Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[wirebender]

That's some magical CO2 we produced.

Was it ever determined whether or not CO2 could julienne fries? It sure seems to be able to do anything else.

 

[Big Fitz]

That's some magical CO2 we produced.

Was it ever determined whether or not CO2 could julienne fries? It sure seems to be able to do anything else.

Nope. never was. But that issue was run away from fairly quickly.

 

[konradv]

You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?

The problem is you are talking to someone who is severely challenged and has been since birth. Terrible and sad. Just remember to be compassionate.

Still haven't seen anything close to a theory here.

He's apparently blind, too!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem is you are talking to someone who is severely challenged and has been since birth. Terrible and sad. Just remember to be compassionate.

Still haven't seen anything close to a theory here.

He's apparently blind, too!!!

So it's the No-Theory Theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Present your evidence!

Does it match this in credibility?

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

The hockey stick? You are presenting the broken, discredited, debunked hockey stick and calling it credible? I am laughing in your face rocks. Here is what the NAS had to say about mann's hockey stick:

"systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data "(p. 107).

"Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. "(p. 110)

"Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data" (pp. 106-107)," and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research" (p. 50).

" Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions."

"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium."

Then in a congressional hearing, Mr. North, the chairman of the NAS panel that examined mann's work was asked if he disagreed with the Wegman findings which shreded mann's work. The exhange went like this:


CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

So are you sure you want to use the hockey stick as credible evidence of anything besides proof that climate scientists can't be trusted?

My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, Wegman seems to be in a world of hurt.

WHo you gonna believe,...me,...or your lying eyes?! - Global Warming and Nature - AOL Message Boards

Journal Retracts Disputed Network Analysis Paper on Climate
by Eli Kintisch on | Permanent Link | 18 Comments | Permanent Link | 18 Comments
Email Print | More
Previous Article Next Article
On 15 May, USA Today reported that a controversial 2008 study in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis (CSDA) was going to be retracted because parts of the article contain plagiarized material. Now, in an e-mail to ScienceInsider, the journal's editor in chief, Stan Azen of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, has passed along the official retraction notice. It says the article "contains portions of other authors' writings … without sufficient attribution" and that excerpts from Wikipedia and two textbooks appeared without citation in the paper's introduction. An official with Elsevier, which publishes CSDA, says the notice will be posted in a week or two.

The study, Social networks of author-co-author relationships, analyzed the different styles of such networks and their implications for peer review. It grew out of work done for a report to Congress by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University. The so-called Wegman report said that paleoclimate studies done in 1998 and 1999 used poor statistical analyses. It also asserted that the authors may have benefited from favorable treatment by their peers who presumably reviewed the papers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Present your evidence!

Does it match this in credibility?

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

The hockey stick? You are presenting the broken, discredited, debunked hockey stick and calling it credible? I am laughing in your face rocks. Here is what the NAS had to say about mann's hockey stick:

"systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data "(p. 107).

"Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. "(p. 110)

"Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data" (pp. 106-107)," and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research" (p. 50).

" Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions."

"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium."

Then in a congressional hearing, Mr. North, the chairman of the NAS panel that examined mann's work was asked if he disagreed with the Wegman findings which shreded mann's work. The exhange went like this:


CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

So are you sure you want to use the hockey stick as credible evidence of anything besides proof that climate scientists can't be trusted?

My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.

This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard!

 

[Old Rocks]

To see you learn a single thing would be a source of amazement, Franky.

 

[Toronado3800]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.

So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?

That's some magical CO2 we produced.

Sir or Madam,

Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually. Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it. After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.

I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.

Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math. More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees. But you get the point, right?

Now this might all work out somehow. I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To see you learn a single thing would be a source of amazement, Franky.

Yes, like what's this "ManMade Global Warming" Theory that got Settled?

By now even people with no background at all in any science must be starting to wonder, "Yeah, why hasn't Old Rocks put up his Theory yet?"

 

[Old Rocks]

Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.

So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?

That's some magical CO2 we produced.

Sir or Madam,

Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually. Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it. After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.

I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.

Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math. More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees. But you get the point, right?

Now this might all work out somehow. I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.

Oh yes, it will all settle out. And there will some interesting times as it does. And not a few of our descendents are going to have some interesting names for this generation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[wirebender]

My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.

To the contrary, I expect that someone will read the report. That is why I gave page numbers.


As to duplicating mann's graph, you can plug in random phone numbers, baseball scores, or breast sizes and get the same hockey stick shape.

 

[wirebender]

Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You keep posting that same link as if it were some sort of bible verse. Which part of it do you beleive expresses either the AGW or greenhouse gas hypothesis? Simply stating that such a thing is happening does not constitute a hypothesis. Do you even understand what your link is saying rocks? Which part are you construing to be a statement of hypothesis?

Are you afraid to simply state the hypothesis? Clearly, you are because you know that if you do, someone will post a different hypothesis from a different warming site. You claim that CO2 is acting like some sort of blanket and not actually heating the earth, but your priests say otherwise. Here rocks have a look:

Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona

Clip: "In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere.

However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere: it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere -- for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model.

Now like the atmosphere, the Earth's surface is near an equilibrium where it gains and loses energy at almost the same rate. Because the surface gains 480 Watts/meter2 (half from sunlight and half from the atmosphere), it also must radiate 480 Watts/meter2. Unlike the atmosphere, however, the ground can only radiate in one direction -- upward. Thus, the surface radiates 480 Watts/meter2 upward, and because the atmosphere is opaque to this infrared light, it is absorbed by the atmosphere rather than escaping to space. Notice that the atmosphere, the surface, and the planet as a whole each gain energy at exactly the same rate it is lost. "

Clearly there is a claim there that the surface of the earth is receiving more energy than it gets from the sun. In order for that to happen, the atmosphere must be making energy.

Here, have another:

The Greenhouse Effect

Clip: “Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.”


Again, the claim of free energy. Energy from no where. More energy than comes from the sun.

Why do you claim that the atmosphere acts as a blanket when the documents from your high priests say that backradiation from CO2 is actually warming the earth? Where do you get off disagreeing with climate scientists? Is it that you know that the hypothesis as stated is really a load of crap and therefore you feel the need to make up your own?

Both of the above statements violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because they claim that heat is flowing from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer earth. They are describing a perpetual motion device caught in a positive feedback loop.

Look at your own propaganda rocks:

The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun. Tell me rocks, do you actually believe that? Look at the backradiation. It clearly states that that radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.

If you don't buy this hypothesis (and you clearly don't) exactly where are you getting your blanket hypothesis?

 

[RWatt]

Look at your own propaganda rocks:

The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun. Tell me rocks, do you actually believe that? Look at the backradiation. It clearly states that that radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.

It's true. Here are some graphs of backradiation measurements at various locations:

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” « The Science of Doom

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I'm still pitching a perfect game...another Warmer post, another swing and miss.

Still no theory.

"...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."

 

[wirebender]

It's true. Here are some graphs of backradiation measurements at various locations:

You don't seem to be able to grasp that those measurements don't relate to the real world. They were taken with one of two types of radiometers. They were either taken with an uncooled radiometer which means that the instrument believed it was reading blackbody radiation emitted into space at zero degrees kelvin or they were taken by an artifically cooled instrument which was pretending to be in a much colder environment than it was actually in. In either case, the readings taken don't mean anything in the real world.

Backradiation is a myth. It is not supported by the laws of physics. Ignoring the molten center of the earth and gravity, the sun is the only source of energy source. The earth and atmosphere are not energy sources which means that the 168 watts per square meter from the sun is the only energy available. According to your theory, the atmosphere is nearly doubling the energy from the sun without the input of any work at all. Like it or not, that is an impossibility and therefore your hypothesis is an imposibility.

You don't get energy from nothing no matter how hard you wish it were so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Did you read the article??

"At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible"

Even in the 1970's it was Global Coolingggggg Brrrrrrrrrr

 

[Big Fitz]

Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.

So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?

That's some magical CO2 we produced.

Sir or Madam,

Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually. Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it. After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.

I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.

Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math. More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees. But you get the point, right?

Now this might all work out somehow. I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.

Your idea has one small problem. while we produce only 0.4% of all yearly production of CO2, nature produces the other 99.6%.

Secondly, you are not considering the rate that CO2 is coming out of the atmosphere. For the last 40-60 years there has not been a significant increase in CO2 that could not be explained as natural fluxuation. Nature is packed with negative feedback loops. And if you want to consider your math technically we should be looking back 200 years then. And with that, you have a possible increase in CO2 in total quantity of 6000 gigatons extra, but it's not showing up in any atmospheric samples. and as well, nature then would have produced over 99 times that... so why isn't it all packed in our atmosphere making larger and larger quantities. Are all other gases increasing at the same rate? Is the atmosphere getting so much thicker?

This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.

 

[Toronado3800]

So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?

That's some magical CO2 we produced.

Sir or Madam,

Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually. Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it. After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.

I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.

Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math. More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees. But you get the point, right?

Now this might all work out somehow. I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.

Your idea has one small problem. while we produce only 0.4% of all yearly production of CO2, nature produces the other 99.6%.

Secondly, you are not considering the rate that CO2 is coming out of the atmosphere. For the last 40-60 years there has not been a significant increase in CO2 that could not be explained as natural fluxuation. Nature is packed with negative feedback loops. And if you want to consider your math technically we should be looking back 200 years then. And with that, you have a possible increase in CO2 in total quantity of 6000 gigatons extra, but it's not showing up in any atmospheric samples. and as well, nature then would have produced over 99 times that... so why isn't it all packed in our atmosphere making larger and larger quantities. Are all other gases increasing at the same rate? Is the atmosphere getting so much thicker?

This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.

Are you saying co2 is not 30 to 40 percent above pre industrial levels? Or that you are amazed it is not higher?