Climate change rhetoric?

[Old Rocks]

I didn't lie. I don't HAVE to lie. Your own words convict you.

In addition to dancing on dead people, you're also an idiot. I didn't change your words. Moron. Look in the OP again: The parts from your post are in quotes.

Idiot. Remind me again why you think you're so intelligent? Because I gotta tell you, the facts don't seem to bear that out.

Now, keep stamping your feet! It's aerobic!

Yep. Ol' Daveboy is a liar and builds strawmen every chance he gets.

But the point that Wry made is well taken. 'Conservatives' have made it a point of their political philosophy to claim that AGW is not happening, and there are no major changes happening in the climate, either. Made it a political point to the extent of cutting funding for replacing aging satellites that are used specifically for Hurricane observation. Now a good many people that study this sort of thing are stateing that we are in for a very busy hurricane season. If that does happen, after the tornado season we have already had, that is going to be a political point that will be brought up during the 2012 elections.

Yes, that will be used to show the anti-science bias of the GOP and the Teabaggers. To good effect, I might add, if we get a few more weather related disasters.

No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening.

Like hell they have not. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on earth says differant.

The scientific consensus does not even say that man is the primary driver of global warming. all it says is that global warming is occurring, and that our industry is a contributing factor.

That is not at all what it states. The scientific consensus is that our contribution is the primary factor.

There is serious debate about how much that we actually contribute to global warming, and some of the more excitable people (Al Gore) have made predictions that have been accepted as definitive, even though they are demonstrably incorrect.

OK, flapyap, show me the science. A link to a credible scientific source that states that we are not the primary driver of the present warming.

The basic problem lies in the fact that we still do not understand the mechanisms that trigger global warming. CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in water vapor, which will drive global temperatures up at a rate over and above that caused by the natural cycles of warming. That has not been observed.

Come on, now. That is about as big of a lie as they come. Yes, it has been observed, and the link was established over one hundred years ago by Svante Arnnhenius.

Why do you continue to insist that you understand the science and that the "deniers" are all wrong when you clearly do not understand anything?

OK, Windy, there is just one scientific article supporting my POV. Support yours.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.1413&rep=rep1&type=pdf

However, it was S. Arrhenius (1896) who laid the formal foundation linking
atmospheric gases to climate change. His main goal was to estimate the surfacetemperature
increase due to an increase in CO2. To this end, he developed a detailed
and quantitative model for the radiation budget of the atmosphere and surface.
Chamberlin (1899) also should get a major credit for this development. Arrhenius
recognized the importance of water vapor in determining the sensitivity of
climate to external forcing such as increase in CO2 and solar insolation. A simple
explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate
sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant
to climate change. As Earth warmed, the saturation vapor pressure (es) would
increase exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation,
and the elevated (es) would (if relative humidity remains the same) enhance
the water-vapor concentration, further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Although
it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer
as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive.
M¨oller (1963) used the assumption of constant relative humidity and obtained a
surprisingly large sensitivity for the surface temperature. The flaws of the surfacebalance
approach followed byM¨oller and others preceding him were illustrated by
Syukuro Manabe and his collaborators. In a series of studies (Manabe and Strickler,
1964; Manabe and Wetherald, 1967), they employed a one-dimensional radiativeconvective
model using a global mean atmosphere, which included both radiative
122 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor
and convective heat exchanges between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.
Their study clearly illustrated that the radiative energy balance of the surface–
atmosphere system is the fundamental quantity that governs global mean surface
temperature. This finding, perhaps, provided much of the motivation for satelliteradiation
budget studies, measuring the radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere
from which we can deduce the radiative forcing of the surface–atmosphere
system.
5.2.2 Development of quantum theory and spectroscopy
John Tyndall measured the heat absorption by gases (CO2 and H2O) through carefully
designed experiments in the laboratory. Based on the results of these experiments,
he concluded in his Bakerian lecture (Tyndall, 1861, p. 273–285), that the
chief influence on terrestrial rays is exercised by the aqueous vapor, every variation
of which must produce a climate change. His laboratory measurements were
extended and supplemented by direct observations of atmospheric transmission by
others during the following 30 years; the most important and reliable of such atmospheric
data were taken by Samuel P. Langley (1834-1906). Langley (1884; 1889)
designed a high precision thermal detector, the bolometer, and recorded numerous
observations of the lunar and solar spectra. He recorded both the broadband
radiance and the spectral radiance in about 20 spectral bands between 0.9 and
30 μm. Langley’s data enabled Arrhenius to attempt his pioneering calculation.
The wavelength-dependence of the line absorption and the complexity of the radiative
transfer in an inhomogeneous atmosphere were not included by Arrhenius, for
these physics awaited the discovery of quantum mechanics. The birth of the quantum
mechanical theory in the early twentieth century heralded the beginning of the
theoretical and experimental spectroscopy, eventually leading to the availability of
i

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening" True. Yet the converse is true; no one has disproved that "man-centered" global warming is happening.

Why would one side not want to know for certain?

Who says they don't want to know? Intelligent people just see no reason to slam the world back into the stone age to prevent something that may not be our fault.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in water vapor, which will drive global temperatures up at a rate over and above that caused by the natural cycles of warming. That has not been observed.

It has been observed:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2005FasulloSmith.pdf

Global warming has been observed, nothing tying it to man has been observed outside the fevered imaginations of cultists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep. Ol' Daveboy is a liar and builds strawmen every chance he gets.

But the point that Wry made is well taken. 'Conservatives' have made it a point of their political philosophy to claim that AGW is not happening, and there are no major changes happening in the climate, either. Made it a political point to the extent of cutting funding for replacing aging satellites that are used specifically for Hurricane observation. Now a good many people that study this sort of thing are stateing that we are in for a very busy hurricane season. If that does happen, after the tornado season we have already had, that is going to be a political point that will be brought up during the 2012 elections.

Yes, that will be used to show the anti-science bias of the GOP and the Teabaggers. To good effect, I might add, if we get a few more weather related disasters.

No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening.

Like hell they have not. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on earth says differant.

The scientific consensus does not even say that man is the primary driver of global warming. all it says is that global warming is occurring, and that our industry is a contributing factor.

That is not at all what it states. The scientific consensus is that our contribution is the primary factor.

There is serious debate about how much that we actually contribute to global warming, and some of the more excitable people (Al Gore) have made predictions that have been accepted as definitive, even though they are demonstrably incorrect.

OK, flapyap, show me the science. A link to a credible scientific source that states that we are not the primary driver of the present warming.

The basic problem lies in the fact that we still do not understand the mechanisms that trigger global warming. CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in water vapor, which will drive global temperatures up at a rate over and above that caused by the natural cycles of warming. That has not been observed.

Come on, now. That is about as big of a lie as they come. Yes, it has been observed, and the link was established over one hundred years ago by Svante Arnnhenius.

Why do you continue to insist that you understand the science and that the "deniers" are all wrong when you clearly do not understand anything?

OK, Windy, there is just one scientific article supporting my POV. Support yours.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.1413&rep=rep1&type=pdf

However, it was S. Arrhenius (1896) who laid the formal foundation linking
atmospheric gases to climate change. His main goal was to estimate the surfacetemperature
increase due to an increase in CO2. To this end, he developed a detailed
and quantitative model for the radiation budget of the atmosphere and surface.
Chamberlin (1899) also should get a major credit for this development. Arrhenius
recognized the importance of water vapor in determining the sensitivity of
climate to external forcing such as increase in CO2 and solar insolation. A simple
explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate
sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant
to climate change. As Earth warmed, the saturation vapor pressure (es) would
increase exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation,
and the elevated (es) would (if relative humidity remains the same) enhance
the water-vapor concentration, further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Although
it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer
as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive.
M¨oller (1963) used the assumption of constant relative humidity and obtained a
surprisingly large sensitivity for the surface temperature. The flaws of the surfacebalance
approach followed byM¨oller and others preceding him were illustrated by
Syukuro Manabe and his collaborators. In a series of studies (Manabe and Strickler,
1964; Manabe and Wetherald, 1967), they employed a one-dimensional radiativeconvective
model using a global mean atmosphere, which included both radiative
122 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor
and convective heat exchanges between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.
Their study clearly illustrated that the radiative energy balance of the surface–
atmosphere system is the fundamental quantity that governs global mean surface
temperature. This finding, perhaps, provided much of the motivation for satelliteradiation
budget studies, measuring the radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere
from which we can deduce the radiative forcing of the surface–atmosphere
system.
5.2.2 Development of quantum theory and spectroscopy
John Tyndall measured the heat absorption by gases (CO2 and H2O) through carefully
designed experiments in the laboratory. Based on the results of these experiments,
he concluded in his Bakerian lecture (Tyndall, 1861, p. 273–285), that the
chief influence on terrestrial rays is exercised by the aqueous vapor, every variation
of which must produce a climate change. His laboratory measurements were
extended and supplemented by direct observations of atmospheric transmission by
others during the following 30 years; the most important and reliable of such atmospheric
data were taken by Samuel P. Langley (1834-1906). Langley (1884; 1889)
designed a high precision thermal detector, the bolometer, and recorded numerous
observations of the lunar and solar spectra. He recorded both the broadband
radiance and the spectral radiance in about 20 spectral bands between 0.9 and
30 μm. Langley’s data enabled Arrhenius to attempt his pioneering calculation.
The wavelength-dependence of the line absorption and the complexity of the radiative
transfer in an inhomogeneous atmosphere were not included by Arrhenius, for
these physics awaited the discovery of quantum mechanics. The birth of the quantum
mechanical theory in the early twentieth century heralded the beginning of the
theoretical and experimental spectroscopy, eventually leading to the availability of
i

Why do idiots have the need to edit quotes? If you want to respond to me do not edit my quote to do so.

 

[MaggieMae]

"No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening" True. Yet the converse is true; no one has disproved that "man-centered" global warming is happening.

Why would one side not want to know for certain?

Who says they don't want to know? Intelligent people just see no reason to slam the world back into the stone age to prevent something that may not be our fault.

Uh, no, with something as serious as this, it's called being PROactive. The world relies too heavily today on Mother Earth's resources to rely on an oh-well, ho-hum mindset if there's anything that can be done by man to diminish the effects of devastation contributed to by man.

 

[MaggieMae]

CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in water vapor, which will drive global temperatures up at a rate over and above that caused by the natural cycles of warming. That has not been observed.

It has been observed:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2005FasulloSmith.pdf

Global warming has been observed, nothing tying it to man has been observed outside the fevered imaginations of cultists.

World population growth (historic):

World Population - The Current World Population

With 600 million passenger cars worldwide (roughly one car per eleven people); countless other modes of transportation; millions of factories. It's absurd to think that a small planet such as ours can absorb that much added strain on natural resources so as not to cause Mother Earth to be overloaded and start belching out complaints.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening" True. Yet the converse is true; no one has disproved that "man-centered" global warming is happening.

Why would one side not want to know for certain?

Who says they don't want to know? Intelligent people just see no reason to slam the world back into the stone age to prevent something that may not be our fault.

Uh, no, with something as serious as this, it's called being PROactive. The world relies too heavily today on Mother Earth's resources to rely on an oh-well, ho-hum mindset if there's anything that can be done by man to diminish the effects of devastation contributed to by man.

Which is exactly my point.

Al Gore leads a cult that believes it is better to kill off half the population, keep new countries from industrializing, and force industrialized countries to scale back their life style, all just to prevent something that is not happening from occurring.

There would have to be a group of "enlightened" that are exempt form this in order to oversee the proper education and maintenance of the world though, which is why he flies around in a private jet.

The facts are that, if the worst case scenario does come, it will take thousands of years. Believe it or not, I think the human race is smart enough to find answers before that happens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It has been observed:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2005FasulloSmith.pdf

Global warming has been observed, nothing tying it to man has been observed outside the fevered imaginations of cultists.

World population growth (historic):

World Population - The Current World Population

With 600 million passenger cars worldwide (roughly one car per eleven people); countless other modes of transportation; millions of factories. It's absurd to think that a small planet such as ours can absorb that much added strain on natural resources so as not to cause Mother Earth to be overloaded and start belching out complaints.

Sorry, we already reached the point of no return.

The Population Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RWatt]

The facts are that, if the worst case scenario does come, it will take thousands of years. Believe it or not, I think the human race is smart enough to find answers before that happens.

What is the worse case scenario?

There's bad stuff like the amazon rain forest dying back, or ocean currents altering course. Not sure if those would take thousands of years. Decades possibly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The facts are that, if the worst case scenario does come, it will take thousands of years. Believe it or not, I think the human race is smart enough to find answers before that happens.

What is the worse case scenario?

There's bad stuff like the amazon rain forest dying back, or ocean currents altering course. Not sure if those would take thousands of years. Decades possibly?

The Amazon rain forest is not dying back, it is being cut back for farms and exploration. Blaming that on climate change is disingenuous. As far as the oceans, Al Gore predicted a 20 foot rise in sea level. That would require all the glaciers to melt, which would take thousands of years.

 

[Old Rocks]

No one has yet proven that "man-centered" global warming is happening.

Like hell they have not. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on earth says differant.

The scientific consensus does not even say that man is the primary driver of global warming. all it says is that global warming is occurring, and that our industry is a contributing factor.

That is not at all what it states. The scientific consensus is that our contribution is the primary factor.

There is serious debate about how much that we actually contribute to global warming, and some of the more excitable people (Al Gore) have made predictions that have been accepted as definitive, even though they are demonstrably incorrect.

OK, flapyap, show me the science. A link to a credible scientific source that states that we are not the primary driver of the present warming.

The basic problem lies in the fact that we still do not understand the mechanisms that trigger global warming. CO2 is supposed to cause an increase in water vapor, which will drive global temperatures up at a rate over and above that caused by the natural cycles of warming. That has not been observed.

Come on, now. That is about as big of a lie as they come. Yes, it has been observed, and the link was established over one hundred years ago by Svante Arnnhenius.

Why do you continue to insist that you understand the science and that the "deniers" are all wrong when you clearly do not understand anything?

OK, Windy, there is just one scientific article supporting my POV. Support yours.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.1413&rep=rep1&type=pdf

However, it was S. Arrhenius (1896) who laid the formal foundation linking
atmospheric gases to climate change. His main goal was to estimate the surfacetemperature
increase due to an increase in CO2. To this end, he developed a detailed
and quantitative model for the radiation budget of the atmosphere and surface.
Chamberlin (1899) also should get a major credit for this development. Arrhenius
recognized the importance of water vapor in determining the sensitivity of
climate to external forcing such as increase in CO2 and solar insolation. A simple
explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate
sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant
to climate change. As Earth warmed, the saturation vapor pressure (es) would
increase exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation,
and the elevated (es) would (if relative humidity remains the same) enhance
the water-vapor concentration, further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Although
it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer
as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive.
M¨oller (1963) used the assumption of constant relative humidity and obtained a
surprisingly large sensitivity for the surface temperature. The flaws of the surfacebalance
approach followed byM¨oller and others preceding him were illustrated by
Syukuro Manabe and his collaborators. In a series of studies (Manabe and Strickler,
1964; Manabe and Wetherald, 1967), they employed a one-dimensional radiativeconvective
model using a global mean atmosphere, which included both radiative
122 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor
and convective heat exchanges between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.
Their study clearly illustrated that the radiative energy balance of the surface–
atmosphere system is the fundamental quantity that governs global mean surface
temperature. This finding, perhaps, provided much of the motivation for satelliteradiation
budget studies, measuring the radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere
from which we can deduce the radiative forcing of the surface–atmosphere
system.
5.2.2 Development of quantum theory and spectroscopy
John Tyndall measured the heat absorption by gases (CO2 and H2O) through carefully
designed experiments in the laboratory. Based on the results of these experiments,
he concluded in his Bakerian lecture (Tyndall, 1861, p. 273–285), that the
chief influence on terrestrial rays is exercised by the aqueous vapor, every variation
of which must produce a climate change. His laboratory measurements were
extended and supplemented by direct observations of atmospheric transmission by
others during the following 30 years; the most important and reliable of such atmospheric
data were taken by Samuel P. Langley (1834-1906). Langley (1884; 1889)
designed a high precision thermal detector, the bolometer, and recorded numerous
observations of the lunar and solar spectra. He recorded both the broadband
radiance and the spectral radiance in about 20 spectral bands between 0.9 and
30 μm. Langley’s data enabled Arrhenius to attempt his pioneering calculation.
The wavelength-dependence of the line absorption and the complexity of the radiative
transfer in an inhomogeneous atmosphere were not included by Arrhenius, for
these physics awaited the discovery of quantum mechanics. The birth of the quantum
mechanical theory in the early twentieth century heralded the beginning of the
theoretical and experimental spectroscopy, eventually leading to the availability of
i

Why do idiots have the need to edit quotes? If you want to respond to me do not edit my quote to do so.

Don't like having your ignorance point out in detail?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, Windy, there is just one scientific article supporting my POV. Support yours.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.1413&rep=rep1&type=pdf

However, it was S. Arrhenius (1896) who laid the formal foundation linking
atmospheric gases to climate change. His main goal was to estimate the surfacetemperature
increase due to an increase in CO2. To this end, he developed a detailed
and quantitative model for the radiation budget of the atmosphere and surface.
Chamberlin (1899) also should get a major credit for this development. Arrhenius
recognized the importance of water vapor in determining the sensitivity of
climate to external forcing such as increase in CO2 and solar insolation. A simple
explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate
sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant
to climate change. As Earth warmed, the saturation vapor pressure (es) would
increase exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation,
and the elevated (es) would (if relative humidity remains the same) enhance
the water-vapor concentration, further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Although
it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer
as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive.
M¨oller (1963) used the assumption of constant relative humidity and obtained a
surprisingly large sensitivity for the surface temperature. The flaws of the surfacebalance
approach followed byM¨oller and others preceding him were illustrated by
Syukuro Manabe and his collaborators. In a series of studies (Manabe and Strickler,
1964; Manabe and Wetherald, 1967), they employed a one-dimensional radiativeconvective
model using a global mean atmosphere, which included both radiative
122 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor
and convective heat exchanges between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.
Their study clearly illustrated that the radiative energy balance of the surface–
atmosphere system is the fundamental quantity that governs global mean surface
temperature. This finding, perhaps, provided much of the motivation for satelliteradiation
budget studies, measuring the radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere
from which we can deduce the radiative forcing of the surface–atmosphere
system.
5.2.2 Development of quantum theory and spectroscopy
John Tyndall measured the heat absorption by gases (CO2 and H2O) through carefully
designed experiments in the laboratory. Based on the results of these experiments,
he concluded in his Bakerian lecture (Tyndall, 1861, p. 273–285), that the
chief influence on terrestrial rays is exercised by the aqueous vapor, every variation
of which must produce a climate change. His laboratory measurements were
extended and supplemented by direct observations of atmospheric transmission by
others during the following 30 years; the most important and reliable of such atmospheric
data were taken by Samuel P. Langley (1834-1906). Langley (1884; 1889)
designed a high precision thermal detector, the bolometer, and recorded numerous
observations of the lunar and solar spectra. He recorded both the broadband
radiance and the spectral radiance in about 20 spectral bands between 0.9 and
30 μm. Langley’s data enabled Arrhenius to attempt his pioneering calculation.
The wavelength-dependence of the line absorption and the complexity of the radiative
transfer in an inhomogeneous atmosphere were not included by Arrhenius, for
these physics awaited the discovery of quantum mechanics. The birth of the quantum
mechanical theory in the early twentieth century heralded the beginning of the
theoretical and experimental spectroscopy, eventually leading to the availability of
i

Why do idiots have the need to edit quotes? If you want to respond to me do not edit my quote to do so.

Don't like having your ignorance point out in detail?

Did you? I stopped reading when I saw you violated forum rules and edited my quote. Since you cannot follow a simple rule like that I assumed that everything you posted was equally based on a complete lack of understanding and respect of the fundamentals of science. If it makes your small and pagiarizing brain feel better to assume that means I feel threatened by all means believe it. Just do not expect anyone, including the people who agree with you about AGW, to believe the same thing.