Challenge to the Skeptics: What's Your Theory?

[IanC]

I know of dozens of things that affect the climate. Do you agree that there has been warming? Do you agree that CO2 has some part in climate change, even a small one?

The Warmers have only one course on their plate but the lukewarmers and skeptics have a full buffet. What are your favourites? Meat and potatoes like solar and ENSO? Vegetables like land use and clouds. Or do you head straight to the dessert tray and pick out data fraud, public misdirection or fiscal naivete?

 

[wirebender]

I know of dozens of things that affect the climate. Do you agree that there has been warming? Do you agree that CO2 has some part in climate change, even a small one?

Interesting. Are you talking global climate or local. If you are talking local, then I can think of just a few things that have been proven to have an effect on the climate. If you are talking global, I can't think of anything that has been unequivocally proven to alter the global climate. We know it changes but at this point, we really don't have a clue as to why. Hell, at this point, we don't even have a theory; hust numerous hypotheses and such a profound lack of understanding of the climate that we can't even go about devising real world experiments for those.

Mathematically, it is easy enough to prove that CO2 isn't the culprit, even to a small degree. Logically, it is easy enough to look at history and see that it isn't the culprit. It has been warmer with higher levels of CO2, it has been colder with higher levels of CO2. It has been warmer with lower levels of CO2 and has been colder with lower levels of CO2. When the climate has been both warmer and colder with both higher and levels of atmospheric CO2, it becomes pretty difficult to make a rational case that CO2 is, even in a small part, driving the climate.

The Warmers have only one course on their plate but the lukewarmers and skeptics have a full buffet. What are your favourites? Meat and potatoes like solar and ENSO? Vegetables like land use and clouds. Or do you head straight to the dessert tray and pick out data fraud, public misdirection or fiscal naivete?

The earth has one energy source that matters with regard to global climate. That is the sun. Energy drives the climate. You want to know what drives our climate? Look to the only source. Exactly how does it drive the climate? Don't know. We don't have the understanding at this point to grasp the entire system and partial knowledge won't do the trick. Till we can grasp the entire picture, we are just guessing.

In all this there are some things that can be ruled out and proven to be of no consequence via the laws of physics and mathematical proofs. CO2 and downdwelling radiation are two of those. I know that you believe CO2 is in small part a climate driver. I have invited you to prove it and show me the math. You seem bright enough to do the math but have so far declined. One must wonder why.

 

[IanC]

how do local factors not have an effect on global temperatures? heat spreads out. doesnt even changing colour (albedo) have an effect? bouncing a photon instead of absorbing it changes the Earth's energy balance doesnt it?

 

[wirebender]

how do local factors not have an effect on global temperatures? heat spreads out. doesnt even changing colour (albedo) have an effect? bouncing a photon instead of absorbing it changes the Earth's energy balance doesnt it?

When two EM fields are in opposition (EM field generated by the earth and EM field generated by the atmosphere) Energy flows in the direction that is propagated by the stronger of the two fields. No energy flows upstream against the stronger field. Heat may spread out and it may spread out unevenly but the fact remains that it is continuously moving in the direction of the field propagated by the earth. You can't "bounce" a photon upstream of a more powerful EM field than the one it is travelling with.

That is the basic law of nature. Any appeal to complexity that doesn't obey this basic law of nature is flawed. They are called laws of nature because they have never been observed or theoretically proved to have been broken.

 

[IanC]

are you saying no sunlight bounces off the earth? have you never seen earthshine on the Moon?

 

[IanC]

next you will be saying radio transmission is impossible too

 

[wirebender]

are you saying no sunlight bounces off the earth? have you never seen earthshine on the Moon?

You can bounce a photon off a surface, but not off an EM field. Now who is playing semantics?

 

[wirebender]

next you will be saying radio transmission is impossible too

Except for a few trace gasses, air is generally transparent to EM radiation. There is another math problem for you.

At what level of atmosperic concentration would CO2 actually effect radio and microwave transmissions. I haven't done the math but my bet is that it would be very near the amount necessary to overcome the EM field generated by the earth.

 

[wirebender]

At the risk of being repeating myself, I understand the laws of nature to work a certain way. I grasp their meaning and implication and am able to do the math necessary to prove them to myself. If you believe that I am mistaken, then do the math and prove me wrong. Subtract the two EM fields in question and show me that 1) the EM field of the atmosphere is greater in magnitude than that of the earth or 2) show me mathematically that two EM fields can move in opposite directions along the same vector. If you can prove either one of those, then you have an argument. If you can't, then you have none.

Without one of those proofs, at best you have thought experiments that are in violation of the laws of science.

 

[skookerasbil]

kill all the cows.............they poop too much

 

[konradv]

LOL!!! Wirebender you're quite a hoot. Even Ian won't back your craziness and we don't agree on a lot.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Bent is a source of constant amusement as he flaps yap about things which he has zero understanding.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fellows, Ian put out a simple challenge, surely you can answer it in detail.

 

[Oddball]

I know of dozens of things that affect the climate. Do you agree that there has been warming? Do you agree that CO2 has some part in climate change, even a small one?

The Warmers have only one course on their plate but the lukewarmers and skeptics have a full buffet. What are your favourites? Meat and potatoes like solar and ENSO? Vegetables like land use and clouds. Or do you head straight to the dessert tray and pick out data fraud, public misdirection or fiscal naivete?

Thematic structure.

The whole warmist hoax swirls around the same themes offered up by misanthropes, eugenicists, social engineers and other assorted collectivist authoritarians throughout the ages.

From the Revelation, to Malthus, to the Luddites, to Galbraith, to Ehrlich, to Algore...Every one of them have peddled the same basic story of the utter ruination of mankind, unless you REPENT NOW!.. ...Not at all surprisingly, virtually every one of them has excluded themselves from being part of the problem, who need to drastically change their lifestyles to comport with the "solutions" they seek to foist upon everyone else.

Forget all the purposefully confusing and misdirecting slew of statistics, charts, graphs and reputed "experts"....The mere thematic framework of the anthropogenic gullible warming hoax will tell you everything you need to know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know of dozens of things that affect the climate. Do you agree that there has been warming? Do you agree that CO2 has some part in climate change, even a small one?

The Warmers have only one course on their plate but the lukewarmers and skeptics have a full buffet. What are your favourites? Meat and potatoes like solar and ENSO? Vegetables like land use and clouds. Or do you head straight to the dessert tray and pick out data fraud, public misdirection or fiscal naivete?

This is a backhanded compliment to my challenge to the Death Worshiping Cult that is AGW whom I've labeled the "Warmers" who still have not even stated their hypothesis.

My understanding of the scientific method is that you observe something in the world, you state a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis to fail it, to see if there is anything else that might be at work then at some point you say, "It's probably like this" Even time and gravity are relative concepts.

I will grant that we have been in a recent warming period and by recent I mean within the last 14,000 years.

It probably has a lot to do with a) that Big Yellow Thing in the sky and b) slight variations in the planet we're on.

I can say with absolute confidence that the CO2 mankind has dumped into the atmosphere did not melt the glaciers that once covered North America, so it's a good bet that it's not melting them today.

On a personal note, I turned down my chance to attend Bronx High School of Science in favor of becoming a merchant.

 

[Owl]

Are those who doubt global warming really "skeptics"?

To me, skeptics are those who refuse to believe anything without convincing proof, and, in this case, since we're dealing with a scientific issue, the proof would have to be generated by rigorous scientific inquiry.

Merely saying "I don't believe in global warming" (because I heard on Rush Limbaugh, or read in a book by a politico, or heard on the street, etc., that it's untrue) does not constitute true skepticism.

 

[konradv]

Are those who doubt global warming really "skeptics"?

To me, skeptics are those who refuse to believe anything without convincing proof, and, in this case, since we're dealing with a scientific issue, the proof would have to be generated by rigorous scientific inquiry.

Merely saying "I don't believe in global warming" (because I heard on Rush Limbaugh, or read in a book by a politico, or heard on the street, etc., that it's untrue) does not constitute true skepticism.

I agree, they're the "deniers". You can tell who they are because their orientation is political, rather than scientific. Whenever you hear someone discuss Gore in a negative way, they're in that group. People who really know the issue, discuss it. Those that don't bash Al.

 

[wirebender]

LOL!!! Wirebender you're quite a hoot. Even Ian won't back your craziness and we don't agree on a lot.

Still not demonstrating your mastery of the science I see. If I am wrong, I invite any of you to do the math and prove me wrong. To date, the only one, besides myself, who has done the math has proved me right and that was one of your warmist buds.

Feel free to describe where I made a math error or which law of science I misused. Do be specific and show your work. Or slink off and pretend that a challenge hasn't been laid at your feet that you are unable to pick up.

 

[wirebender]

Ol' Bent is a source of constant amusement as he flaps yap about things which he has zero understanding.

Still waiting for you to name the law of science that supports your belief as well rocks. The best you can do is post a link to that scripture you believe in so much but when asked specific questions about it, you are unable to answer. I have proved my position and shown my work. Thus far, you haven't even demonstrated that you understand your position, much less done any work to prove it.

 

[Oddball]

Are those who doubt global warming really "skeptics"?

To me, skeptics are those who refuse to believe anything without convincing proof, and, in this case, since we're dealing with a scientific issue, the proof would have to be generated by rigorous scientific inquiry.

Merely saying "I don't believe in global warming" (because I heard on Rush Limbaugh, or read in a book by a politico, or heard on the street, etc., that it's untrue) does not constitute true skepticism.

I agree, they're the "deniers". You can tell who they are because their orientation is political, rather than scientific. Whenever you hear someone discuss Gore in a negative way, they're in that group. People who really know the issue, discuss it. Those that don't bash Al.

Substitute "heretics" and "The Pope" for "deniers" and "Gore", respectively, in that paragraph and you'll clearly see the thematic structure I talked about in #14.