Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[gslack]

SSDD -

I certainly don't expect anyone to reproduce weather in a lab. That isn't the issue though.

Then stop posting this childish gibberish about climate change not being reproduced in a lab - it's as simple as that.

I am not and never have asked to see climate change demonstrated in a lab you blithering babbling fool. I have asked and wii continue to ask for some credible demonstration of the basic mechanism by which you claim CO2 causes climate change, I.E. adding X amount of CO2 to a system results in Y amount of temperature increase. If you can demonstrate than change results in a temperature increase then we ca look at the claimed changes that might result from that temperature increase. But if you can't demonstrate that X amount of CO2 results in Y amount of warming the you are expecting me to accept the rest on faith.

Saigonmoothifitzpmzorganman, thinks since he posts from his moms house, and mom lets him dictate there, than he can dictate here as well...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -



Then stop posting this childish gibberish about climate change not being reproduced in a lab - it's as simple as that.

I am not and never have asked to see climate change demonstrated in a lab you blithering babbling fool. I have asked and wii continue to ask for some credible demonstration of the basic mechanism by which you claim CO2 causes climate change, I.E. adding X amount of CO2 to a system results in Y amount of temperature increase. If you can demonstrate than change results in a temperature increase then we ca look at the claimed changes that might result from that temperature increase. But if you can't demonstrate that X amount of CO2 results in Y amount of warming the you are expecting me to accept the rest on faith.

Saigonmoothifitzpmzorganman, thinks since he posts from his moms house, and mom lets him dictate there, than he can dictate here as well...

It's amazing. They have such a small understanding of scince that they can't grasp the difference between proving the basic mechanism by which a hypothesis is supposed to operate and proving the entire hypothesis....and further, the can't see the importance of actually proving that basic mechanism. They are willing to simply accept the basic mechanism on faith because there has never been a single experiment done that either proves the existence of backradiation or that the additon of some amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will result in some amount of warming.

Such a complete ignorance of science and yet, they like to call us anti science....when in reality, we are the only ones who are actually trying to get at the science via the dictates of the scientific method.

 

[Saigon]

They have such a small understanding of scince

and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.

 

[PMZ]

Anybody know what happens to any volume of matter that takes in more heat energy than it can pass on?

Sure, it warms up. Did the sun increase its output? Or did the earth's core suddenly become warmer? If not, then what's your point since those two are the only sources of heat available.

You warmer cultists seem to forget that little fact all the time in your belief that CO2 is an energy source.

We'll, you're revealed several gaps in your knowledge.

Let's start with the very basics.

The sun radiates short wavelength energy , a tiny fraction of which falls on the top of our atmosphere. Some of that gets reflected back away from us, some gets absorbed into components of our atmosphere warming them, but some makes it all the way to land and sea. If that was the end if the story the earth would get hotter and hotter forever. So it's not the whole story.

As the land and seas warm, they radiate long wave energy away, some of which reaches the top of earth's atmosphere. When the total energy leaving the top of our atmosphere is equal to what is coming in, our global climate is stable. Less going out produces warming, more produces cooling.

Any questions so far?

 

[SSDD]

They have such a small understanding of scince

and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.

And the fact that no experiment exists that can demonstrate that fundamental mechanism should trouble every one of them. Although the number who believe isn't nearly as high as you believe.

 

[mamooth]

Anyone dumb and dishonest enough to fall for your "No one has measured backradiation!" idiot lie has already fallen for it. So why keep repeating it? We know that your tiny retard clique will keep agreeing with you, while all the normal people will keep laughing at you.

 

[PMZ]

SSDD has a rule. You can trust business with your life but always be suspicious of science. Business told him to believe that so what choice does he have?

 

[PMZ]

They have such a small understanding of scince

and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.

And the fact that no experiment exists that can demonstrate that fundamental mechanism should trouble every one of them. Although the number who believe isn't nearly as high as you believe.

There are 100s of experiments which together provide the overwhelming evidence of the cost to mankind of our fossil fuel addiction waste disposal methods.

I would guess that only maybe 9
10 percent of the country are capable of understanding that science.

Good news. You have good company and a lot of it.

Don't worry. We won't just leave you behind.

 

[SSDD]

We'll, you're revealed several gaps in your knowledge.

Sorry goober, but the gaps belong entirely to you.

Let's start with the very basics.

To late for you I think. You should have started with the basics before you drank the koolaid.

The sun radiates short wavelength energy , a tiny fraction of which falls on the top of our atmosphere. Some of that gets reflected back away from us, some gets absorbed into components of our atmosphere warming them, but some makes it all the way to land and sea. If that was the end if the story the earth would get hotter and hotter forever. So it's not the whole story.

As the land and seas warm, they radiate long wave energy away, some of which reaches the top of earth's atmosphere. When the total energy leaving the top of our atmosphere is equal to what is coming in, our global climate is stable. Less going out produces warming, more produces cooling.

Before you make the assumption that less is going out, you must first demonstrate that less, is in fact going out. That will be somewhat difficult as this graph created with data from NOAA clearly shows that outgoing OLR has in fact, increased since 1975.

Since it is clear that some warming did take place in the latter part of the 20th century, and the satellites show us clearly that it was not due to less outgoing OLR, then we must assume that the warming was caused by more incoming solar energy. A quick search of the published material reveals several papers that confirm that as the end of the 20th century approached, the activity of the sun, was, in fact, higher than at any time for approximately 9000 years.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Gh-NsgvO...g/s400/Fullscreen+capture+342013+72040+PM.jpg

A recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examines ice core and tree ring radionuclides and finds solar activity at the end of the 20th century was at the highest levels of the record spanning the past 9,400 years.

9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows 20th century solar activity was at highest levels of past 9,400 years

A new paper published in Astronomy & Astrophysics finds that solar activity may be influenced by gravitational torque from the orbital configuration of the planets. In addition, the authors show that solar activity during the 20th century was at the highest levels of the past 9,400 years.

Is there a planetary influence on solar activity? | A&A

There are others showing the same findings, but you either do or do not get the picture.

Then we come to the pause. What might have caused it? Certainly not a decrease in atmospheric CO2...that has been rising steadily all along. Since increased solar activity in the latter part of the 20th century clearly caused the warming, lets look to the sun for an explanation of the pause in warming. What has been going on with the sun for the past decade and a half or so? Any guesses? Decreased solar activity perhaps. The published literature tells us that a decrease in solar activity has indeed coincided with the lull in warming.

Any questions so far?

Why, yes, I have questions...questions about your magical gas.

1. Can you show any observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates that an increase of CO2 in an open atmosphere of X will result in a temperature increase of Y?

2. Can you show any observagle, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates backradiation?

3. The greenhouse hypothesis predicts that because increased CO2 will reduce the amount of OLR leaving the atmosphere (proven wrong by direct observation...see above), there will be a hot spot in the upper troposphere. It is an undeniable fact that the hot spot predicted by every climate model in use today does not exist. If in fact, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping heat, why has the hot spot not materialized?

 

[SSDD]

Anyone dumb and dishonest enough to fall for your "No one has measured backradiation!" idiot lie has already fallen for it. So why keep repeating it? We know that your tiny retard clique will keep agreeing with you, while all the normal people will keep laughing at you.

As I have already pointed out....every instrument that climate science claims to have measured backradiation with has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere. Such measurements would not be of backradiation as the warmer atmosphere would be radiating to the cooler instrument as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.

And I am afraid that the only people not laughing at you are your fellow passengers on the AGW crazy train.

 

[SSDD]

and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.

And the fact that no experiment exists that can demonstrate that fundamental mechanism should trouble every one of them. Although the number who believe isn't nearly as high as you believe.

There are 100s of experiments which together provide the overwhelming evidence of the cost to mankind of our fossil fuel addiction waste disposal methods.

But not one that demonstrates the basic mechanism by which you claim the AGW hypothesis works. Not one. You take the hypothesis on faith, not on evidence.

Why try and change the topic in such an obvious manner? Did you think no one would notice? The request was for an experiment that demonstrates the mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect......not evidence that we produce gasses that enter the atmosphere.

 

[westwall]

I notice that no one is questioning that the methane loop exists, and is a massive threat to life on this planet.

Much better to argue about what some idiot blogger wrote than actually deal with the science, I guess.

A far more serious and realistic threat is an asteroid strike. Funny how you morons ignore that VERY REAL threat and waste time and money on the hoax of global warming catastrophism.

Here's a hint. The world warms and cools. It has done so for BILLIONS of years. It has done so for the 3000 years that man has kept records of it doing so.... Why is it only now that the end is nigh?

Two reasons...MONEY and POWER.

Look who's pushing the fraud and look how much they stand to gain from it. Then look at their useful idiots (and oh how many of them there are!) and how absolutely clueless and unethical THEY are and you have an idea of just how desperate these clowns are becoming.

Goebbels would be sooooooooo proud of them...

 

[PMZ]

And the fact that no experiment exists that can demonstrate that fundamental mechanism should trouble every one of them. Although the number who believe isn't nearly as high as you believe.

There are 100s of experiments which together provide the overwhelming evidence of the cost to mankind of our fossil fuel addiction waste disposal methods.

But not one that demonstrates the basic mechanism by which you claim the AGW hypothesis works. Not one. You take the hypothesis on faith, not on evidence.

Why try and change the topic in such an obvious manner? Did you think no one would notice? The request was for an experiment that demonstrates the mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect......not evidence that we produce gasses that enter the atmosphere.

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

 

[IlarMeilyr]

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf

 

[westwall]

They have such a small understanding of scince

and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.

Wrong as usual.... there are certainly 74 climatologists who don't, but there are well over 30,000 REAL scientists who do....

Sucks to be you....

 

[mamooth]

As I have already pointed out....every instrument that climate science claims to have measured backradiation with has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere. Such measurements would not be of backradiation as the warmer atmosphere would be radiating to the cooler instrument as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.

That's right, the photons (or some other pseudo-intelligent process guiding them) look at the detector and decide to vanish and not hit the detector if the detector is warm. And you won't give a mechanism to explain how this psuedo-intelligent sorting process happens. You simply wave you hands around and declare it must be so, based on your megabotching of the second law. Real science tends to frown on those kind of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" theories. It's understood that photons don't magically vanish in flight just because they're heading for a hot surface, being that such a concept is insane.

You don't need a sensitive detector to detect backradiation. You simply need to walk outside. I went outside, it's a very humid night, so the temperature has remained hot. If it was a dry night, it would have cooled off quickly.

So, something about the water vapor holds the heat in. Dry air and humid air are nearly identical in conduction, convection and heat capacity, so those can't be the reasons.

What's left? Radiation, of course. The humid air interferes with the radiative transfer of heat outward much more so than dry air. Water vapor is absorbing more IR and radiating more of it back, which reduces the net heat flow outward and keeps temps high.

Do you have an explanation that doesn't involve backradiation as to why humid nights remain hot?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There are 100s of experiments which together provide the overwhelming evidence of the cost to mankind of our fossil fuel addiction waste disposal methods.

But not one that demonstrates the basic mechanism by which you claim the AGW hypothesis works. Not one. You take the hypothesis on faith, not on evidence.

Why try and change the topic in such an obvious manner? Did you think no one would notice? The request was for an experiment that demonstrates the mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect......not evidence that we produce gasses that enter the atmosphere.

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

^ the experimental "design" was criticized heavily by a group of AGW PROPONENTS.

The experiment cited by PMZ says:

The two drinks bottles for part 1 should be identical, colourless, transparent, PET plastic (recycling code 1) water bottles, fizzy drink bottles or similar, of 1 dm3 capacity, capable of carrying a 2-hole rubber bung in the mouth (see Fig. 3). One hole is needed to carry the temperature sensor (or the thermometer if used), the other to allow air flow to prevent pressure build-up.

One of the bottles should be painted matt black on one ‘side’ and allowed to dry thoroughly.

The bottles should be secured in an upright position, without obscuring the light path from the lamp.

-- The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

HOWEVER --

In just ONE of several criticisms, by "ClimateChangeEducation.org," of a similar "experiment" (set up by "Keystone"), The AGW PROPONENT ClimateChangeEducation.org said,

"Despite Keystone's instructions,
the containers used are not at all 'clear,'
in wavelen[g]ths of infrared.
Students are deceived, not told that like
CO2 gas, the plastic absorbs infrared heat." --
Keystone's Faulty Greenhouse Experiment -- petroleum sponsored hands-on climate science education

©2011 ClimateChangeEducation.org: Climate Education Specialists, since 1999
We are a team of teachers, docents, scientists, engineers, techs, artists, students and parents providing
pro bono services for thousands of climate education programs worldwide. While primarily based at science museums
and the University of California, we work with hundreds of schools, programs and science institutions around the world
to strengthen the climate education community.

Then consider THIS regarding the "experiment" which PMS suggested:

Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is
commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely
different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air.

-- Abstract of the Wagoner, Liu and Tobin paper found at: Lueddecke Wrong Physics Greenhouse Effect Classroom project

YET, the "experiment" suggested by PMS discusses ADDING CO2 without even hinting at the greater density of CO2.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

As I have already pointed out....every instrument that climate science claims to have measured backradiation with has been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere. Such measurements would not be of backradiation as the warmer atmosphere would be radiating to the cooler instrument as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.

That's right, the photons (or some other pseudo-intelligent process guiding them) look at the detector and decide to vanish and not hit the detector if the detector is warm. And you won't give a mechanism to explain how this psuedo-intelligent sorting process happens. You simply wave you hands around and declare it must be so, based on your megabotching of the second law. Real science tends to frown on those kind of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" theories. It's understood that photons don't magically vanish in flight just because they're heading for a hot surface, being that such a concept is insane.

You don't need a sensitive detector to detect backradiation. You simply need to walk outside. I went outside, it's a very humid night, so the temperature has remained hot. If it was a dry night, it would have cooled off quickly.

So, something about the water vapor holds the heat in. Dry air and humid air are nearly identical in conduction, convection and heat capacity, so those can't be the reasons.

What's left? Radiation, of course. The humid air interferes with the radiative transfer of heat outward much more so than dry air. Water vapor is absorbing more IR and radiating more of it back, which reduces the net heat flow outward and keeps temps high.

Do you have an explanation that doesn't involve backradiation as to why humid nights remain hot?

Water vapor is quite abundant in the atmosphere, especially down in our Troposphere.

CO2 is (as a component part of the air around us) is NOT even REMOTELY as "abundant."

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect

-- Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers THAT piece goes on to CITE:

References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.



TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%

The whole article is really quite informative. Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

[gslack]

There are 100s of experiments which together provide the overwhelming evidence of the cost to mankind of our fossil fuel addiction waste disposal methods.

But not one that demonstrates the basic mechanism by which you claim the AGW hypothesis works. Not one. You take the hypothesis on faith, not on evidence.

Why try and change the topic in such an obvious manner? Did you think no one would notice? The request was for an experiment that demonstrates the mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect......not evidence that we produce gasses that enter the atmosphere.

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

The experiment limits convection silly.. It's a valid experiment if your intention is to show a greenhouse works. But to show greenhouse effect in our atmosphere it's just plain retarded..

SSD pointed out how it fails in one way, and I just showed you another, that's two plainly obvious problems with the experiemnt and why it's not a valid proof of AGW greenhouse effect..

The second was even dumber.. Two open beakers, and add a slow stream of Co2? LOL, goahead you do that.. I gurantee you, it will not show a difference of 8 degrees between them.. What will happen is the convection will force the gases to rise up and out in concert with the amount of heat.. Meaning the more heat applied,the faster the gas will disperse,and since the beaker limits the direction and movement to one effective direction, the heated gases will be directed to the entire length of the flags with the sensors. the flag will get hotter and bingo sowill the sensor...

Damn, that really was a dumb experiment..

 

[mamooth]

Before you make the assumption that less is going out, you must first demonstrate that less, is in fact going out.

Check, easily done.

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

SPIE | Proceeding | Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present

The spectral signature of global warming - Slingo - 2007 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

That will be somewhat difficult as this graph created with data from NOAA clearly shows that outgoing OLR has in fact, increased since 1975.

That wasn't a reference. That was an unsourced mystery graph.

On the one hand, we have several referenced papers, on the other, an unsourced plot from a blog. So zero evidence of an OLR increase, and much evidence of an OLR decrease. Hence, your theory goes crashing down.

There are others showing the same findings, but you either do or do not get the picture.

You cherrypicked the same single paper three times, and tossed in another irrelevant link. Guess that's the best you could do to "prove" a TSI increase. Which apparently took many decades to have any effect. Your explanation as to where the energy went during that time? You don't have one. Just the usual handwaving.

1. Can you show any observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates that an increase of CO2 in an open atmosphere of X will result in a temperature increase of Y?

Can you explain why that question isn't stupid? It's like asking "Do you have an observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows a volcanic eruption is imminent?". It's just dumb, to assume a world-scale event is repeatable in a single lab experiment.

2. Can you show any observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates backradiation?

Yes. The fact that your fantasy requires you deny the measurements exist has no effect on the world outside of your fantasy.

It is an undeniable fact that the hot spot predicted by every climate model in use today does not exist.

Er, no. Do try looking at some sources besides denialist fudgemaster blogs.

SSDD, this is hopeless for you. I'm not a genius, but as someone once said, "I see farther because I stand on the shoulders of giants". I get science from scientists instead of political cranks, hence I will always have an insurmountable advantage.