. Skeptics already have. No drama was found. AGW advocates refuse
to acknowledge it and will only respond by trying to discredit their
critics through political tactics.
Why don't you take your foot out of your mouth and show us the
"amazing" calculations?
> The result is what is observed; the CO2
> acts to trap radiation.
Bullshit. All you whackos have is propaganda. Show us the science
you phoney.
> The problem of discussing all this with perfectly intelligent
> normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
> make them doubters.
And it your case the sheer complexity makes you a believer.
> The fact that all the science was worked
> out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. This is
> a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
> in great detail.
That's because you're delusional.
> It is akin to trying to explain why two neutral atoms (think
> argon or helium) attract each other when brought close enough
> together. The effect is real. The detailed explanation
> is long and tedious. What is usually said is that it is
> a "quantum mechanical effect", which is really not a detailed
> answer at all.
When it comes to real science all you whackos have is excuses.
Dawlish
..............and they have global temperatures at their warmest for
at least a century and a half, of course.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
Claudius Denk
Wrong subject. Read the thread before you respond.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
IAAH
> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> . . . infrared absorbers are also
>> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
>> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
>> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
>> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
>> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
>> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
Completely wrong, unless you're saying that the
incorrect assessment of only 5% obtained by using
poor calculating methods is unmeasurable.
But that result is incorrect.
--
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks
he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only
has to be someone who believes that the evidence
on the God question is at a similar level to the
evidence on the werewolf question.
- John McCarthy
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I responded to this piece of idiocy.
"When it comes to real science all you whackos have is excuses".
If you don't wish people to point out such a ridiculous statement;
don't write it. The real science is in the temperatures, not in your
rhetoric.
I could call you a "whacko" back, but it's just not worth it.
Claudius Denk
> On 4/9/10 1:23 PM, * Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> >> . . . infrared absorbers are also
> >> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> >> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> >> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> >> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> >> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> >> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
> Completely wrong, unless you're saying that the
> incorrect assessment of only 5% obtained by using
> poor calculating methods is unmeasurable.
>
> But that result is incorrect.
You are the typical AGW kool-aid drinker. Your confidence stems from
some vague, wishy-washy notions, not quantifyable facts.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
And, you, dear Denk, are the archetypal denier. You will probably take
that as a compliment. Most real scientists would just laugh at you.
*>))
Doug Bashford
Claudius Denk said:
> On Apr 9, 10:41 am, Dawlish wrote:
> > On Apr 9, Claudius Denk wrote:
..................snip
> > http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
>
> Wrong subject. Read the thread before you respond.
These guys can't read much before their lips get tired.
===============
===============
"Shocking Harris POLL explains Republicanism"
New Harris POLL:
Mar 24, 2010
"Wingnuts" and President Obama
A socialist? A Muslim? Anti-American? The Anti-Christ? Large minorities of Americans
hold some "remarkable" opinions
Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America.
This Harris Poll seeks to measure how many people are involved.
It finds that Republicans believe that President Obama:
* Is a socialist (67%)
* Wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61%)
* Is a Muslim (57%)
* Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States (51%)
* Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).
* Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
* Is a "domestic enemy" (45%)
My, what whacko, brainwashed dittohead parrots you guys are.
How did THAT happen!? Easy:
USA Today/Gallup poll -- RUSH LIMBAUGH is the REPUBLICAN'S LEADER !
asked: "Who speaks for the Republican party today?"
LIMBAUGH...In every catigory: Both Republicans, Dems agree.
Dick Cheney is number two. That's right, Limbaugh & Cheney.
www.gallup.com/poll/120806/Limbaugh-Gingrich-Cheney-Seen-Speaking-GOP.aspx
BUT WAIT! there's more:
Differences by education
These replies are also strongly correlated with education.
The less education people have had the more likely they
are to believe all of these statements.
Consider these differences between those with no college
education and those with
post-graduate education:
* He is a socialist (45% and 20%)
* He wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (45% and 19%)
* He is a Muslim (43% and 9%)
* He was not born in the United States so is not eligible to be
president (32% and 7%)
* He is a racist (28% and 9%)
* He is anti-American (27% and 9%)
* He is doing many of the things Hitler did (24% and 10%).
........big snip
The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
chris thompson
Yah. AGW deniers are right there with creationists. In fact, we can
coopt Ken Miller's statement about creationism to address the AGW
deniers:
"We've got the temperatures. We win."
Chris
chris thompson
Along with the rest of us.
Chris
Ouroboros Rex
> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> William Morse<wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> . . . infrared absorbers are also
>> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
>> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
>> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
>> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
>> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
>> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> science on this
Pathetic lie.
so they are unable to quantify any of this.
Pathetic lie.
IAAH
Wrong. Keep thinking that, though. Maybe you can
lie about what Jones said next.
Kermit
> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
Gee. We've been doing science on this since 1859.
Tyndall figured out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we've simply
learned more about it since. It's a routine lab experiment for
freshmen college students.
>
> > And then that radiation is absorbed by another CO2 molecule
> > and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> > and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
> This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
> small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
> careful not to let get out to the public.
Cites?
> (In fact, this is the
> reason they refuse to do any real science. It would be a death
> sentence to the AGW industrial complex if this truth ever got out to
> the public.)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M018
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-evidence/
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php
>
> > Summing all this up, the thickness of the layer of CO2 is
> > important,
>
> Evidence?
See links provided.
You forgot to include the evidence supporting *your claims.
>
> > but in any event half the IR is reflected back
> > to the earth. In most cases the fraction reflected back
> > is even greater. And then there is the complication of
> > a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
> > molecule in the atmosphere...
>
> Speculative nonsense. Despite the fact that what you are saying might
> have some truth the fact is you can't/won't measure any of this and so
> you can't/won't test it. If you can't/won't test it it isn't
> science. It's propaganda.
You don't accept first year physics and chemistry?
>
> > All of this can be worked out with paper and pencil to an
> > amazing degree.
>
> Yes. Skeptics already have. No drama was found. AGW advocates refuse
> to acknowledge it and will only respond by trying to discredit their
> critics through political tactics.
I see that you offer, as usual, political accusations, bu tno data.
>
> Why don't you take your foot out of your mouth and show us the
> "amazing" calculations?
>
> > The result is what is observed; the CO2
> > acts to trap radiation.
>
> Bullshit. All you whackos have is propaganda. Show us the science
> you phoney.
You're also repeating yourself.
>
> > The problem of discussing all this with perfectly intelligent
> > normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
> > make them doubters.
>
> And it your case the sheer complexity makes you a believer.
Ditto.
>
> > The fact that all the science was worked
> > out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. This is
> > a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
> > in great detail.
>
> That's because you're delusional.
Please pick a specific paper, observations, or model and tell us what
you think is wrong with it. Note that "you're delusional" is simply an
admission that you have nothing yourself.
The Creationists do this, also. They learn the form of posted
responses, and think it's merely rhetoric. They never understand that
it's actually the content of what is being said that matters.
For you, as for them, your worldview is a social construct. Alas, it
has a poor correspondence to reality. Perhaps this is how you resolved
disagreements growing up, but in science "You're pooh-pooh head"
carries little weight, even if repeated.
Do you understand that claiming all scientists are in part of a
conspiracy, for all countries, and multiple generations, is tin-foil
hat territory? It's really an extraordinary assertion.
Since you reject basic science, verifiable facts, and even experiments
you can do yourself, how could any sane person convince you of
anything? Your beliefs are not based on reason nor evidence, so
neither can be used to dissuade you of these peculiar ideas.
Normally I would leave you to your ...misapprehensions, but we need a
critical mass of the population working on this, and you're not
helping.
>
> > It is akin to trying to explain why two neutral atoms (think
> > argon or helium) attract each other when brought close enough
> > together. The effect is real. The detailed explanation
> > is long and tedious. What is usually said is that it is
> > a "quantum mechanical effect", which is really not a detailed
> > answer at all.
>
> When it comes to real science all you whackos have is excuses.
See, here's an example. When presented with what should be an
uncontroversial statement, you dismiss it and resort to childish
insults. When it comes to real science, all we have is ...science.
Does anybody take you seriously? Have you ever given anyone reason to?
Are you a Yankee? This has pictures, from the U.S. Global Change
Research Program:
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/National.pdf
Kermit
dr yacub
buggu assford wrote:
> [yawn/flush]
You make no sense, you driveling imbecile shit eater
Desertphile
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:23 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
*CUTS*
>> When it comes to real science all you whackos have is excuses.
If one did not know that "Claudius Denk" is the whacko in
question, one would think he was referring to the deniers of AGW.
> See, here's an example. When presented with what should be an
> uncontroversial statement, you dismiss it and resort to childish
> insults. When it comes to real science, all we have is ...science.
> Does anybody take you seriously? Have you ever given anyone reason to?
>
> Are you a Yankee? This has pictures, from the U.S. Global Change
> Research Program:
> http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/National.pdf
A paper on sea level rising:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full.pdf
The estimates for the next 90 years appear to already be obsolete.
> Kermit
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Claudius Denk
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> >> . . . infrared absorbers are also
> >> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> >> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> >> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> >> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> >> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> >> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
> Completely wrong,
References?
> unless you're saying that the
> incorrect assessment of only 5% obtained by using
> poor calculating methods is unmeasurable.
I don't speak whacko. Can somebody translate this for me.
> But that result is incorrect.
?
tg
> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
So where are the papers? Or, if you can't reference the papers, just
describe a proper (real science) experiment and we will perform it.
-tg
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 9, 10:23 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
> Gee. We've been doing science on this since 1859.
It's 2010 dumbass.
> Tyndall figured out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we've simply
> learned more about it since. It's a routine lab experiment for
> freshmen college students.
Routine and undramatic.
> > > And then that radiation is absorbed by another CO2 molecule
> > > and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> > > and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
> > This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
> > small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
> > careful not to let get out to the public.
>
> Cites?
You have no dispute, do you?
> > (In fact, this is the
> > reason they refuse to do any real science. It would be a death
> > sentence to the AGW industrial complex if this truth ever got out to
> > the public.)
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htmhttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M018http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-evidence/http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php
Ha. This proves *my* point, dumbass. You should have read this
before you responded.
> > > Summing all this up, the thickness of the layer of CO2 is
> > > important,
>
> > Evidence?
>
> See links provided.
I must have missed it. Can you show what it was. I read your links
now and many times before. They never address the issues.
> You forgot to include the evidence supporting *your claims.
You are my evidence.
> > > but in any event half the IR is reflected back
> > > to the earth. In most cases the fraction reflected back
> > > is even greater. And then there is the complication of
> > > a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
> > > molecule in the atmosphere...
>
> > Speculative nonsense. Despite the fact that what you are saying might
> > have some truth the fact is you can't/won't measure any of this and so
> > you can't/won't test it. If you can't/won't test it it isn't
> > science. It's propaganda.
>
> You don't accept first year physics and chemistry?
I do. Do you deny first year physics and chemistry?
> > > All of this can be worked out with paper and pencil to an
> > > amazing degree.
>
> > Yes. Skeptics already have. No drama was found. AGW advocates refuse
> > to acknowledge it and will only respond by trying to discredit their
> > critics through political tactics.
>
> I see that you offer, as usual, political accusations, bu tno data.
You have no fact-based dispute with my assertion, do you?
> > Why don't you take your foot out of your mouth and show us the
> > "amazing" calculations?
>
> > > The result is what is observed; the CO2
> > > acts to trap radiation.
>
> > Bullshit. All you whackos have is propaganda. Show us the science
> > you phoney.
>
> You're also repeating yourself.
>
>
>
> > > The problem of discussing all this with perfectly intelligent
> > > normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
> > > make them doubters.
>
> > And it your case the sheer complexity makes you a believer.
>
> Ditto.
>
>
>
> > > The fact that all the science was worked
> > > out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. This is
> > > a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
> > > in great detail.
>
> > That's because you're delusional.
>
> Please pick a specific paper, observations, or model and tell us what
> you think is wrong with it.
I've already told you dumbass. You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
on the atmosphere.
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
Stuart
We are. He has written some of the funniest shit on t.o. in a while.
RIght up there with "trilobites are mammals".
Stuart
IAAH
> On Apr 9, 12:22 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exists> wrote:
>> On 4/9/10 1:23 PM, * Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>>> . . . infrared absorbers are also
>>>> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
>>>> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
>>>> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
>>>> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
>>>> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
>>>> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>>> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
>>> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
>>> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
>>> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>> Completely wrong,
>
> References?
You can provide yours first.
Cory Albrecht
> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> William Morse<wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> . . . infrared absorbers are also
>> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
>> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
>> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
>> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
>> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
>> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
Citations, please, on that research.
First.Post
Bill Ward
<http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
"For example, with ΔT = 0.2 K and ΔFlux = 0.9 W m–2, F is –4.5 W
m–2 K–1 (= –0.9/0.2) that is equivalent to f = –1.1, resulting in ∆T of
~0.5 K for a doubling of CO2 in Eq. (3). Namely, given F = –4.5 W m–2 K–
1, climate sensitivity is about a half of that for the nonfeedback
condition."
http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
"This figure [13] shows that the Earth has a controlled greenhouse
effect with a stable global average τ A = 1.87 ≈ τ + ≈ τ , g (τ A ) =
0.33 ≈ g + ≈ g (τ A ) , and g S (τ A ) ≈ 0.185 . As long as the F 0 + P
0 flux term is constant and the system is in radiative balance with a
global average radiative equilibrium source function profile, global
warming looks impossible. Long term changes in the planetary
radiative balance is governed by the F 0 + P 0 = SU (3/ 5 + 2TA / 5) ,
OLR = SU f and F 0 + P 0 = OLR equations. The system is locked to the τ A
optical depth because of the energy minimum principle prefers the
radiative equilibrium configuration (τ A < τ A ) but the energy
conservation principle constrains the available thermal energy
(τ A > τ A ). "
leona...@gmail.com
Ø The best that can be said about that link is that
the columns look pretty, but when you
eliminate water vapour (97%) from the
equation you lose validity.
Ø Without H2O there is no greenhouse and
CO2 levels therein can fluctuate from zero to
600 ppm in the course of a day and back to
zero in an hour.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
leona...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:17:38 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
>
> "For example, with ΔT = 0.2 K and ΔFlux = 0.9 W m–2, F is –4.5 W
> m–2 K–1 (= –0.9/0.2) that is equivalent to f = –1.1, resulting in ∆T of
> ~0.5 K for a doubling of CO2 in Eq. (3). Namely, given F = –4.5 W m–2 K–
> 1, climate sensitivity is about a half of that for the nonfeedback
> condition."
>
> http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
Ø Bill that is total speculation. CO2 doubling is nonsense as is
"climate sensitivity" and "feedbacks"
>
> "This figure [13] shows that the Earth has a controlled greenhouse
> effect with a stable global average τ A = 1.87 ≈ τ + ≈ τ , g (τ A ) =
> 0.33 ≈ g + ≈ g (τ A ) , and g S (τ A ) ≈ 0.185 . As long as the F 0 + P
> 0 flux term is constant and the system is in radiative balance with a
> global average radiative equilibrium source function profile, global
> warming looks impossible. Long term changes in the planetary
> radiative balance is governed by the F 0 + P 0 = SU (3/ 5 + 2TA / 5) ,
> OLR = SU f and F 0 + P 0 = OLR equations. The system is locked to the τ A
> optical depth because of the energy minimum principle prefers the
> radiative equilibrium configuration (τ A < τ A ) but the energy
> conservation principle constrains the available thermal energy
> (τ A > τ A ). "
Ø More gobbledegook nonsense.
ø The issue is really simple
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations.
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Get used to it!!
Cory Albrecht
I'll need some time to read them fully, if you don't mind. However,
right off the bat on that second one involves the part where it says "As
long as...the system is in radiative balance...". A very quick scan of
the article does not show that it denies global warming, for if you
change the composition of the atmosphere by adding greenhouse gases of
any type you thus change the radiative balance and the system will find
a new equilibrium with a higher temperature. Indeed, the paper even
admits to it when on page 8 it says "On the evolutionary time scale of a
planet, the mass and the composition of the atmosphere together with the
F0 and P0 fluxes may change dramatically and accordingly, the relevant
radiative balance equation could change with the time and could be
different for different planets."
So overall, rather than supporting an anti-AGW position, this paper
seems to provide evidence that adding extra greenhouse gases will change
the temperature of our planet.
I suggest that you might have misunderstood or misinterpreted the paper,
but I shall give it a more thorough reading to rule out that I have done so.
Cory Albrecht
> Ø The best that can be said about that link is that
> the columns look pretty, but when you
> eliminate water vapour (97%) from the
> equation you lose validity.
>
> Ø Without H2O there is no greenhouse and
> CO2 levels therein can fluctuate from zero to
> 600 ppm in the course of a day and back to
> zero in an hour.
Hey, Leonard, I never saw you reply to any of the people who pointed out
your mistake when you claimed "A CO2 molecule is very heavy and 32 times
the weight of a water molecule". Care to comment on that?
rmacfarl
"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:323deaa6-9438-4dce...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
Well I'm not (an individual.) Denk is not so much an archetypal
denier, as an archetypal netloon. He has form, not just in global
warming denialism. Like Archimedes Plutonium, he's not a one-note
singer.
And now he's found a new audience in t.o., you will never get rid
of him until DIG sees the light and bans cross-posting from AGW
the way he did with sci.anthropology.paleo - which is where
Claudius Denk aka Jim McGinn was for many years one of the
premier and most ridiculous of loons.
You have been warned.
[Don't bother Jim, you're comfortably settled in my killfile...]
Tom P
> On 4/9/10 6:58 PM, * Claudius Denk wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 12:22 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exists> wrote:
>>> On 4/9/10 1:23 PM, * Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>>>> . . . infrared absorbers are also
>>>>> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
>>>>> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
>>>>> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
>>>>> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
>>>>> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
>>>>> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>>>> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
>>>> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
>>>> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
>>>> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>>> Completely wrong,
>>
>> References?
>
> You can provide yours first.
>
Claudius Denk is just a tedious troll and a boring old idiot. You are
wasting your time arguing with him.
Steven L.
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:e53953e5-a577-4c98...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
Have you looked at the original research by Svante Arrhenius in 1906?
Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
"If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric
progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
arithmetic progression."
This simplified expression is still used today:
οΏ½F = οΏ½ ln(C/C0)
In 1906, Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a
temperature rise of 1.6 οΏ½C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 οΏ½C).
Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate
sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 οΏ½C. So Arrhenius was in
today's ballpark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
-- Steven L.
Sapient Fridge
<e53953e5-a577-4c98...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> . . . infrared absorbers are also
>> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
>> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
>> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
>> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
>> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
>> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
>Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
>science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
>skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
>"greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
>> and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
>> and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
>This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
>small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
>careful not to let get out to the public.
Too late. It's already widely known that CO2 plays a relatively small
part in this process, but it's the part that is changing most rapidly.
Infrared radiation emitted by the earth is largely blocked by non-CO2
greenhouse gases (water vapour mostly) but some of the windows in the
absorption spectrum that IR *can* escape through are the ones occupied
by CO2. Those windows may be relatively small (as you say) but as the
windows are closed off the temperature will increase until it reaches a
new equilibrium.
If we only had to worry about CO2 and its absorption spectrum then we
would probably only get a couple of degrees temperature increase at
most. The problem is that we don't quite know what effect *secondary*
feedback loops will have e.g. additional methane release, albedo changes
etc. Which is where computer modelling comes in.
You can of course simply claim that these feedback loops will not
happen, which is the approach sites like this take:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
but we know that in the past the planet has been much hotter than today
therefore we know that there *are* mechanisms which will generate higher
temperatures, even if we aren't quite sure how they were triggered e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM
Which makes reports like this uncomfortable reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8205864.stm
Apart from anything else, even if the models were completely wrong,
there is still ocean acidification to consider. The link to CO2 there
is much easier to follow and just as worrying.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Steven L.
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4300f07d-9eae-4029...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
temperatures.
Here's an article in Popular Mechanics from 1953, citing research by Dr.
Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
effects:
In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
But now we're in the 21st century.
The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
You are going to lose the fight.
If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
You're going to discredit yourselves, because you've taken a position
that is scientifically risible. And you're going to be laughingstocks.
Your REAL concern is what dealing with AGW will do to the U.S. economy
and society, and/or those of other nations. And that is a valid
concern, definitely. I share that concern. Why don't you stick with
THAT, instead of discrediting yourselves with pseudo-scientific
nonsense?
-- Steven L.
Bill Ward
Only if they change "dramatically". Do you consider 400ppmv of CO2 a
"dramatic" change?
> I suggest that you might have misunderstood or misinterpreted the paper,
> but I shall give it a more thorough reading to rule out that I have done
> so.
Note the difference between the bounded (semi-transparent) and semi-
infinite atmosphere approaches starting on page 13.
Also this from pg 22:
"For example, a hypothetical CO2 doubling will increase the optical depth
(of the global average profile) by 0.0241, and the related increase in the
surface temperature will be 0.24 K. The related change in the OLR
corresponds to -0.3 K cooling. This may be compared to the 0.3 K and
-1.2 K observed temperature changes of the surface and lower
stratosphere between 1979 and 2004 in Karl et al., (2006).
"From the extrapolation of the ‘Keeling Curve’ the estimated increase in
the average CO2 concentration during this time period is about 22%,
(National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004). Comparing
the magnitude of the expected change in the surface temperature we
conclude, that the observed increase in the CO2 concentration must not be
the primary reason of the global warming."
That seems to me to directly contradict the AGW position. How do you
interpret it?
chemist
> On Apr 9, 10:41 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 6:23 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
> > > > and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> > > > and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
> > > This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
> > > small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
> > > reason they refuse to do any real science. It would be a death
> > > sentence to the AGW industrial complex if this truth ever got out to
> > > the public.)
>
> > > > important,
>
> > > Evidence?
>
> > > > to the earth. In most cases the fraction reflected back
> > > > is even greater. And then there is the complication of
> > > > a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
> > > > molecule in the atmosphere...
>
> > > Speculative nonsense. Despite the fact that what you are saying might
> > > have some truth the fact is you can't/won't measure any of this and so
> > > you can't/won't test it. If you can't/won't test it it isn't
> > > science. It's propaganda.
>
> > > > amazing degree.
>
> > > Yes. Skeptics already have. No drama was found. AGW advocates refuse
> > > to acknowledge it and will only respond by trying to discredit their
> > > critics through political tactics.
>
> > > "amazing" calculations?
>
> > > > The result is what is observed; the CO2
> > > > acts to trap radiation.
>
> > > Bullshit. All you whackos have is propaganda. Show us the science
> > > you phoney.
>
> > > > normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
> > > > make them doubters.
>
> > > And it your case the sheer complexity makes you a believer.
>
> > > > out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. This is
> > > > a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
> > > > in great detail.
>
> > > That's because you're delusional.
>
> > > > argon or helium) attract each other when brought close enough
> > > > together. The effect is real. The detailed explanation
> > > > is long and tedious. What is usually said is that it is
> > > > a "quantum mechanical effect", which is really not a detailed
> > > > answer at all.
>
> > > When it comes to real science all you whackos have is excuses.
>
> > at least a century and a half, of course.
>
> >http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
Free Lunch
<tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Really. Please show us the evidence to support your claim, O great
chemist.
leona...@gmail.com
>
> "If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric
> progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
> arithmetic progression."
>
> This simplified expression is still used today:
>
> F = ln(C/C0)
>
> In 1906, Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a
> temperature rise of 1.6 C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 C).
> Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate
> sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C. So Arrhenius was in
> today's ballpark.
Ø 1- I do not think that is a proper description of
Arrhenius work since all of the Wiki articles
even vaguely related to climate have been
corrupted by AGW activists.
2- "carbonic acid" does not absorb heat. It passes
IR through but does not reflect it.
3- Feedbacks are nonsense.
4- You are working from bad data
For real numbers see:—
<FoS Preindustrial CO2>
The Mauna Loa data really is useless.
In any location, CO2 levels can go from
zero to 600 ppm and down again in the
same day. Nature, in the form of winds,
moves clouds (H2O+CO2+N2O etc)
from the source to where it is most needed
for plant growth and for O2 for us'ns.
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
leona...@gmail.com
> There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
FoS Preindustrial CO2>
GAS | TOTAL | NATURE | MAN
—————————————————————————————
H2O Vapour | 95.000% | 94.999% |0.001%
——————————————————————————————
CO2 | 03.618% | 3.502% |0.117%
——————————————————————————————
Methane | 0.260% | 0.294% |0.066%
—————————————————————
—————————
Nitrous oxide | 0.950% | 0.903% |0.047%
——————————————————————————————
Misc, CFC etc| 0.072% | 0.025% |0.047%
Paul J Gans
Is too!
--
--- Paul J. Gans
dr yacub
> wasting your time arguing with him.
yep
hersheyh
[snip]
>
> There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
Jesus Christ! Don't deniers like the pseudochemist here even try to
look up what makes something a "greenhouse gas"? Let me repeat my
reply to Cluless Denk here. I will edit it slightly.
First: A very simple web search will produce definitions of
"greenhouse gases".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit
radiation within the thermal infrared range."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit
radiation within the thermal infrared range."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greenhouse+gas
"Any of the atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect
by absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of the
Earth's surface."
http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/1043564/infrared-radiation-as-discu...
"any gas that has the property of absorbing infrared radiation (net
heat energy) emitted from Earth’s surface and reradiating it back to
Earth’s surface"
Below is a somewhat longer definition and description from a chemistry
text.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
"Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible
light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the
sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-
emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example,
infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red
hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of
electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left.
Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing
infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the
atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a
molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and
vibrate - this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule
gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra
kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as
oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.
Analogy: Think of a partially stretched "toy slinky" - if you bump the
slinky, the energy of the bump is absorbed by the vibrations in the
slinky."
Some definitions of "greenhouse gas" are sloppier than others. The
definition I and real chemists use, namely that a greenhouse gas is a
gas that absorbs in the thermal IR, is basically included in all the
others. I have chosen that definition precisely because it does not,
in itself, make any claim that any specific greenhouse gas produces a
significant greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. That is, I am
*specifically* leaving open the question skeptics are really
interested in: does CO2 produce a *significant* greenhouse effect at
the concentrations present in the earth's atmosphere.
By the definition of "greenhouse gas" above (greenhouse gases are
gases that absorb in the thermal IR) a gas can be a "greenhouse gas"
and have no actual atmospheric effect either because that gas does not
exist in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities or because it does
not absorb strongly or a combination of the two. All I am disagreeing
with is your counterfactual claim that there is no such thing as a
greenhouse gas.
A gas is a greenhouse gas because of an innate chemical property,
specifically absorption in the thermal IR. A gas that does not even
exist in our atmosphere can be a greenhouse gas by the definition if
it absorbs energy in the thermal IR.
Thus, I claim that the definition of "greenhouse gas" I am using is
correct and the only question left is whether or not CO2 and water
vapor absorb
energy in the thermal IR and thus are "greenhouse gases".
Go to
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouse...
If you go to the above site and scroll down (it wouldn't hurt you to
actually read it and learn a little about the electromagnetic
spectrum) you will see absorption profiles of O2+O3,CO2, and H2O. Note
that both H2O and CO2 absorb in the thermal infrared range, thus
absorbing (and re-emiting) the radiant energy that the earth emits
toward space.
If you Google
CO2 absorption spectrum
you will see more images of the CO2 absorption spectrum. Not
surprisingly,
they are all basically the same.
You can also read and look at spectra from
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html
or google others yourself.
By the definition of "greenhouse gas" both water vapor and CO2 are
"greenhouse gases".
Moreover, if you will notice, there is a region of the thermal IR
where CO2 absorbs strongly where water vapor does not or does so only
weakly.
CO2 absorbs and emits thermal IR energy. Put your hand underneath an
IR energy emitter (a heat lamp), perhaps where you flip burgers for a
living. Your hand absorbs some of the IR energy being emitted by the
lamp (as do some of the air, aka atmospheric, molecules above your
hand). What happens wrt the temperature you feel when your hand
absorbs IR energy? Does your hand feel cooler or warmer under a heat
lamp that is turned on? If you stick a thermometer in the air above a
heat lamp, will the temperature registered increase or decrease?
Hint: there is a reason why a lamp that emits in the infrared is
called a "heat lamp." Can you guess what that reason is,
"pseudochemist"?
Absorbing in the thermal IR is as much an observed innate property of
CO2 gas as is the fact that CO2 gas is composed of one atom of C and 2
of O.
And the fact is that gases that absorb in the IR increase the local
temperature reading when IR is absorbed because of what heat is
according to basic thermodynamic laws.
Let me be specific: CO2 absorbs in the IR. So does water vapor.
Both are, *by definition*, greenhouse gases (and the two most
important ones in the atmosphere). Absorption in the thermal infrared
*means* that, if that gas is in the atmosphere, it must, to some
extent, absorb the IR radiation coming from the earth and this *must*,
to some extent, warm the atmosphere.
It is possible to intelligently argue about whether or not the amount
of warming produced by CO2 is [measurable, significant, important],
but one cannot *intelligently* argue that there are no "greenhouse
gases" or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Claiming, as you do,
chemist, that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" (a gas that
absorbs in the thermal IR) is not intelligent argument and only makes
you look ignorant and hurts your credibility when you argue that CO2
does not have a *significant* greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere.
Really, it is better to be silent on stuff you are ignorant about and
be thought a fool than to write that there is no such thing as a
greenhouse gas and remove all doubt.
hersheyh
wrote:
Have you actually bothered to look at the Mauna Loa data?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
Common sense will tell you that CO2 levels cannot go from zero to 600
ppm diurnally any more than that the ppm of O2 and N2 fluctuate that
much on a daily basis. CO2 levels fluctuate seasonally (more in the
Northern Hemisphere), but nowwhere near the amounts you are claiming.
I tried to find *any* evidence of the radical daily fluctuation you
are claiming and have not found any. There may be a small difference
between night and day in a very localized sense right near where
plants are growing or in some local environments like in active
volcanic caldera or a closed garage with a running car and there have
been single massive poisonous releases of CO2 from some lakes (I think
there was one in the Cameroons a decade or so ago). Coal mines? Can
you tell me where you got this nonsense claim about Mauna Loa?
> Nature, in the form of winds,
> moves clouds (H2O+CO2+N2O etc)
> from the source to where it is most needed
> for plant growth and for O2 for us'ns.
The percent of O2 in the open atmosphere most certainly does not vary
dramatically (except for certain enclosed spaces) and even more
certainly does not do so intentionally for our benefit.
>
> ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> Nobody can control the wind
> Nobody can control the rain or snow
> Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> Global temps are within natural variations.
> Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
>
Get used to it!!
Repeating bullshit doesn't make it smell better.
>
> — —
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data
What would you recognize as "valid data"?
Desertphile
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 1:23 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
> >
> > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
How very odd that all of the scientists who actually work in the
related fields and publish in refereed peer-reviewed science
journals just somehow missed this amazing fact.
> So where are the papers? Or, if you can't reference the papers, just
> describe a proper (real science) experiment and we will perform it.
One study found *ZERO* such papers.
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
"... Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that
there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific
community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This
is not the case.
...
"... The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit
endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts,
mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and
rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell
into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position...."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4300f07d-9eae-4029...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
*HUGE* CUT
> > I've already told you dumbass. You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
> > on the atmosphere.
Note that by "whackjobs," "Claudius Denk" is not referring to the
nutcases such as himself, but the scientists who actually work in
the related fields and who publish papers and research in refereed
peer-reviewed science journals.
In less than one second, Google Scholar listed over 2,000 such
papers, many of them freely available to read (and many behind
paywalls).
> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
> temperatures.
>
> Here's an article in Popular Mechanics from 1953, citing research by Dr.
> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
> effects:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6bu9t3
The United States military did some of the research at the time,
looking for better ways to kill and destroy (for which I am
grateful).
> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
> But now we're in the 21st century.
>
> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
> You are going to lose the fight.
> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
"Lost the fight," past tense. These nutcases know they lost the
argument and that scientists won it. All they have left is lies,
which the USA media spews on command.
> You're going to discredit yourselves, because you've taken a position
> that is scientifically risible. And you're going to be laughingstocks.
>
> Your REAL concern is what dealing with AGW will do to the U.S. economy
> and society, and/or those of other nations. And that is a valid
> concern, definitely. I share that concern. Why don't you stick with
> THAT, instead of discrediting yourselves with pseudo-scientific
> nonsense?
It costs less money to just deny observed reality.
> -- Steven L.
Steven L.
news:c03295c6-0f0d-4fd4...@c1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> Nobody can control the wind
> Nobody can control the rain or snow
> Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> Global temps are within natural variations.
> Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Nice poem.
Lousy science.
-- Steven L.
Desertphile
John Christy and Richard Lindzen both published "science papers"
on the subject, asserting CO2 does not increase atmospheric
temperature to any worrisome degree.
Christy claims CO2 is good for humanity and the planet, and that
CO2 is not a pollutant--- of course scientists have refutted his
assertions over and over again, and Christy was paid by Exxonmobil
("Competitive Enterprise Institute"). After no longer being
handsomely paid by Exxonmobil, Christy has started agreeing with
all of the other scientists on the fact that humans have caused
and are causing global warming:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903
Lindzen's assertions have been refuted by his colleagues at MIT,
over and over and over again, yet nutcases still quote him as a
scientist who denies CO2-driven global climate change. His web
page admits he is paid by the Bush2 Administration.
Desertphile
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:17:38 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
>
> > Claudius Denk wrote, on 10-04-09 01:23 PM:
> >> On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> William Morse<wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
> >>
> >>> . . . infrared absorbers are also
> >>> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in the
> >>> gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the ground
> >>> below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first approximation,
> >>> in all directions. So at the first absorption, about half the
> >>> radiation goes back down to the earth while the other half goes in a
> >>> random upward direction.
> >>
> >> Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> >> science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> >> skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> >> "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
> >
> > Citations, please, on that research.
> <http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
>
> "For example, with ?T = 0.2 K and ?Flux = 0.9 W m–2, F is –4.5 W
> m–2 K–1 (= –0.9/0.2) that is equivalent to f = –1.1, resulting in ?T of
> ~0.5 K for a doubling of CO2 in Eq. (3). Namely, given F = –4.5 W m–2 K–
> 1, climate sensitivity is about a half of that for the nonfeedback
> condition."
Yes, refuted promptly by his pals at MIT.
Got anything else?
AGW Alarmist
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:57:41 +0000, "Steven L."
><sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:4300f07d-9eae-4029...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>*HUGE* CUT
>
>> > I've already told you dumbass. You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
>> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
>> > on the atmosphere.
>
>Note that by "whackjobs," "Claudius Denk" is not referring to the
>nutcases such as himself, but the scientists who actually work in
>the related fields and who publish papers and research in refereed
>peer-reviewed science journals.
>
>In less than one second, Google Scholar listed over 2,000 such
>papers, many of them freely available to read (and many behind
>paywalls).
But you always fail to post any reference to your stupid statements.
Apparently you really can't show any proof that mans less than 3% CO2
contribution has any thermal effects on climate or you would have
posted it and been done with it.
>
>> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
>> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
>> temperatures.
>>
>> Here's an article in Popular Mechanics from 1953, citing research by Dr.
>> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
>> effects:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6bu9t3
>
>The United States military did some of the research at the time,
>looking for better ways to kill and destroy (for which I am
>grateful).
Non sequitor. One has nothing to do with the other.
Silly assed attempt at evasion noted.
>
>> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
>> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
>> But now we're in the 21st century.
>>
>> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
>> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
>
>> You are going to lose the fight.
>> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
>
>"Lost the fight," past tense. These nutcases know they lost the
>argument and that scientists won it. All they have left is lies,
>which the USA media spews on command.
More rhetoric with not rebute.
>
>> You're going to discredit yourselves, because you've taken a position
>> that is scientifically risible. And you're going to be laughingstocks.
>>
>> Your REAL concern is what dealing with AGW will do to the U.S. economy
>> and society, and/or those of other nations. And that is a valid
>> concern, definitely. I share that concern. Why don't you stick with
>> THAT, instead of discrediting yourselves with pseudo-scientific
>> nonsense?
>
>It costs less money to just deny observed reality.
>
>> -- Steven L.
So are you going to actually dispute anything he said or just continue
to ramble on with non sequitor irrelevant comebacks as you just did
above?
Why do you even post when you obviously have nothing intelligent to
say or debate?
Desertphile
<O...@wereallgonnadie.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:27:52 -0600, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:57:41 +0000, "Steven L."
> ><sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4300f07d-9eae-4029...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >*HUGE* CUT
> >
> >> > I've already told you dumbass. You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
> >> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
> >> > on the atmosphere.
> >
> >Note that by "whackjobs," "Claudius Denk" is not referring to the
> >nutcases such as himself, but the scientists who actually work in
> >the related fields and who publish papers and research in refereed
> >peer-reviewed science journals.
> >
> >In less than one second, Google Scholar listed over 2,000 such
> >papers, many of them freely available to read (and many behind
> >paywalls).
>
> But you always fail to post any reference to your stupid statements.
> Apparently you really can't show any proof that mans less than 3% CO2
> contribution has any thermal effects on climate or you would have
> posted it and been done with it.
Pay me $200 and I will. Or you can spent the minute or two
required to do the work yourself.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Apr 10, 6:46 pm, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
>
> Jesus Christ! Don't deniers like the pseudochemist here even try to
Ø Your use of "deniers" places a swastika right on
your forehead
> look up what makes something a "greenhouse gas"? Let me repeat my
> reply to Cluless Denk here. I will edit it slightly.
>
> First: A very simple web search will produce definitions of
> "greenhouse gases".
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases
> "Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit
> radiation within the thermal infrared range."
Ø ROTFLMAO
That wiki page was recently revised by a team
of AGW activists— useless for climate
>
> http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
> "Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible
> light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the
> sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-
> emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example,
> infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red
> hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of
> electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left.
Ø More nonsense from an AGW activist.
>
< remaining trash snipped>
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations.
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
leona...@gmail.com
Ø Only for ± 40 years
> Common sense will tell you that CO2 levels cannot go from zero to 600
> ppm diurnally any more than that the ppm of O2 and N2 fluctuate that
> much on a daily basis.
Ø Hersheybar is nuttier than a bad fruitcake
CO2 levels fluctuate seasonally (more in the
> Northern Hemisphere), but nowwhere near the amounts you are claiming.
> I tried to find *any* evidence of the radical daily fluctuation you
> are claiming and have not found any.
> > Nature, in the form of winds,
> > moves clouds (H2O+CO2+N2O etc)
> > from the source to where it is most needed
> > for plant growth and for O2 for us'ns.
>
> The percent of O2 in the open atmosphere most certainly does not vary
> dramatically (except for certain enclosed spaces) and even more
> certainly does not do so intentionally for our benefit.
Ø More idiocy from the brain dead
>
> > ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> > Nobody can control the wind
> > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> > Global temps are within natural variations.
> > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
> >
Get used to it!!
>
> Repeating bullshit doesn't make it smell better.
Ø You are smelling your own stink.
Can you control control the wind? Yes or No?
Can you control the rain or snow? Yes or No?
Can you control the climate? Yes or No?
If you answer yes to any one, provide proof
If you fail to answer STFU.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
leona...@gmail.com
> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c03295c6-0f0d-4fd4...@c1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Nobody can control the wind
> > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> > Global temps are within natural variations.
> > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
> Nice poem.
> Lousy science.
Ø Steve: Can you control the wind? Yes or No?
Can you control the rain or snow? Yes or No?
Can you control the climate? Yes or No?
If you say yes to any one, provide valid proofs.
If you fail to answer STFU!
hersheyh
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:35 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 6:46 pm, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
>
> > Jesus Christ! Don't deniers like the pseudochemist here even try to
>
> Ø Your use of "deniers" places a swastika right on
> your forehead
>
> > look up what makes something a "greenhouse gas"? Let me repeat my
> > reply to Cluless Denk here. I will edit it slightly.
>
> > First: A very simple web search will produce definitions of
> > "greenhouse gases".
>
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases
> > "Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit
> > radiation within the thermal infrared range."
>
> Ø ROTFLMAO
> That wiki page was recently revised by a team
> of AGW activists— useless for climate
>
gas" that chemists use? Or wasn't the definition until recently? Or
are you claiming that the two gases I mentioned (water vapor and CO2)
do not absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range?
You have to do better than be a paranoid conspiracy theorist here. So
far all I have seen from you is conspiracy nuttery.
>
> >http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
> > "Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible
> > light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the
> > sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-
> > emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example,
> > infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red
> > hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of
> > electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left.
>
> Ø More nonsense from an AGW activist.
Nonsense in exacly what way? What exactly are you claiming is false
in the above? Do you deny that the earth absorbs radiant energy from
the sun's visible range? That the earth emits energy in the IR? That
there are different types of electromagnetic radiation? That IR
radiation heats things it is absorbed by?
I only see more paranoid conspiracy nuttery by someone who has no real
evidence and cannot even specify what is wrong with the basic
chemistry.
>
> < remaining trash snipped>
>
> ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> Nobody can control the wind
> Nobody can control the rain or snow
> Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Are you claiming that humans have had no impact on climate? One of
the biggest contributors to global warming is deforestation in the
tropics.
> Global temps are within natural variations.
The last time that global temperatures increased 'rapidly,' the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago, the
'rapidity' of that increase was rapid only in a geological sense;
temperatures rose 11F over 20,000 years. One consequence was mass
extinctions. By some estimates, the prediction is for a 9F increase
over the next century, some 200 times more rapidly.
Christopher Denney
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:35 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 6:46 pm, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
>
> > Jesus Christ! Don't deniers like the pseudochemist here even try to
>
> Ø Your use of "deniers" places a swastika right on
> your forehead
Reductio ad Hitlerum
> > look up what makes something a "greenhouse gas"? Let me repeat my
> > reply to Cluless Denk here. I will edit it slightly.
>
> > First: A very simple web search will produce definitions of
> > "greenhouse gases".
>
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases
> > "Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit
> > radiation within the thermal infrared range."
>
> Ø ROTFLMAO
> That wiki page was recently revised by a team
> of AGW activists— useless for climate
Do you have some problem with the information? What in particular is
wrong?
Seems pretty much the same as they've been teaching in astronomy
classes for the last 25 years.
> >http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
> > "Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible
> > light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the
> > sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-
> > emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example,
> > infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red
> > hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of
> > electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left.
>
> Ø More nonsense from an AGW activist.
Is there a particular falsity you are claiming, or do you honestly
think that there are no such things as greenhouses?
> < remaining trash snipped>
>
> ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> Nobody can control the wind
> Nobody can control the rain or snow
> Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Did someone say they could?
> Global temps are within natural variations.
> Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
These two have what to do with the previous three?
> Get used to it!!
Are you trying to make a point?
leona...@gmail.com
> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:57:41 +0000, "Steven L."
> ><sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>news:4300f07d-9eae-4029...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > I've already told you dumbass. You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
> >> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
> >> > on the atmosphere.
>
> >Note that by "whackjobs," "Claudius Denk" refers to the
> >the scientists who actually work in
> >the related fields and who publish papers and research in refereed
> >peer-reviewed science journals.
Ø Indeed he does and those "whackjobs" have yet
to provide even one scintilla of proof "that CO2
has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere".
> >In less than one second, Google Scholar listed over 2,000 such
> >papers, many of them freely available to read (and many behind
> >paywalls).
Ø Probably none could pay the 95% confidence bar. That requires 3
separate scientists to replicate the result 95 times out of 100.
>
> But you always fail to post any reference to your stupid statements.
> Apparently you really can't show any proof that mans less than 3% CO2
> contribution has any thermal effects on climate or you would have
> posted it and been done with it.
> >> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
> >> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
> >> temperatures.
>
> >> Here's an article in Popular Mechanics from 1953, citing research by Dr.
> >> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
> >> effects:
Ø What Plass did in the Lab, can not be
replicated in the atmosphere
>
> >> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
> >> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
> >> But now we're in the 21st century.
>
> >> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
> >> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
> >> You are going to lose the fight.
> >> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
>
Ø Steve you are dead wrong
leona...@gmail.com
Ø Indeed, Hershey Nutbar,
That is somewhat correct.
Tyndall demonstrated that, in the lab
1- water vapour blocks solar energy but does
not radiate it.
2- H2O passes IR but does not radiate it
3- CO2 absorbs solar energy
That is all well and good in Lab glass, but lab
glass seldom can reflect atmospheric conditions.
Ergo ALL atmospheric CO2 is encapsuled
within H2O vapour (perhaps as carbonic acid),
and thus cannot store or radiate heat.
> Nonsense in exacly what way? What exactly are you claiming is false
> in the above? Do you deny that the earth absorbs radiant energy from
> the sun's visible range? That the earth emits energy in the IR? That
> there are different types of electromagnetic radiation? That IR
> radiation heats things it is absorbed by?
The answers are above.
> > ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> > Nobody can control the wind
> > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
>
> Are you claiming that humans have had no impact on climate?
Ø Absolutely none!!!!
One of
> the biggest contributors to global warming is deforestation in the
> tropics.
ø Nonsense!!!
> > Global temps are within natural variations.
>
> The last time that global temperatures increased 'rapidly,' the
> Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago, the
ROTFLMAO
What about the "little ice age" and how about the
end on the last ice age 13,000 years ago?
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:23 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 12:35 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 6:46 pm, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
> > > Jesus Christ! Don't deniers like the pseudochemist here even try to
>
> > Ø Your use of "deniers" places a swastika right on
> > your forehead
> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases
> > > "Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit
> > > radiation within the thermal infrared range."
>
> > Ø ROTFLMAO
> > That wiki page was recently revised by a team
> > of AGW activists— useless for climate
>
> Do you have some problem with the information? What in particular is
> wrong?
> Seems pretty much the same as they've been teaching in astronomy
> classes for the last 25 years.
Ø Nonsense
>
> > ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> > Nobody can control the wind
> > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
>
> Did someone say they could?
Ø Yes!! all you AGW alarmist nutcases.
> > Global temps are within natural variations.
> > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
> These two have what to do with the previous three?
Ø They are important facts disputed by you and
your fellow AGW nutcases
Get used to it!!
hersheyh
So where in that data is the evidence for CO2 levels going from 0 to
600 in the same day? You failed to mention that. At the altitudes of
Mauna Loa and in the open air setting of that facility, I don't see
any reason why CO2 would fluctuate to that extent and certainly do not
see it in the data I pointed you to.
>
> > Common sense will tell you that CO2 levels cannot go from zero to 600
> > ppm diurnally any more than that the ppm of O2 and N2 fluctuate that
> > much on a daily basis.
>
> Ø Hersheybar is nuttier than a bad fruitcake
Ad hominem attacks on me is not evidence. You said you had *data*
that the CO2 levels fluctuate that much. Present it or admit you are
simply making shit up.
>
> CO2 levels fluctuate seasonally (more in the
>
> > Northern Hemisphere), but nowwhere near the amounts you are claiming.
> > I tried to find *any* evidence of the radical daily fluctuation you
> > are claiming and have not found any.
> > > Nature, in the form of winds,
> > > moves clouds (H2O+CO2+N2O etc)
> > > from the source to where it is most needed
> > > for plant growth and for O2 for us'ns.
>
> > The percent of O2 in the open atmosphere most certainly does not vary
> > dramatically (except for certain enclosed spaces) and even more
> > certainly does not do so intentionally for our benefit.
>
> Ø More idiocy from the brain dead
Water vapor can vary widely depending on temperature and availability
of surface moisture. Perhaps you are confusing CO2 and NO2 (and N2
and O2), which do not form clouds, with water vapor, which does. That
is because, unlike other gases, water vapor can change from a gas to a
liquid or a solid (and back again) in the temperature and pressure
range present on the earth and in its atmosphere.
>
>
>
> > > ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> > > Nobody can control the wind
The word you want is 'affect', not 'control'. Humans can and do
affect the wind and locally 'control' its effects. Look up the word
'windbreak'. One of the causes of The Dust Bowl was the agricultural
practices of the times. If you would have had your way, we would not
have changed those practices (like the current no-till agricultural
practices) and would have let the wind blow away our topsoils to an
even greater extent than we did. After all, you are just *assuming*
that humans have no effect and not presenting evidence to that effect.
> > > Nobody can control the rain or snow
Snow fences, contour tilling, levees, and, of course, deforestation in
the tropics does affect water vapor in the air above the former
jungles. So humans most certainly do affect the patterns and
consequences of rain and snow. And *if*, as the evidence indicates,
there is global warming that has *some* anthropogenic component, we
can add the melting of glaciers and polar ice to the patterns affected
by humans.
> > > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
That, of course, is the question (if you change the word 'control' to
'affect'). So far, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that we
*are* affecting climate.
> > > Global temps are within natural variations.
But the rate of change is not within natural variations. It is about
100-200 times faster. This has consequences.
> > > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Not during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
> > >
Get used to it!!
>
> > Repeating bullshit doesn't make it smell better.
>
> Ø You are smelling your own stink.
>
> Can you control control the wind? Yes or No?
Individually only locally. Collectively, if we humans are the cause
of the current global warming, that is certainly affecting the
*pattern* of the winds and where they dry the land or rain upon it.
> Can you control the rain or snow? Yes or No?
Individually only locally. Collectively, if we humans are the cause
of the current global warming, that is certainly affecting the
*pattern* of snow and rain and the amounts in particular areas.
> Can you control the climate? Yes or No?
Individually, no. Collectively the evidence supports that we are
affecting (but not controlling) climate by rapidly increasing the
amount of CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. BTW, we are not *only*
affecting global climate; we are also affecting ocean pH. The oceans,
after all, have been a sink for 40-50% of the CO2 we have produced
since the industrial revolution started. They are not an infinite
sink for either CO2 or the extra heat retained (the oceans have been
warming; but so has the air over land).
> If you answer yes to any one, provide proof
> If you fail to answer STFU.
If you could ask intelligent questions, that would help.
Can humans drain the Aral Sea and create a desert? Yes or no.
Can humans create dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico? Yes or no.
Can humans create acid rain and damage New England's lakes and
forests? Yes or no.
Can humans pollute groundwater and use it up faster than it is
generated? Yes or no.
Can humans remove and destroy mountain to get at coal seams? Yes or
no.
Can humans destroy rainforests and replace them with cattle farms? Yes
or no.
Can humans cause the greatest mass extinction of species since the
Permian or Cretaceous mass extinctions? Yes or no.
Can humans create a flammable river without 'intending' to do so
consciously (Burn on, big river, burn on)? Yes or no.
> — —
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> | they provided data that climate change is being
> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> | natural causes
>
>
>
> > > — —
> > > | In real science the burden of proof is always
> > > | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
> > > | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> > > | iota of valid data
>
> > What would you recognize as "valid data"?
>
> > >| for global warming nor have
> > > | they provided data that climate change is being
> > > | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> > > | natural causes
Would actual temperature measurements of air or ocean count as "valid
data"? Would melting of almost all the world's glaciers count as
"valid data"?
Would the movement of ecozones northward (in the Northern hemisphere;
reverse for the southern) and upward (everywhere) count as "valid
data"?
Would calculations of the amount of warming due to greenhouse gases
that *predicted* and *retrodicted* actual evidence count as "valid
data"?
Or would your claims and unsupported assumptions that humans cannot
affect/control anything about weather and climate (if you close your
eyes and believe it strongly enough) count as the only "valid data"?
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
Of course. Have you?
>
> Arrhenius' greenhouse law
"Greenhouse law?" Where did you get this? Reference?
> reads as follows:
>
> "If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric
> progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
> arithmetic progression."
If it was a law it would have to be (or have been) thoroughly tested.
Where is the (secret?) data?
>
> This simplified expression is still used today:
>
> F = ln(C/C0)
Well, gee golly it looks like math so it must be based on sound
empirical data? Right? Where is this data? Is it a secret?
>
> In 1906, Arrhenius estimated
Why would anybody care what somebody estimated?
that a doubling of CO2 would cause a
> temperature rise of 1.6 C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 C).
> Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate
> sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C. So Arrhenius was in
> today's ballpark.
Today's ballpark. Are you retarded. You are basing this on zero
data. Any idiot can make an estimate.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Wikipropaganda
Claudius Denk
wrote:
> In message
> <e53953e5-a577-4c98-9286-ca2b5215e...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> >> . . . infrared absorbers are also
> >> infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> >> the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> >> ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> >> approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> >> about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> >> the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> >Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> >science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> >skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> >"greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
> >> and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> >> and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
> >This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
> >small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
> >careful not to let get out to the public.
>
Absurd. Widely known. Show us the data. Stop the propagandizing.
that CO2 plays a relatively small
> part in this process, but it's the part that is changing most rapidly.
>
> Infrared radiation emitted by the earth is largely blocked by non-CO2
> greenhouse gases (water vapour mostly) but some of the windows in the
> absorption spectrum that IR *can* escape through are the ones occupied
> by CO2. Those windows may be relatively small (as you say) but as the
> windows are closed off the temperature will increase until it reaches a
> new equilibrium.
Yeah, bullshit. You whackjobs pull these nonsense explanations out of
the air.
>
> If we only had to worry about CO2 and its absorption spectrum then we
> would probably only get a couple of degrees temperature increase at
> most. The problem is that we don't quite know what effect *secondary*
> feedback loops will have e.g. additional methane release, albedo changes
> etc. Which is where computer modelling comes in.
>
> You can of course simply claim that these feedback loops will not
> happen, which is the approach sites like this take:
All you have here is speculative nonsense. At best this would
indicate the beginnings of asking questions. Yet you loons have
packaged this nonsense as sound theory when it is actuality hardly
more than a vague premise.
>
> http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
> but we know that in the past the planet has been much hotter than today
> therefore we know that there *are* mechanisms which will generate higher
> temperatures, even if we aren't quite sure how they were triggered e.g.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM
>
> Which makes reports like this uncomfortable reading:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/e1/hi/sci/tech/8205864.stm
>
> Apart from anything else, even if the models were completely wrong,
> there is still ocean acidification to consider. The link to CO2 there
> is much easier to follow and just as worrying.
I'm sure after this AGW nonsense has blown over you'll finding
something else to worry about.
hersheyh
What exactly do you think is "somewhat correct" and why only
"somewhat"? Why do all you deniers refuse to write with clarity? Is
it a reflection of your thought processes?
> Tyndall demonstrated that, in the lab
> 1- water vapour blocks solar energy but does
> not radiate it.
> 2- H2O passes IR but does not radiate it
> 3- CO2 absorbs solar energy
This is as clear as mud and is not true in addition, to the extent
that I understand it. I have, earlier, pointed out that both water
vapor (not clouds, but gaseous and invisible water vapor) and CO2
absorb (and emit) in the IR and directed people to the IR absorption
spectrum evidence. Moreover, although both water vapor and CO2 absorb
in the IR, they do so at different wavelengths. *Any* molecule that
absorbs energy at a given wavelength can emit it at that wavelength
unless it loses energy through collision with other molecules or if it
can emit at a different wavelength (whether water vapor or CO2 or any
other molecule). Energy absorbed by a *liquid* or a *solid* tends to
get transmitted to other molecules through collisions, thus lowering
the energy state of any given molecule. That is why visible light
energy absorbed by the earth or oceans gets partially emitted back as
IR energy. Both water vapor and CO2 are invisible to light in the
visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum. They are not invisible
to light in the IR.
Clouds, which are composed of liquid water, not water vapor, reflect
sunlight. Water present as water vapor absorbs in the IR but
transmits light in the visible. Liquid water, whether in oceans or
clouds, reflects light of both visible and IR and, depending on ocean
depth will absorb visible light. Ice, aka solid water, also reflects
light. If water vapor (and other of our natural atmospheric gases;
gases like bromine and chlorine differ) were not transparent to
visible light, we would have a different sort of problem.
Both CO2 and water vapor are transparent in the visible part of the
electromagnetic spectrum (i.e., they do not absorb *all* solar
energy). That is why the visible range light reaches the surface of
the earth. It is the re-emitted IR (thermal) range energy that they
absorb. *That* is why both are greenhouse gases.
> That is all well and good in Lab glass, but lab
> glass seldom can reflect atmospheric conditions.
If you put a heat lamp across an open column of standard atmospheric
air, that column of air will become heated up by absorbing the IR
radiation. If you were to put a pinwheel above the column of air
being heated by the IR lamp, especially if you were to put a funnel
above the column of air, the pinwheel would start turning because hot
air rises (it's less dense than the colder air replacing it). The
more water vapor or CO2 present, the more it would heat up.
> Ergo ALL atmospheric CO2 is encapsuled
> within H2O vapour (perhaps as carbonic acid),
> and thus cannot store or radiate heat.
Where did you get this silly idea? Water *vapor* is a *gas*, not a
liquid. It is impossible for a *gas* to "encapsulate" another gas.
CO2 in the atmosphere is present as a *gas*. Do you understand the
difference between a "gas" and a "liquid"?
>
> > Nonsense in exacly what way? What exactly are you claiming is false
> > in the above? Do you deny that the earth absorbs radiant energy from
> > the sun's visible range? That the earth emits energy in the IR? That
> > there are different types of electromagnetic radiation? That IR
> > radiation heats things it is absorbed by?
>
> The answers are above.
Not clear. A simple yes or no (or I accept this or deny this) would
do better.
>
> > > ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> > > Nobody can control the wind
> > > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
>
> > Are you claiming that humans have had no impact on climate?
>
> Ø Absolutely none!!!!
That is a religious belief not based in evidence.
> One of
>
> > the biggest contributors to global warming is deforestation in the
> > tropics.
>
> ø Nonsense!!!
>
> > > Global temps are within natural variations.
>
> > The last time that global temperatures increased 'rapidly,' the
> > Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago, the
>
> ROTFLMAO
> What about the "little ice age" and how about the
> end on the last ice age 13,000 years ago?
The temperature changes here had a significant effect on climate and
was *less* than what we have already experience since. [I do not
doubt that the little ice age had natural rather than man-made
causes. But those explanations do not apply to current conditions to
a significant degree.] The peak temperature of the Medieval Warm
period was about 1100. The low, reached gradually, of the little ice
age from that time, was probably 0.4C degrees cooler in 1600. That
was 500 years. In the 200 years since 1800, temperature has increased
almost a degree C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Note that, in contrast to your claim that wiki is controlled by the
AGW cabal and conspiracy, that the site particularly mentions that new
evidence indicates that the little ice age was more global than the
original IPCC report implied.
Go to the following site and read up on the "top 10" denialist claims
for scientific respectability.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 2:32 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 10:23 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > > > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > > > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > > > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > > > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > > > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > > > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > > > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > > > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > > > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
>
> > It's 2010 dumbass.
>
> > > Tyndall figured out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we've simply
> > > learned more about it since. It's a routine lab experiment for
> > > freshmen college students.
>
> > Routine and undramatic.
No dispute.
>
> > > > > And then that radiation is absorbed by another CO2 molecule
> > > > > and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> > > > > and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
> > > > This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
> > > > small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
> > > > careful not to let get out to the public.
>
> > > Cites?
>
> > You have no dispute, do you?
No response.
>
> > > > (In fact, this is the
> > > > reason they refuse to do any real science. It would be a death
> > > > sentence to the AGW industrial complex if this truth ever got out to
> > > > the public.)
>
> > >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htmhttp://www.aip.org/history/...
>
> > Ha. This proves *my* point, dumbass. You should have read this
> > before you responded.
No dispute.
>
> > > > > Summing all this up, the thickness of the layer of CO2 is
> > > > > important,
>
> > > > Evidence?
>
> > > See links provided.
>
> > I must have missed it. Can you show what it was. I read your links
> > now and many times before. They never address the issues.
>
> > > You forgot to include the evidence supporting *your claims.
>
> > You are my evidence.
No dispute.
>
> > > > > but in any event half the IR is reflected back
> > > > > to the earth. In most cases the fraction reflected back
> > > > > is even greater. And then there is the complication of
> > > > > a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
> > > > > molecule in the atmosphere...
>
> > > > Speculative nonsense. Despite the fact that what you are saying might
> > > > have some truth the fact is you can't/won't measure any of this and so
> > > > you can't/won't test it. If you can't/won't test it it isn't
> > > > science. It's propaganda.
>
> > > You don't accept first year physics and chemistry?
>
> > I do. Do you deny first year physics and chemistry?
No response?
>
> > > > > All of this can be worked out with paper and pencil to an
> > > > > amazing degree.
>
> > > > Yes. Skeptics already have. No drama was found. AGW advocates refuse
> > > > to acknowledge it and will only respond by trying to discredit their
> > > > critics through political tactics.
>
> > > I see that you offer, as usual, political accusations, bu tno data.
>
> > You have no fact-based dispute with my assertion, do you?
No response.
>
> > > > Why don't you take your foot out of your mouth and show us the
> > > > "amazing" calculations?
>
> > > > > The result is what is observed; the CO2
> > > > > acts to trap radiation.
>
> > > > Bullshit. All you whackos have is propaganda. Show us the science
> > > > you phoney.
>
> > > You're also repeating yourself.
>
> > > > > The problem of discussing all this with perfectly intelligent
> > > > > normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
> > > > > make them doubters.
>
> > > > And it your case the sheer complexity makes you a believer.
>
> > > Ditto.
>
> > > > > The fact that all the science was worked
> > > > > out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. This is
> > > > > a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
> > > > > in great detail.
>
> > > > That's because you're delusional.
>
> > > Please pick a specific paper, observations, or model and tell us what
> > > you think is wrong with it.
>
> > I've already told you dumbass. You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
> > on the atmosphere.
>
> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
> temperatures.
Thank you for that useless information. Did you know that there is
zero peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence that indicates CO2 has
any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere.
>
> Here's an article in Popular Mechanics from 1953, citing research by Dr.
> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
> effects:
>
>
> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
> But now we're in the 21st century.
>
> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
>
> You are going to lose the fight.
>
> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
>
> You're going to discredit yourselves, because you've taken a position
> that is scientifically risible. And you're going to be laughingstocks.
Go ahead. Show us some peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence
that CO2 can have the magical thermal effect on the atmosphere that
you Peter Pan scienctists wish us to believe it does.
>
> Your REAL concern is what dealing with AGW will do to the U.S. economy
> and society, and/or those of other nations. And that is a valid
> concern, definitely. I share that concern. Why don't you stick with
> THAT, instead of discrediting yourselves with pseudo-scientific
> nonsense?
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 9, 7:06 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 10:41 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > > > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > > > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > > > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > > > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > > > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > > > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > > > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > > > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > > > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
> > > > > and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> > > > > and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
> > > > This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
> > > > small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
> > > > reason they refuse to do any real science. It would be a death
> > > > sentence to the AGW industrial complex if this truth ever got out to
> > > > the public.)
>
> > > > > important,
>
> > > > Evidence?
>
> > > > > to the earth. In most cases the fraction reflected back
> > > > > is even greater. And then there is the complication of
> > > > > a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
> > > > > molecule in the atmosphere...
>
> > > > Speculative nonsense. Despite the fact that what you are saying might
> > > > have some truth the fact is you can't/won't measure any of this and so
> > > > you can't/won't test it. If you can't/won't test it it isn't
> > > > science. It's propaganda.
>
> > > > > amazing degree.
>
> > > > Yes. Skeptics already have. No drama was found. AGW advocates refuse
> > > > to acknowledge it and will only respond by trying to discredit their
> > > > critics through political tactics.
>
> > > > "amazing" calculations?
>
> > > > > The result is what is observed; the CO2
> > > > > acts to trap radiation.
>
> > > > Bullshit. All you whackos have is propaganda. Show us the science
> > > > you phoney.
>
> > > > > normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
> > > > > make them doubters.
>
> > > > And it your case the sheer complexity makes you a believer.
>
> > > > > out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. This is
> > > > > a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
> > > > > in great detail.
>
> > > > That's because you're delusional.
>
> > > > > argon or helium) attract each other when brought close enough
> > > > > together. The effect is real. The detailed explanation
> > > > > is long and tedious. What is usually said is that it is
> > > > > a "quantum mechanical effect", which is really not a detailed
> > > > > answer at all.
>
> > > > When it comes to real science all you whackos have is excuses.
>
> > > ..............and they have global temperatures at their warmest for
> > > at least a century and a half, of course.
>
> > >http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
>
> > Wrong subject. Read the thread before you respond.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
That's right. It's part of the AGW fraudster's intellectual bait and
switch routine. They con people into accepting the notion that CO2 is
a "greenhouse" gas but in actuality it is undefined, immeasurable and
only serves to obscure the issues so that people don't notice that AGW
theory as a whole is untestable semantic nonsense. The term
"greenhouse effect" is a propaganda term not a scientific term.
Kleuskes & Moos
wrote:<snip>
> > > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
>
> > Did someone say they could?
>
> Ø Yes!! all you AGW alarmist nutcases.
Controlling climate is not what's happening due to CO2 emissions
anymore than a 3-year old is controlling a 18-wheeler after
accidentally releasing the handbrake.
Free Lunch
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Once again you remind us how proud you are of your ignorance.
Time to stop reading your foolish blather for a while. You really need
to stop posting the falsehoods you have been suckered into believing and
learn some science.
Bill Ward
Are any of those things global? Yes or no.
>> — —
>> | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer,
>> never on the skeptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has
>> provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they
>> provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and
>> industry, and not by | natural causes
>>
>>
>>
>> > > — —
>> > > | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer,
>> > > never on the skeptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has
>> > > provided one | iota of valid data
>>
>> > What would you recognize as "valid data"?
>>
>> > >| for global warming nor have
>> > > | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by
>> > > commerce and industry, and not by | natural causes
>
> Would actual temperature measurements of air or ocean count as "valid
> data"?
Maybe, depending on the hypothesis.
> Would melting of almost all the world's glaciers count as "valid
> data"?
Maybe, depending on the hypothesis.
> Would the movement of ecozones northward (in the Northern hemisphere;
> reverse for the southern) and upward (everywhere) count as "valid data"?
Maybe, depending on the hypothesis.
> Would calculations of the amount of warming due to greenhouse gases that
> *predicted* and *retrodicted* actual evidence count as "valid data"?
No.
> Or would your claims and unsupported assumptions that humans cannot
> affect/control anything about weather and climate (if you close your
> eyes and believe it strongly enough) count as the only "valid data"?
That would be the null hypothesis, assumed true until falsified.
Have you ever had any actual science classes? You seem quite confused
about the process.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Apr 11, 12:47 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:56 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 8:39 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
>
> > > > > "If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric
> > > > > progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
> > > > > arithmetic progression."
>
>
> > > > > F = ln(C/C0)
>
> > > > > temperature rise of 1.6 C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 C).
> > > > > Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate
> > > > > sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C. So Arrhenius was in
> > > > > today's ballpark.
>
all other fascist fools can not stand to be wrong
even when you ARE wrong.
Why don't you provide proof "that CO2 levels
cannot go from zero to 600 ppm diurnally". If
you had a first clue you would know I am right,
and clueless you cannot stand to admit it.
> > CO2 levels fluctuate seasonally (more in the
> > > Northern Hemisphere), but nowwhere near the amounts you are claiming.
> > > I tried to find *any* evidence of the radical daily fluctuation you
> > > are claiming and have not found any.
Ø ROTFLMAO
You look in all the wrong places. First of all the
AGW fascists only want averages and then only
on the high side. You could have 400ppm or
500ppm at noon, and then rain falls for 2 hours
and you will have zero.
Ø The clouds ARE the greenhouse and all the
CO2+N2O etc is within the H2O vapour. So
when it rains or snows, presto that part of the
greenhouse become fertilizer.
Ø Is that simple enough for you. peabrain?
> > > > Nature, in the form of winds,
> > > > moves clouds (H2O+CO2+N2O etc)
> > > > from the source to where it is most needed
> > > > for plant growth and for O2 for us'ns.
>
> > > The percent of O2 in the open atmosphere most certainly does not vary
> > > dramatically (except for certain enclosed spaces) and even more
> > > certainly does not do so intentionally for our benefit.
>
Ø More idiocy from the brain dead
>
> Water vapor can vary widely depending on temperature and availability
> of surface moisture. Perhaps you are confusing CO2 and NO2 (and N2
> and O2), which do not form clouds, with water vapor,
Ø Sonny boy you ARE the confused
which does. That
> is because, unlike other gases, water vapor can change from a gas to a
> liquid or a solid (and back again) in the temperature and pressure
> range present on the earth and in its atmosphere.
Ø More nonsense
>
> > > > ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> > > > Nobody can control the wind
>
> The word you want is 'affect', not 'control'.
Ø Effectively they are one and the same
Humans can and do
> affect the wind and locally 'control' its effects.
Ø you can shelter from the wind but when the
wind is strong it can blow you and your house
away
Look up the word
> 'windbreak'. One of the causes of The Dust Bowl was the agricultural
> practices of the times. If you would have had your way, we would not
> have changed those practices (like the current no-till agricultural
> practices) and would have let the wind blow away our topsoils to an
> even greater extent than we did. After all, you are just *assuming*
> that humans have no effect and not presenting evidence to that effect.
Ø No sxonny, you have no clue.
> > > > Nobody can control the rain or snow
>
> Snow fences, contour tilling, levees, and, of course, deforestation in
> the tropics does affect water vapor in the air above the former
> jungles. So humans most certainly do affect the patterns and
> consequences of rain and snow. And *if*, as the evidence indicates,
> there is global warming that has *some* anthropogenic component, we
> can add the melting of glaciers and polar ice to the patterns affected
> by humans.
Ø ROTFLMAO
A whole lot of silly nonsense and outright lies.
>
> > > > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
>
> That, of course, is the question (if you change the word 'control' to
> 'affect'). So far, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that we
> *are* affecting climate.
Ø There is ZERO evidence that "indicates that we
*are* affecting climate."
>
> > > > Global temps are within natural variations.
>
> But the rate of change is not within natural variations. It is about
> 100-200 times faster. This has consequences.
Ø Totally false.
>
> > > > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
> Not during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Ø Cite???
>
> > > >
Get used to it!!
>
> > > Repeating bullshit doesn't make it smell better.
>
> > Ø You are smelling your own stink.
>
> > Can you control control the wind? Yes or No?
>
> Individually only locally. Collectively, if we humans are the cause
> of the current global warming, that is certainly affecting the
> *pattern* of the winds and where they dry the land or rain upon it.
Ø Liar! You you must give a yes or an no and
not an enormous "IF"
> > Can you control the rain or snow? Yes or No?
>
> Individually only locally. Collectively, if we humans are the cause
> of the current global warming, that is certainly affecting the
> *pattern* of snow and rain and the amounts in particular areas.
Ø Again You you must give a yes or an no and
not an enormous "IF, especially since the "IF"
is the non-existant warming.
>
> > Can you control the climate? Yes or No?
>
> Individually, no. Collectively the evidence supports that we are
> affecting (but not controlling) climate by rapidly increasing the
> amount of CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.
Ø Nonsense. CO2 has zero thermal effect.
go to: FoS Preindustrial CO2 and learn
something for a change. There is a lot
more on that site
BTW, we are not *only*
> affecting global climate; we are also affecting ocean pH. The oceans,
> after all, have been a sink for 40-50% of the CO2 we have produced
> since the industrial revolution started.
Ø Total Nonsense
> > If you answer yes to any one, provide proof
> > If you fail to answer STFU.
>
> If you could ask intelligent questions, that would help.
>
Ø Any grade 7 kid could do better than you
leona...@gmail.com
Ø ROTFLMAO
You do not have the beginning of a first clue
Before 1850 there were many annual averages
over 500ppm
Ø check <FoS Preindustrial CO2>
you just might learn something for a change.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it was best expressed in this post:
Ok, here we go - the temperature at which the earth is in radiative
equilibrium with the incoming solar energy is around -20�c. This is
the
temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of around 6km - I have
to
say "around", because this varies by latitude, but for the sake of
simplicity if we are going to get anywhere in the discussion, we have
to
stick to averages and approximations.
So, at this altitude, we can say for simplicities sake that the LWR
is
being emitted by the GHGs in the atmosphere at this altitude. (There
is
also a component that gets through from the surface directly in
certain
spectral bands, which we leave aside). That means that in a very
strange sense of the word, GHGs "cool" the atmosphere. It's an
expression that denialists (sorry, sceptics) are fond of using even
if
it doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying that if I wear an
anorak, the anorak "cools" me because my body heat ultimately can
only
escape from the surface of the anorak...
That aside, the next thing to note is that the temperature at the
surface is always higher than the temperature at the -20�c level as
a
result of the Lapse Rate.
The Lapse Rate is a consequence of the hydrostatic equation and the
gas laws. This is basic physics. The exact amount depends on the
amount
of water vapour in the atmosphere, but this again is limited by the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which in turn is derived from the
fundamental physics of thermodynamics.
Now, the important thing to note is that the composition of GHGs at
this altitude is not the same as the surface. At the surface, the
higher
temperature allows water vapour to exist in large quantities
measurable
in percentages. As we go up higher in the atmosphere, the temperature
drop (lapse rate) causes the maximum water vapour content to drop
dramatically. Again, the relationship between temperature and
saturation
vapour pressure is determined by Clausius-Clapeyron. That means that
at
6km altitude, instead of being the overwhelming GHG ,water vapour is
less than 10 times the concentration of CO2 - still higher than CO2,
but
with the result that changes in the CO2 concentration are by no means
negligible, but have a direct effect on the overall greenhouse gas
effect. Note we are talking about the MAXIMUM concentration possible
of
water vapour - at any moment, the actual concentration can be even
lower.
The basic causality between CO2 concentration and global warming is
quantified in what is called "radiative transfer theory".
It is grounded in the Maxwell Equations, and it is implemented in all
climate models.
It's predictions are confirmed by all our satellite observations, and
there
is not a single climate scientist on this planet that denies it.
Desertphile
<christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:23 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 12:35 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 6:46 pm, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > There is no such thing as greenhouse gas
>>> Jesus Christ! Don't deniers like the pseudochemist here even try to
>> Your use of "deniers" places a swastika right on your forehead
> Reductio ad Hitlerum
Yes. But damn, "pseudochemist" is clever!
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net>:
<snip>
>I'm sure after this AGW nonsense has blown over^W up you'll finding
>something else to worry about.
Yeah, like "How long can you tread water?"
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Steven L.
"leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ccf5c5c3-7d71-4954...@u37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> Nobody can control the wind
> Nobody can control the rain or snow
> Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> Global temps are within natural variations.
> Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
>
Get used to it!!
Have you tried putting these lyrics to music?
I mean it. "Nobody can control the wind...nobody can control the rain
or snow..." sounds like part of a love song.
-- Steven L.
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 11, 9:46 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip speculative rhetoric>
> The basic causality between CO2 concentration and global warming is
> quantified in what is called "radiative transfer theory".
> It is grounded in the Maxwell Equations, and it is implemented in all
> climate models.
> It's predictions are confirmed by all our satellite observations, and
> there
> is not a single climate scientist on this planet that denies it.
That's right. It's part of the AGW fraudster's intellectual bait and
Stuart
Denk is starting to remind of creationists who insist there are no
transitional forms.
Stuart
gregwrld
Nothing but rhetoric. You're done, to a crisp.
gregwrld
Steven L.
"leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7de428ee-1207-40c7...@g9g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 11, 10:46 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:c03295c6-0f0d-4fd4...@c1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > Nobody can control the wind
> > > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> > > Global temps are within natural variations.
> > > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
> >
> > Nice poem.
> > Lousy science.
>
> Ø Steve: Can you control the wind? Yes or No?
> Can you control the rain or snow? Yes or No?
> Can you control the climate? Yes or No?
Absolutely.
I was an engineer in the aerospace industry.
We built the missiles that made "nuclear winter" a household word.
Hell, if India and Pakistan decided to nuke it out, we might be able to
stop worrying about global warming.
-- Steven L.
johnbee
"Stuart" <bigd...@gmail.com> >
It is difficult to believe that people on here are dim enough to converse
with a man who wrote:
>They con people into accepting the notion that CO2
> is
> a "greenhouse" gas but in actuality it is undefined
I doubt if you have ever in your life read anything dafter than that CO2 is
undefined. The fact is that nobody in the world is as stupid as that, it is
just a deliberate pose. When the kiddy is having a screaming tantrum,
ignore them and turn away; anything else is rewarding them for bad
behaviour. It's the same thing.
leona...@gmail.com
> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7de428ee-1207-40c7...@g9g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:46 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:c03295c6-0f0d-4fd4...@c1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > Nobody can control the wind
> > > > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > > > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> > > > Global temps are within natural variations.
> > > > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
> > > Nice poem.
> > > Lousy science.
>
> > Ø Steve: Can you control the wind? Yes or No?
> > Can you control the rain or snow? Yes or No?
> > Can you control the climate? Yes or No?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> I was an engineer in the aerospace industry.
>
> We built the missiles that made "nuclear winter" a household word.
>
> Hell, if India and Pakistan decided to nuke it out, we might be able to
> stop worrying about global warming.
>
Rest assured that global warming will not
happen in the next 100,000 years
Bob Casanova
>On Apr 11, 4:09 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Isn't it amazing, then, that the term was coined by
scientists many decades before global warming became an
issue? What foresight!
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/GREENHOU.htm
"The greenhouse theory was first propounded by Rupert Wildt
in the 1940s to explain the unexpectedly high temperatures
of Venus."
Idiot.
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
> > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > Yes. And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. AGW
> > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
>
>
> "If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric
> progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
> arithmetic progression."
>
> This simplified expression is still used today:
>
> F = ln(C/C0)
It's pretty simple alright. I wonder why this notion has never been
rigorously tested to see if it is applicable to the atmosphere.
>
> In 1906, Arrhenius estimated
> that a doubling of CO2 would cause a
> temperature rise of 1.6 C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 C).
Where are Arrhenius's calculations? Are they secret? Show them if
you have them. If you don't have them you better find them.
> Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate
> sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C.
Where are the IPCC's calculations? Are they secret? Show them if you
have them. If you don't have them you better find them.
> So Arrhenius was in
> today's ballpark.
Absurd.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
This is nothing but vague, wishy-washy, speculative nonsense. Science
involves testing. It involves well defined hypotheses with results
that are reproducible. You don't have that. You are not even in
the . . . ballpark.
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 2:32�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 10:23�am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 9, 8:53 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > > > > . . . infrared absorbers are also
> > > > > infrared emitters. �But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
> > > > > the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
> > > > > ground below. �But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
> > > > > approximation, in all directions. �So at the first absorption,
> > > > > about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
> > > > > the other half goes in a random upward direction.
>
> > > > Yes. �And the fact is that the AGW advocates refuse to do any real
> > > > science on this so they are unable to quantify any of this. �AGW
> > > > skeptics have done this real science and they found that CO2's
> > > > "greenhouse effect" is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
>
>
> > It's 2010 dumbass.
>
> > > Tyndall figured out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we've simply
> > > learned more about it since. It's a routine lab experiment for
> > > freshmen college students.
>
> > Routine and undramatic.
>
> > > > > and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
> > > > > and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
>
> > > > This process isn't specific to CO2 and, in fact, CO2 plays a very
> > > > small part in this, which is something the AGW alarmists are very
> > > > careful not to let get out to the public.
>
>
> > You have no dispute, do you?
>
> > > > reason they refuse to do any real science. �It would be a death
> > > > sentence to the AGW industrial complex if this truth ever got out to
> > > > the public.)
>
>
> > Ha. �This proves *my* point, dumbass. �You should have read this
> > before you responded.
>
> > > > > important,
>
> > > > Evidence?
>
>
> > I must have missed it. �Can you show what it was. �I read your links
> > now and many times before. �They never address the issues.
>
> > > You forgot to include the evidence supporting *your claims.
>
> > You are my evidence.
>
> > > > > to the earth. �In most cases the fraction reflected back
> > > > > is even greater. �And then there is the complication of
> > > > > a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
> > > > > molecule in the atmosphere...
>
> > > > Speculative nonsense. �Despite the fact that what you are saying might
> > > > have some truth the fact is you can't/won't measure any of this and so
> > > > you can't/won't test it. �If you can't/won't test it it isn't
> > > > science. �It's propaganda.
>
>
> > I do. �Do you deny first year physics and chemistry?
>
> > > > > amazing degree.
>
> > > > Yes. �Skeptics already have. No drama was found. �AGW advocates refuse
> > > > to acknowledge it and will only respond by trying to discredit their
> > > > critics through political tactics.
>
>
> > You have no fact-based dispute with my assertion, do you?
>
> > > > "amazing" calculations?
>
> > > > > The result is what is observed; �the CO2
> > > > > acts to trap radiation.
>
> > > > Bullshit. �All you whackos have is propaganda. �Show us the science
> > > > you phoney.
>
>
> > > > > normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
> > > > > make them doubters.
>
> > > > And it your case the sheer complexity makes you a believer.
>
>
> > > > > The fact that all the science was worked
> > > > > out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. �This is
> > > > > a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
> > > > > in great detail.
>
> > > > That's because you're delusional.
>
> > > you think is wrong with it.
>
> > I've already told you dumbass. �You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
> > on the atmosphere.
>
> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
> temperatures.
>
> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
> effects:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6bu9t3
>
> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off. �
> But now we're in the 21st century.
>
> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
One hundred years and all you have is the vague, wishy-washy
rhertoric. Is it going to take another hundred years to get any real
science.
>
> You are going to lose the fight.
>
> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
>
> You're going to discredit yourselves, because you've taken a position
> that is scientifically risible. �And you're going to be laughingstocks.
>
> Your REAL concern is what dealing with AGW will do to the U.S. economy
> and society, and/or those of other nations. �And that is a valid
> concern, definitely. �I share that concern. �Why don't you stick with
> THAT, instead of discrediting yourselves with pseudo-scientific
> nonsense?
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ccf5c5c3-7d71-4954...@u37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Nobody can control the wind
> > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
> > Global temps are within natural variations.
> > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
> Get used to it!!
Ocean heating is a prelude to glaciation at extremly high
elevations and/or extremely high latitudes; overall it is a
prelude to glacial ice melting.
> Have you tried putting these lyrics to music?
>
> I mean it. "Nobody can control the wind...nobody can control the rain
> or snow..." sounds like part of a love song.
It would make a good Bondage & Discipline / Sadomasochism song.
"Nobody can control the wind;
"Nobody can control the rain or snow.
"But babe, I control you utterly.
"Ain't no chains on tumbleweeds;
"Ain't no chains on grass;
"Ain't no chains on sunlight;
"But oh girl, I dominate you masterly."
Desertphile
Appears Mental.
Where's my US$10,000?
leona...@gmail.com
> On Apr 10, 7:20 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Have you looked at the original research by Svante Arrhenius in 1906?
>
> > Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
> > "If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric
> > progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
> > arithmetic progression."
Ø A nice theory based on lab experiments.
Too bad that the global atmosphere is a poor laboratory.
> > This simplified expression is still used today:
>
> > F = ln(C/C0)
Ø Check the CO2 from 1820 (FoS Preindustrial
CO2) to 1960. Match those numbers with the
raw data temperatures. You will see that the
formula sucks.
>
> It's pretty simple alright. I wonder why this notion has never been
> rigorously tested to see if it is applicable to the atmosphere.
>
>
>
> > In 1906, Arrhenius estimated
> > that a doubling of CO2 would cause a
> > temperature rise of 1.6 C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 C).
>
> Where are Arrhenius's calculations? Are they secret? Show them if
> you have them. If you don't have them you better find them.
>
> > Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate
> > sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C.
>
> Where are the IPCC's calculations? Are they secret? Show them if you
> have them. If you don't have them you better find them.
>
> > So Arrhenius was in
> > today's ballpark.
>
> Absurd.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Ø All of Wikipedia's climate related articles have
been modified to match with IPCC #4 complete
with the Hockey stick and other fake graphs
leona...@gmail.com
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations.
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Get used to it
— —
Kermit
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:16 am, AGW Alarmist <O...@wereallgonnadie.org> wrote:
>
> > <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > >On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:57:41 +0000, "Steven L."
> > ><sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:4300f07d-9eae-4029...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect
> > >> > on the atmosphere.
>
> > >the scientists who actually work in
> > >the related fields and who publish papers and research in refereed
> > >peer-reviewed science journals.
>
> Ø Indeed he does and those "whackjobs" have yet
> to provide even one scintilla of proof "that CO2
> has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere".
Other than the hundreds of papers already published linked to, you
mean? Please explain why the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere would be
different from in the lab.
>
> > >In less than one second, Google Scholar listed over 2,000 such
> > >papers, many of them freely available to read (and many behind
> > >paywalls).
>
> Ø Probably none could pay the 95% confidence bar. That requires 3
> separate scientists to replicate the result 95 times out of 100.
A sufficient number of datasets in one arena of observations (e.g.
surface temperature of the ocean) would average out to a much higher
confidence level than any individual paper would have. Assuming the
errors are randomly distributed (higher or lower in this case) then
the *average would be more reliable.
>
>
>
> > But you always fail to post any reference to your stupid statements.
> > Apparently you really can't show any proof that mans less than 3% CO2
> > contribution has any thermal effects on climate or you would have
> > posted it and been done with it.
> > >> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
> > >> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
> > >> temperatures.
>
> > >> Here's an article in Popular Mechanics from 1953, citing research by Dr.
> > >> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
> > >> effects:
>
> Ø What Plass did in the Lab, can not be
> replicated in the atmosphere
If you mean an experiment in which one process can be changed at will
with the others well controlled and identified, of course not. But if
you think it doesn't apply, please explain why.
>
>
>
> > >> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
> > >> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
> > >> But now we're in the 21st century.
>
> > >> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
> > >> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
> > >> You are going to lose the fight.
> > >> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
>
> Ø Steve you are dead wrong
>
> — —
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> | they provided data that climate change is being
> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> | natural causes
Indeed it is, which is a reminder that you are not interested in
science, but rather in winning a political contest.
For those interested in the science, here's a few links...
For mainstream consensus on the issue, see here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Please note that this was six years ago; the papers have continued to
accumulate since then, and the mainstream model has had some questions
answered.
Here's a current IPCC summary. If you should have any issues with any
of these areas, please offer a specific question or complaint:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Here's a history of climatology, and the development of the current
model:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
These are articles, not peer-reviewed papers, but they all provide
links to such, as well as more articles to clarify any particular
point.
I couldn't help but notice that you provided no support for your own
assertions. One of which is that anybody with access to Google knows
as much as a professional researcher in the field. Do you go to actual
lawyers, dentists, or orthopedic surgeons when you need such
expertise, or do you just slip your cousin Billy Bob a couple of bucks
and let him have at it?
Also, the claim that all scientists in a field are in a conspiracy,
despite being separated by political philosophies, nationalitiy, and
religion, is - on the face of it - insane. Do you have any evidence?
Related to this would be the quoting of the one or two mavericks in
the science, using him as an authority, but ignoring the findings of
thousands of others.
This is reminiscent of cult behavior, or political propaganda.
Kermit
Kermit
Hi, Claudius.
For the lurkers, here's what he requested:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
We know the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 in the lab. Satellite
observations show these wavelengths with reduced radiating into space.
Ground observations show them as increased radiating back to Earth.
Radiation emitted from the Earth or atmosphere are absorbed by CO2,
and about half is radiated back. The more CO2 in the air, the more it
is radiated back. Other GH gases such as methane or water vapor trap
other wavelengths.
Simply denying easily verifiable evidence is pathetic.
Kermit
Claudius Denk
>
> We know the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 in the lab.
Yeah, so?
> Satellite
> observations show these wavelengths with reduced radiating into space.
Propaganda.
> Ground observations show them as increased radiating back to Earth.
> Radiation emitted from the Earth or atmosphere are absorbed by CO2,
> and about half is radiated back. The more CO2 in the air, the more it
> is radiated back. Other GH gases such as methane or water vapor trap
> other wavelengths.
>
> Simply denying easily verifiable evidence is pathetic.
Oh really? Can you show us how it is easily verifyable?
I didn't think so.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Apr 11, 10:45 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 11:16 am, AGW Alarmist <O...@wereallgonnadie.org> wrote:
> > > <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > > >On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:57:41 +0000, "Steven L."
> > > ><sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > >>news:4300f07d-9eae-4029...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > >> > I've already told you dumbass. You whackjobs have no peer-reviewed
> > > >> > and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal
> > > >> > effect on the atmosphere.
>
> > > >Note that by "whackjobs," "Claudius Denk" refers to the
> > > >the scientists who actually work in
> > > >the related fields and who publish papers and research in refereed
> > > >peer-reviewed science journals.
>
> > Ø Indeed he does and those "whackjobs" have yet
> > to provide even one scintilla of proof "that CO2
> > has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere".
>
> Other than the hundreds of papers already published linked to, you
> mean? Please explain why the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere would be
> different from in the lab.
>
ALL CO2 in the atmosphere is in or combined
with H2O vapour
>
> > > >In less than one second, Google Scholar listed over 2,000 such
> > > >papers, many of them freely available to read (and many behind
> > > >paywalls).
Ø So what??? Neither "Nature" nor "Science" has been picky about real
peer review. I'll post an article (below) demonstrating that.
> > Ø Probably none could pay the 95% confidence bar. That requires 3
> > separate scientists to replicate the result 95 times out of 100.
>
> A sufficient number of datasets in one arena of observations (e.g.
> surface temperature of the ocean) would average out to a much higher
> confidence level than any individual paper would have. Assuming the
> errors are randomly distributed (higher or lower in this case) then
> the *average would be more reliable.
>
Ø Total nonsense
> > > But you always fail to post any reference to your stupid statements.
Ø The stupidity is all your's, Kermit.
> > > Apparently you really can't show any proof that mans less than 3% CO2
> > > contribution has any thermal effects on climate or you would have
> > > posted it and been done with it.
Ø ROTFLMAO:— The ball is in your court to
prove the 'positive'. So far, neither you, nor any
other idiot, has shown any proof that man's less
than 3% CO2 has_any_thermal_effects_on_climate
> > > >> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
> > > >> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
> > > >> temperatures.
>
> > > >> Here's an article in Popular Mechanics
Ø A great scientific
from 1953, citing research by Dr.
> > > >> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
> > > >> effects:
>
> > Ø What Plass did in the Lab, can not be
> > replicated in the atmosphere
>
> If you mean an experiment in which one process can be changed at will
> with the others well controlled and identified, of course not. But if
> you think it doesn't apply, please explain why.
>
Ø Once again the conditions in the lab are impossible to replicate
>
>
> > > >> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
> > > >> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
> > > >> But now we're in the 21st century.
Ø And we are nearing the end of the long
downslope to glaciation.
> > > >> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
> > > >> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
> > > >> You are going to lose the fight.
> > > >> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
>
> > Ø Steve you are dead wrong
> Indeed it is, which is a reminder that you are not interested in
> science, but rather in winning a political contest.
Ø Since AlGore politicised Global Warming,
all science has been politicised as well.
>
> Also, the claim that all scientists in a field are in a conspiracy,
> despite being separated by political philosophies, nationalitiy, and
> religion, is - on the face of it - insane.
Ø The majority of scientists in climate related disciplines do not
speak out lest they lose their jobs or their funding
> Do you have any evidence?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of
climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle
of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped
by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political
stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research
to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who
puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where
there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate
alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate
research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion
today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind,
hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other
energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists
who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear,
their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges,
scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change
gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and
the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex
underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is
agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly
told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global
temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century;
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the
same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims
are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims
neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's
responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In
fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually
demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them.
It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we
know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that
couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly
policies to try to prevent global warming.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
( Post continued below)
All Is Not Well In The Global Warming Game.
By James Lewis | July 08, 2007
Scientists Will Caution That All Is Not
Well In The Global Warming Game.
The American scientific establishment is starting to take
baby steps away from taking sides in the politics of global
warming. It's sad to have to read science articles for
political spin, like some announcement by the Kremlin.
But climate change has now become so politicized that
SCIENCE magazine reflects at least as much politics as
honest science. You_have_to_read_it_for_spin.
SCIENCE magazine is the flagship journal of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
which is the professional advocacy group for scientists in
the United States. SCIENCE is both the profession's
political journal (telling readers how to get government
grants, for example), and it also has original findings. So
it has an openly political side, as well as a real science
side.
The last issue of SCIENCE is waffling like mad on
the global warming fad, warning its readers that it
may not be so settled a question.
Under the headline "Another Global Warming Icon
Comes Under Attack," SCIENCE writer Richard Kerr
writes:
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5834/28a
"...a group of mainstream atmospheric scientists is
disputing a rising icon of global warming, and
researchers are giving some ground." ...
"Robert Charlson of the University of Washington,
Seattle, (is) one of three authors of a commentary
published online last week in Nature Reports: Climate
Change. ... he and his co-authors argue that the
simulation by 14 different climate models of the
warming in the 20th century is not the reassuring
success IPCC claims it to be."
(IPCC is the supposed international scientific consensus
document on global warming - JL).
"... In the run-up to the IPCC climate science report
released last February ... 14 groups ran their models
under 20th-century conditions of rising greenhouse
gases. ... But the group of three atmospheric scientists
... says the close match between models and the
actual warming is deceptive. The match "conveys a lot
more confidence [in the models] than can be
supported in actuality," says Schwartz. [....]
"Greenhouse gas changes are well known, they note,
but not so the counteracting cooling of pollutant hazes,
called aerosols. Aerosols cool the planet by reflecting
away sunlight and increasing the reflectivity of clouds.
Somehow, the three researchers say, modelers failed
to draw on all the uncertainty inherent in aerosols so
that the 20th-century simulations look more certain
than they should."
What? "Somehow" they missed the biggest unknown
factor in climate prediction?
Ssssuuuuurre they did!
Highly qualified climate scientists have long warned that
warming estimates have at least one giant question mark:
Water vapor and other tiny particles in the atmosphere.
By failing to include reliable estimates of such "hazes"
(not necessarily pollutants, as the article says), global
warming models are likely to err wildly on the side of
warming. It's the unseen elephant in the living room.
The SCIENCE article therefore finally admits what
scientific critics have been saying for years.
Interested readers should also take a good look at the
graph in the SCIENCE article, which superficially seems
to support the global warming story. But notice the vertical
bars at the right side of the graph, which show the "90
percent confidence interval" --- the chances that the graph
line is actually where it is shown to be. Turns out that the
orange confidence interval includes all the points on the
graph between 1930 and 2000... meaning that we can't
tell that any of those points are different from each other
with even 90 percent certainty. And that's not even
including the big Black Hole of water vapor.
Now "90 percent confidence" might sound like a lot. But in
standard scientific publications a 95 percent confidence
level is the minimum acceptable level. The reason is that
one can just run a study 10 times, and achieve a 90
percent confidence level purely by chance. So we
normally demand a higher standard of proof --- at least 95
percent confidence. The data in the SCIENCE graph
therefore does not meet routine scientific standards.
Many scientists will read this item as a red flag,
cautioning that all is not well in the global warming game.
James Lewis blogs at
http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
americanthinker.com/2007/07/science_magazine_waffles_on_wa.html
leona...@gmail.com
>
> We know the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 in the lab. Satellite
> observations show these wavelengths with reduced radiating into space.
> Ground observations show them as increased radiating back to Earth.
> Radiation emitted from the Earth or atmosphere are absorbed by CO2,
> and about half is radiated back. The more CO2 in the air, the more it
> is radiated back. Other GH gases such as methane or water vapor trap
> other wavelengths.
>
> Simply denying easily verifiable evidence is pathetic.
ø Simply posting crap from an AGW alarmist site
is stupidity redoubled in spades
Desertphile
Idiot.
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:26:35 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations.
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Get used to it
— —
> > | In real science the burden of proof is always
> > | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
> > | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> > | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> > | they provided data that climate change is being
> > | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> > | natural causes
>
> Idiot.
Ø Stop talking to yourself
— —
Political correctness is destroying Europe.
America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill,
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.
hersheyh
Water *vapor* is a gas. CO2 is a gas. CO2 can dissolve in *liquid*
water. But gas molecules act independently of one another. You might
want to look up what a 'gas' is before you repeat this idiocy.
>
> > > > >In less than one second, Google Scholar listed over 2,000 such
> > > > >papers, many of them freely available to read (and many behind
> > > > >paywalls).
>
> Ø So what??? Neither "Nature" nor "Science" has been picky about real
> peer review. I'll post an article (below) demonstrating that.
>
> > > Ø Probably none could pay the 95% confidence bar. That requires 3
> > > separate scientists to replicate the result 95 times out of 100.
>
> > A sufficient number of datasets in one arena of observations (e.g.
> > surface temperature of the ocean) would average out to a much higher
> > confidence level than any individual paper would have. Assuming the
> > errors are randomly distributed (higher or lower in this case) then
> > the *average would be more reliable.
>
> Ø Total nonsense
Based on what? Your personal opinion?
>
> > > > But you always fail to post any reference to your stupid statements.
>
> Ø The stupidity is all your's, Kermit.
>
> > > > Apparently you really can't show any proof that mans less than 3% CO2
> > > > contribution has any thermal effects on climate or you would have
> > > > posted it and been done with it.
>
> Ø ROTFLMAO:— The ball is in your court to
> prove the 'positive'. So far, neither you, nor any
> other idiot, has shown any proof that man's less
> than 3% CO2 has_any_thermal_effects_on_climate
The 3% value is irrelevant. CO2 is still the second most important
(after water vapor) greenhouse gas. As such it has the second most
impact on the greenhouse effect which keeps atmospheric temperatures
within the habitable range.
>
> > > > >> And I have already told you that back in 1906, the chemist Svante
> > > > >> Arrhenius predicted that anthropogenic CO2 would raise atmospheric
> > > > >> temperatures.
>
> > > > >> Here's an article in Popular Mechanics
>
> Ø A great scientific
>
> from 1953, citing research by Dr.> > > >> Gilbert Plass, one of the first scientists to analyze greenhouse gas
> > > > >> effects:
>
> > > Ø What Plass did in the Lab, can not be
> > > replicated in the atmosphere
>
> > If you mean an experiment in which one process can be changed at will
> > with the others well controlled and identified, of course not. But if
> > you think it doesn't apply, please explain why.
>
> Ø Once again the conditions in the lab are impossible to replicate
>
>
>
> > > > >> In the 1950s, when Dr. Plass said that we're going to have significant
> > > > >> warming in the 21st century, the 21st century seemed a long way off.
> > > > >> But now we're in the 21st century.
>
> Ø And we are nearing the end of the long
> downslope to glaciation.
Evidence?
>
> > > > >> The greenhouse effects of CO2 have been known by chemists for ONE
> > > > >> HUNDRED YEARS, long before anyone ever heard the term "AGW."
> > > > >> You are going to lose the fight.
> > > > >> If you continue on this tack, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE FIGHT.
>
> > > Ø Steve you are dead wrong
> > Indeed it is, which is a reminder that you are not interested in
> > science, but rather in winning a political contest.
>
> Ø Since AlGore politicised Global Warming,
> all science has been politicised as well.
By George Bush and his oil and coal industry buddies trying to
suppress science. But any time science has an impact on public
policy, it is, appropriately enough, 'politicized'. That is what has
happened with smoking, DDT, acid rain, ozone depletion, lead paint and
gas additives, water pollution, air pollution, stem cell research,
etc. You are delusional if you think that science can avoid being
politicized in the sense of having no effect on public policy. But
the intentional *suppression* of science is also polliticizing
science. Why do you think that some recent presidents decided not to
have a science advisor. They did not want to have to deal with
reality being shoved in their face.
For *real* acts of suppression and political interfernce, see:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bush-obama-global-warming-science-460309
For an act of pseudosuppression, we have:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-29-epa-suppression-story-grows/
Note that the 'suppressed' data comes from web blog sites,
astrologers, and assorted kooks. It could only be called suppression
if there was something valid worth publishing. Ignoring and not
publishing the occasional 'perpetual motion machine' kook is not
suppression of science; it is ignoring pseudoscience.
The oil and coal industry even ignored its own scientists on GW.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html
> > Also, the claim that all scientists in a field are in a conspiracy,
> > despite being separated by political philosophies, nationalitiy, and
> > religion, is - on the face of it - insane.
>
> Ø The majority of scientists in climate related disciplines do not
> speak out lest they lose their jobs or their funding
So, your claim is that they are being cowed into silence by the Bush
administration? That the Bush/Cheney administration was part of this
sinister cabal of scientists out to promote the lie about AGW? What
planet have you been living on? Seems to me that they would have been
richly rewarded with funding to come out *against* AGW. Why would
even the experts hired by the oil industry say that GW could not be
refuted?
>
> > Do you have any evidence?
>
> The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of
> climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle
> of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped
> by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political
> stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research
> to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who
> puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where
> there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate
> alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate
> research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion
> today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind,
> hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other
> energy-investment decisions.
So, to keep the money coming, that *almost all* the scientists
involved, including many of those paid by the oil and coal industry,
have been intentionally cooking up data (keeping in touch with others
in on this secret so as not to disagree publicly) to gin up the
threat? Sounds like the work of the Templars or the Trilateral
Commission or the ever popular and mysterious 'them' to me.
> But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists
> who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear,
> their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges,
> scientific hacks or worse.
Examples? That aren't true, of course. There are 'scientists for
hire' that are willing to prostitute themselves as industry stooges.
And there are, indeed, 'scientific hacks'. Not to mention the
occasional scientific 'nutcase' or scientist who wigs out on some
subject or another. Like Peter Duesberg on HIV/AIDS or Linus Pauling
on vitamin C. Science is like that. It is something that humans do.
> Consequently, lies about climate change
> gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
> supposedly is their basis.
>
> To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and
> the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex
> underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is
> agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly
> told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global
> temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century;
> levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the
> same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims
> are true.
So is the claim that the *increase* in atmospheric CO2 is explainable
by our burning of fossil fuels. After all, we certainly can estimate
how much carbon we produce by burning the carbon in fuels and we know
it has to go somewhere.
Well, not according to some of the denialists blathering in this
forum.
> However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims
> neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's
> responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In
> fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually
> demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them.
How so? If you see a trend *in the best evidence and estimates you
can produce* and can reasonably associate it with a cause and cannot
come up with any realistic alternative, what would a reasonable person
do? Ignore it and claim it cannot be?
> It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we
> know must be wrong.
How do *you* know that they must be *significantly* wrong (all models
are simplifications, involve assumptions, and typically have areas of
uncertainty; but robust models are those where, to the extent we have
knowledge, we can predict a range of outcomes that can be tested by
retrodicted or predicted evidence)?
> It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that
> couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly
> policies to try to prevent global warming.
Remember that the error bars in their models include consequences that
are worse than predicted as well as those that less harmful. What
makes you so certain that the models, if right, do not show exactly
the consequences they claim?
Behind a paywall.
I can't even tell what the graph is supposedly measuring or estimating
here. And confidence levels are usually put on data points or as a
band around a line. But what I see here doesn't tell me anything
about what this author (who does not seem to actually be a scientist)
sees in the graph.
That said, I am quite sure that current models have uncertainty, but
less so than earlier models. And I am sure that people are trying to
quantitate the effects of aerosols and that new models will include
that information. That doesn't change the fact that the current
models indicate that observed warming is consistent with the increase
in CO2 and is not due to insolation increases or any of the other
things that have been seriously proposed. And even *if* increased
aerosols arise from man-made pollution due to burning fossil fuels
that ameliorate GW, that won't change the problem of increased ocean
acidification from increased CO2. Both effects of CO2 must be
considered.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by hersheyh
<hers...@yahoo.com>:
>On Apr 15, 12:26 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
>> ALL CO2 in the atmosphere is in or combined
>> with H2O vapour
>Water *vapor* is a gas. CO2 is a gas. CO2 can dissolve in *liquid*
>water. But gas molecules act independently of one another. You might
>want to look up what a 'gas' is before you repeat this idiocy.
This error has been corrected several times. He ignored the
corrections and continued to post the error. Draw whatever
conclusions seem appropriate.
<snip>
Jim Lovejoy
4fcd-be65-5...@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> I don't speak whacko.
You don't speak anything but whacko.
Jim Lovejoy
4b9e-a909-9...@z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>
You and leonard are really pro-AGW activists trying to make the "skeptics"
look like idiots, right?
Well, congratulations, you've done a masterful job.
And if any reasonable person thinks that AGW is real, and has to be dealt
with, but the proposals put forth by the Commissions, and the
environmentalist, are costly and ineffectual, and that we should search for
cheaper and more effective solutions, their opponents can just point at
your posts, and say "look another kook like Denk and leonard", and dismiss
them.
Good job I say!
Jim Lovejoy
news:7vGdnUotR62_Il3W...@giganews.com:
>> So overall, rather than supporting an anti-AGW position, this paper
>> seems to provide evidence that adding extra greenhouse gases will change
>> the temperature of our planet.
>
> Only if they change "dramatically". Do you consider 400ppmv of CO2 a
> "dramatic" change?
>
A change of 400 ppm from approx 280 to approx 680. Gahd yes! That's
almost 2 1/2 times as much. If the gas were total inert, including it's
effect on IR, the dramatic change wouldn't matter. To bad that's not the
case.
Bill Ward
We're almost 400ppm CO2 now. A doubling to 800ppm over the next two
centuries might cause at most ~1K of additional warming. How exciting do
you think that will be?
Or, another way of looking at it is that we've already gone from 280 to
400 ppmv, and still, even after spending ~$50B on "research", can't seem
to find an unambiguous signal showing that it's caused any warming at
all. It's all based on projections of admittedly flawed climate models.
The excitement is all caused by marketing propaganda.
Sapient Fridge
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> writes
>On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:56:27 -0500, Jim Lovejoy wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in
>> news:7vGdnUotR62_Il3W...@giganews.com:
>>
>>>> So overall, rather than supporting an anti-AGW position, this paper
>>>> seems to provide evidence that adding extra greenhouse gases will
>>>> change the temperature of our planet.
>>>
>>> Only if they change "dramatically". Do you consider 400ppmv of CO2 a
>>> "dramatic" change?
>>>
>> A change of 400 ppm from approx 280 to approx 680. Gahd yes! That's
>> almost 2 1/2 times as much. If the gas were total inert, including it's
>> effect on IR, the dramatic change wouldn't matter. To bad that's not
>> the case.
>
>We're almost 400ppm CO2 now. A doubling to 800ppm over the next two
>centuries might cause at most ~1K of additional warming. How exciting do
>you think that will be?
It would still cause problems, but that estimate is wrong and not based
on the current science. The real estimated rise is 1.1C to 6.4C.
>Or, another way of looking at it is that we've already gone from 280 to
>400 ppmv, and still, even after spending ~$50B on "research", can't seem
>to find an unambiguous signal showing that it's caused any warming at
>all.
There is an estimated 30 lag on warming because of the lifetime of CO2
in the atmosphere and the volume of the oceans. A graph showing the
unambiguous signal of ocean warming you are looking for is near the
bottom of this page:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
"The heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is the most
comprehensive measure of changes in the temperature of the planet (the
oceans contain far more of any new heat added than the thin atmosphere).
As seen in hundreds of thousands of measurement analyzed by three
independent groups, it began a steady rise in the 1970s. That was just
when greenhouse gas levels reached a level high enough to be important"
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Dawlish
That's what *you* think Bill.The science says otherwise, as you've
been shown many times, but fail to believe. That's not the fault of
science, or the scientists, I can assure you.
Mark Isaak
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:56:27 -0500, Jim Lovejoy wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in
>> news:7vGdnUotR62_Il3W...@giganews.com:
>>
>>>> So overall, rather than supporting an anti-AGW position, this paper
>>>> seems to provide evidence that adding extra greenhouse gases will
>>>> change the temperature of our planet.
>>>
>>> Only if they change "dramatically". Do you consider 400ppmv of CO2 a
>>> "dramatic" change?
>>>
>> A change of 400 ppm from approx 280 to approx 680. Gahd yes! That's
>> almost 2 1/2 times as much. If the gas were total inert, including it's
>> effect on IR, the dramatic change wouldn't matter. To bad that's not
>> the case.
>
> We're almost 400ppm CO2 now. A doubling to 800ppm over the next two
> centuries might cause at most ~1K of additional warming.
Or it might cause 6K additional warming.
> How exciting do you think that will be?
To people living near shores with gentle slopes, even the 1K additional
warming will be very exciting indeed, even life-threatening.
> Or, another way of looking at it is that we've already gone from 280 to
> 400 ppmv, and still, even after spending ~$50B on "research", can't
> seem to find an unambiguous signal showing that it's caused any warming
> at all.
For a definition of "unambiguous" that leaves the reality of Santa's
North Pole workshop ambiguous.
> It's all based on projections of admittedly flawed climate models.
And its denial is all based on suppositions of admittedly even more
flawed demagogues.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume