Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

[Meister]

Real fucking dumb, old boy. We are speaking of scientists from every nation and political system in the world. A consensus on AGW so strong that there is not a scientific society in the world, not even in Outer Slobovia, that states that AGW is not real.

All you have is denigration of good men and women doing a job for which many of them recieve less income than I do as a millwright in a steel mill.

Bullshit, dumbshit. There IS bias going on and there are reasons for it. Mann, got caught and opened the floodgates to it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you seem to be old enough to deal with it. You need to catch up, rockhead...you're sooo 2008.

Side note.....why would you work for a poluting steel mill? That just seems so hypocritical of you. tsk, tsk

hyp·o·crit·i·cal  [hip-uh-krit-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical

 

[IanC]

You simply don't get it wirebender. I am sorry, but this is all way over your head and I doubt that you will ever get it.

Mumble much to yourself these days?

in your house analogy- if you place bookshelves, furniture, draperies, etc on outside walls then the heat will escape more slowly and the equilibrium temperature for a fixed amount of heat input will go up.

The heat will never go up unless more energy is brought into the system ian. Cooling more slowly does not equal warmer no matter how you slice it.



It isn't a claim ian, it is a proven, observable fact predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. Sorry you can't understand.

you claim that CO2 cools the surface.

CO2 serves to scatter IR. That can't be construed as a means to increase temperature in any fashion.

your logic and understanding of physical processes is distorted by your contrarian need to go against accepted scientific principles. you suffer from the same religious fervor that many AGW catatrophists do, just in the opposiite direction.

Sorry ian, but it isn't me who must distort and torture the laws of physics in an attempt to make them jibe with my beliefs.

do you ever re-read what you write? is it not torturing and distorting the laws of physics to claim that clothing cools a person down? sometimes you focus on a particular local temp, sometimes you focus on the overall heat content of a particular area, sometimes you are just full of shit.

the human body only cares about keeping the core at 37C. without clothing it is the skin which is radiating heat to the environment and the skin temp is important to figuring out the heat loss. when a body wears clothes then it is the temp of the clothes that is important to figure out the heat loss and the skin temp doesnt matter as it is only a part of the temp gradient from the 37C core to the environment.

with the earth/atmosphere system we care about the surface temp. it doesnt matter to us that the sun's input is matched to the TOA output. we care about the surface boundary where we live. when the concentration of CO2 affects the equilibrium temp we notice. personally I think the CO2 factor is mitigated by other factors but it still needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[wirebender]

Hi! King of density here.

I didn't get the answer from what you said. Is IR radiation and IR Photons the same thing?

Let me simply give you the definition of "photon" from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle.

Just to make sure that this is perfectly clear, I will also provide, from the same dictionary, the definition of quantum.

quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

There is no doubt that IR radiation is Electromagnetic radiation. The IR that radiates away from the earth constitutes an EM field. The smallest bit of the IR that radiates away from the earth and makes up the massive EM field radiating away from the surface of the earth is the photon. A photon isn't, as some like to believe, a free particle that goes zipping around the universe without regard to the EM fields it is a part of, and not being matter, they don't have to have matter in order to interact.

Photons and IR are one and the same. The photon is nothing more than the smallest possible bit of IR radiation and is constrained by the same physical laws as the EM field that it helps to make up.

 

[wirebender]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Of course, for people like yourself, any real scientific source is fraudulent. After all, what the hell to them pointy headed scientists really know?

Always with the scripture there rocks. Aren't you aware by now that there isn't a shred of proof of anything in that particular bit of dogma? There is no proof in the whole link or any of the links it provides. It is no more than a baseless proclamation without even the smallest bit of observed, repeatable evidence for support. It is made of the same fabric as the emperor's new clothes.

Your dogma goes off the deep end with the very first sentence. Name a period when the earth's climate was not either warming or cooling? Name a period when the climate of the earth was in perfect balance. Are you not aware that a perfect, or even slight balance of the various systems that make up the earth's climate would go against the law of conservation of energy? Entropy rocks. Entropy and balance are working at odds rocks and have been forever. Balance in any of the earth's systems is a myth.

 

[wirebender]

do you ever re-read what you write? is it not torturing and distorting the laws of physics to claim that clothing cools a person down? sometimes you focus on a particular local temp, sometimes you focus on the overall heat content of a particular area, sometimes you are just full of shit.

And once again, you demonstrate that this topic is over your head. You operate on intuition rather than the math and the laws of physics that support the math. As I have said, the fact that clothing cools down the skin it comes into contact with is an observable, repeatable fact that is predicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact the math has been done for you and you still don't believe brings you right into rock's back yard with all the other dogmatists.

with the earth/atmosphere system we care about the surface temp. it doesnt matter to us that the sun's input is matched to the TOA output. we care about the surface boundary where we live. when the concentration of CO2 affects the equilibrium temp we notice. personally I think the CO2 factor is mitigated by other factors but it still needs to be taken into consideration.

CO2 is not your culprit ian. You don't need a greenhouse effect to keep the temperature of a planet higher than the level it would achieve from blackbody radiation alone. Adiabatic compression alone accounts for the temperature of the earth. All you need do is look about the solar system ian and consider the fact that the physics that form the basis of the ad hoc model of the earth energy budget used to explain our temperature don't even come close to predicting the temperatures of the various planets.

Look at jupiter with a hydrogen helium atmosphere as opposed to so called GHG's. Certainly above blackbody but no greenhouse effect to be found. The temperature of venus is easily predicted via adiabatic pressure and ideal gas laws, no greenhouse effect needed.

The greenhouse effect is a myth ian. An ad hoc explanation custom tailored for earth. Plug the parameters of other planets into the model used for earth and you don't even get close to the reality of the other planets. The fact that the model explains the temperature of earth is sheer coincidence. In fact, adiabatic hypotheses dealing with the earth's atmosphere predict some slight cooling as a result of additional CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of thermal expansion when IR is absorbed and re emitted by so called greehouse gasses.

Your belief in the power of CO2 is misplaced ian. Eventually you will come to see it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Ian, just call it like it is. Bent is completely full of shit all of the time.

 

[konradv]

So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

As far as the current abrupt warming trend goes, scientists are very clear that it is the extra 40% of fossil carbon that mankind has added to the atmosphere that is causing it.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.

It seems that you are incapable of comprehending simple English 'cause, dude, that is not at all what I said. There are other factors, such as El Nino/La Nina, that drive the year to year variability and that variability can cause world average temperatures to vary slightly within the overall trend of rising temperatures. So some years wind up being cooler than some of the immediately preceding years but still hotter than the previous averages spanning 40 years or so.

I understand what you said and what it means. You, apparently, only understand what you said.

Our planet warmed by about .4 degrees between the year zero and the 1000. Between the year 1000 and the year 2000 our world warmed by about .3 degrees.

I don't doubt the theory proposed by the AGW crowd because I disagree with the science. I doubt it because the effect you predict based on the cause you cite is simply not there.

Between the year 2000 and now, we have flat or decreasing temperatures.

Your case rests on the effect of warming following the cause of increased CO2. We have the highest CO2 in this interglacial and yet we are 1 degree cooler than the high in this interglacial, the rate of warming is slowing comparing one millennium to the last and we are recently not warming at all.

Where is your proof? If it is warming then it should be, well, warmer and that warming should be accelerating, not slowing.

It will accelerate, when natural fluctuations aren't blunting the effect. What happens when we come out of the current solar minimum? What happens when CO2 continues to rise, more IR is absorbed and then re-emitted towards earth?

 

[Old Rocks]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

 

[Meister]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

AGU sessions in San Francisco? Sure, no bias there. Good grief!

 

[wirebender]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

And you and yours completely ignore the fact that nothing that is going on in the climate today even approaches the boundries of natural variability. You also fail to note the fact that the warming simply isn't increasing despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. Your dogma simply does not support the climate as it is.

 

[wirebender]

Now Ian, just call it like it is. Bent is completely full of shit all of the time.

Says the man to whom even basic mathematics is a mystery.

 

[Old Rocks]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

And you and yours completely ignore the fact that nothing that is going on in the climate today even approaches the boundries of natural variability. You also fail to note the fact that the warming simply isn't increasing despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. Your dogma simply does not support the climate as it is.

Another complete lie from someone that does not read or understand science. The Shnieder lecture answers your point in full concerning natural variability. Not that you will ever diegn to read what a real scientist states.

 

[Old Rocks]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

AGU sessions in San Francisco? Sure, no bias there. Good grief!

Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.

 

[wirebender]

Another complete lie from someone that does not read or understand science. The Shnieder lecture answers your point in full concerning natural variability. Not that you will ever diegn to read what a real scientist states.

No he doesn't. He tiptoes by the topic with terror in his eyes. The amount of climate change we are seeing and have been seing for the past 200 years hardly amounts to even a small bit of noise when compared with natural variability.

 

[code1211]

You mentioned an increase in CO2. That's the "extra" I'm talking about. Extra CO2 leads to extra trapped IR, leads to an increased amount of re-emitedd IR heading towards earth. That's what I'm talking about when I say the skeptics/deniers ignore the Conservation of Energy question.

I've posted the link to this numerous times and if you demand I find it again, I'll try.

There are several sources that say that the effect of each identical increase in the ppm of CO2 in the air has a decreasing impact on the climate. The comparison has been made to painting a window pain which blocks much of the light from passing through. Following that another coat of paint is applied and then another and so on.

Another analogy compares this to covering a window with a drape and then another and then another.

The comparison of course is adding to the CO2 which prevents some of the IR from escaping into space.

In either analogy the darkening effect of each succeeding layer is reduced from the previous. At some point, the effect is not noticeable.

In the case of CO2, I have read that 20 ppm is enough to prevent snowball Earth. Each Succeeding addition of 20 ppm would have a decreasing amount of warming impact. At this point, increasing CO2 should have almost no impact and what do you know? It hasn't much.

Anyway, back to "extra" CO2. In all of nature, things increase and decrease. "Extra" is a notion carried by people who think that there is a perfect balance that must be maintained. When CO2 increases, nature will adapt to consume that by providing some thing or things that will consume it.

The illusion that the amount of CO2 was correct was only because nature had made the adaptation and the system was in balance. This is not a magic or preordained thing. It just happens. Lots of grass? Lots of buffalo. Plenty of wetlands? Plenty of ducks.

Lots of sailors? Gentlemen's clubs.

Ain't nature just great?

Code, this "I have read" sucks. Cite your sources or be considered in the same light as the other intellectual lightweights that believe we should give credance to something without the slightest verification.

A drop from 280 ppm to 180 ppm puts continental glaciers in the US.

How many times do i need to post the same information? Here is still another of the many links that say the same thing.

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

<snip>

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

<snip>

 

[code1211]

Real fucking dumb, old boy. We are speaking of scientists from every nation and political system in the world. A consensus on AGW so strong that there is not a scientific society in the world, not even in Outer Slobovia, that states that AGW is not real.

All you have is denigration of good men and women doing a job for which many of them recieve less income than I do as a millwright in a steel mill.

We are talking about a matter of scale though, are we not?

 

[code1211]

Hi! King of density here.

I didn't get the answer from what you said. Is IR radiation and IR Photons the same thing?

Let me simply give you the definition of "photon" from the science dictionary:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle.

Just to make sure that this is perfectly clear, I will also provide, from the same dictionary, the definition of quantum.

quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

There is no doubt that IR radiation is Electromagnetic radiation. The IR that radiates away from the earth constitutes an EM field. The smallest bit of the IR that radiates away from the earth and makes up the massive EM field radiating away from the surface of the earth is the photon. A photon isn't, as some like to believe, a free particle that goes zipping around the universe without regard to the EM fields it is a part of, and not being matter, they don't have to have matter in order to interact.

Photons and IR are one and the same. The photon is nothing more than the smallest possible bit of IR radiation and is constrained by the same physical laws as the EM field that it helps to make up.

Thank you. Einstein said that you never really understand anything until you can explain it to your grandmother.

My ability to understand science and math makes most grandmothers look like prodigies.

 

[code1211]

As far as the current abrupt warming trend goes, scientists are very clear that it is the extra 40% of fossil carbon that mankind has added to the atmosphere that is causing it.


It seems that you are incapable of comprehending simple English 'cause, dude, that is not at all what I said. There are other factors, such as El Nino/La Nina, that drive the year to year variability and that variability can cause world average temperatures to vary slightly within the overall trend of rising temperatures. So some years wind up being cooler than some of the immediately preceding years but still hotter than the previous averages spanning 40 years or so.

I understand what you said and what it means. You, apparently, only understand what you said.

Our planet warmed by about .4 degrees between the year zero and the 1000. Between the year 1000 and the year 2000 our world warmed by about .3 degrees.

I don't doubt the theory proposed by the AGW crowd because I disagree with the science. I doubt it because the effect you predict based on the cause you cite is simply not there.

Between the year 2000 and now, we have flat or decreasing temperatures.

Your case rests on the effect of warming following the cause of increased CO2. We have the highest CO2 in this interglacial and yet we are 1 degree cooler than the high in this interglacial, the rate of warming is slowing comparing one millennium to the last and we are recently not warming at all.

Where is your proof? If it is warming then it should be, well, warmer and that warming should be accelerating, not slowing.

It will accelerate, when natural fluctuations aren't blunting the effect. What happens when we come out of the current solar minimum? What happens when CO2 continues to rise, more IR is absorbed and then re-emitted towards earth?

How much IR is there?

What is the top end end possibility of the CO2 to absorb The IR and retain it close to the surface?

If all of the IR is retained, is there any more to be retained? Is it possible to retain all of it? Is there a maximum that can be retained?

How much does the GHG effect of CO2 diminish as the ppm increase? How much will we need to increase the CO2 to effect another degree of increase?

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

<snip>

Here is how Thomas Nelson describes it in &#8220;Cold Facts on Global Warming&#8221;:

It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb virtually all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of less than one km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.

<snip>

 

[code1211]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

Not ignoring anything. It is you that asserts that the CO2 is prime driver of climate.

You also seem to assert that CO2 is a weak constituent cause that can be and is overpowered by almost anything from TSI to La Nina.

So, according to you, controlling CO2 equates to controlling climate. Also according to you, CO2 is constantly overpowered by anything and everything else in the climate system. Interesting theory that adjusts to accommodate any set of facts without ever being able to make an accurate prediction.

No amount of rationalization will change the fact that the rate of warming is slowing and the panic you seek is not justified.

Any progress in rationalizing away the work of the scientists at CERN?

CERN Experiment Finds Possible Link Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change | Popular Science

<snip>

Naturally, different scientists are reaching different conclusions, but all seem to think this experiment is a worthwhile idea, even if it basically asks more questions than it answers. So, just to recap, the whole climate change argument has not been put to rest. Maybe I should’ve noted that at the beginning of the post.

<snip>

 

[westwall]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

Not ignoring anything. It is you that asserts that the CO2 is prime driver of climate.

You also seem to assert that CO2 is a weak constituent cause that can be and is overpowered by almost anything from TSI to La Nina.

So, according to you, controlling CO2 equates to controlling climate. Also according to you, CO2 is constantly overpowered by anything and everything else in the climate system. Interesting theory that adjusts to accommodate any set of facts without ever being able to make an accurate prediction.

No amount of rationalization will change the fact that the rate of warming is slowing and the panic you seek is not justified.

Any progress in rationalizing away the work of the scientists at CERN?

CERN Experiment Finds Possible Link Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change | Popular Science

<snip>

Naturally, different scientists are reaching different conclusions, but all seem to think this experiment is a worthwhile idea, even if it basically asks more questions than it answers. So, just to recap, the whole climate change argument has not been put to rest. Maybe I should’ve noted that at the beginning of the post.

<snip>

Pretty much sums up their argument. Now what was that about non-falsifiability?