Pushing back

[antagon]

i dont believe the CO2 consensocrats are in any position to preach on honesty or scientific integrity, Old Rocks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Before Global Warming

After Global Warming

 

[Old Rocks]

i dont believe the CO2 consensocrats are in any position to preach on honesty or scientific integrity, Old Rocks.

When I look at the glacier that I can see from where I live, in my lifetime, I have seen a rapid and continueing retreat. When I have traveled in the Western States and Canada, and have veiwed glaciers in there present state and compared them to where they were at around 1900, there has been major changes, the glaciers have lost much of their mass.

Now the deniers would tell me that what I have seen is an illusion. The scientists say that because of the basic physics of the GHGs that the world is warming. And the melting of the glaciers is a result of that. So who should I believe, those that deny reality, or the scientists?

 

[antagon]

i dont believe the CO2 consensocrats are in any position to preach on honesty or scientific integrity, Old Rocks.

When I look at the glacier that I can see from where I live, in my lifetime, I have seen a rapid and continueing retreat. When I have traveled in the Western States and Canada, and have veiwed glaciers in there present state and compared them to where they were at around 1900, there has been major changes, the glaciers have lost much of their mass.

Now the deniers would tell me that what I have seen is an illusion. The scientists say that because of the basic physics of the GHGs that the world is warming. And the melting of the glaciers is a result of that. So who should I believe, those that deny reality, or the scientists?

this is more of the reflex to refer to warming and 'basic physics' to make the tie to GHGs, particularly CO2. this does not support the prevailing causation attribution to CO2, however. why cant this application of basic physics support the more plausible conclusion that sea temps, rather than atmospheric temps, are responsible for warming? this is what basic physics and climate data actually indicates as far as i can see.

rather than believing individuals, i have chosen to believe or disbelieve their arguments, and i think that is where i see this issue of causation being contentious rather than settled. this is classic emperor's new clothes. the bottom line is, no matter who says what, he either has clothes on or not.

 

[konradv]

The basic physics says, if you trap more energy, you'll get more heat. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped energy. Where's the causation problem?

 

[IanC]

The basic physics says, if you trap more energy, you'll get more heat. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped energy. Where's the causation problem?

konradv- I dont think you understand the problem. the increase in CO2, by itself, will only increase temperature by 1C or less by 2100. no one is claiming disaster from that. the disaster scenarios come from computer models that say we will get much more warming from feedbacks to the CO2. there are many problems with the inputs and assumptions put into the models. they dont look like reality in what they describe, only the final temperature is adjusted to look reasonable. check out some roy spencer video lectures to get a more balanced view about what we know and dont know.

 

[antagon]

The basic physics says, if you trap more energy, you'll get more heat. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped energy. Where's the causation problem?

ive illustrated it in great detail prior and addressed this specific oversimplified causation argument of yours directly.

basic physics says water traps 1000x more energy than CO2. that's the start of your causation problem.

 

[westwall]

The stench is politically driven people like yourself lying for the energy corps.

It never ceases to amaze me how twits like you must allways resort to the pernicious tale that any who disagree with the religous dogma are in the employ of the big oil concerns. Ignoring the fact that big oil is heavilly involved in passing the legislation you morons wish to pass because they stand to make trillions for doing basically nothing.

 

[westwall]

i dont believe the CO2 consensocrats are in any position to preach on honesty or scientific integrity, Old Rocks.

When I look at the glacier that I can see from where I live, in my lifetime, I have seen a rapid and continueing retreat. When I have traveled in the Western States and Canada, and have veiwed glaciers in there present state and compared them to where they were at around 1900, there has been major changes, the glaciers have lost much of their mass.

Now the deniers would tell me that what I have seen is an illusion. The scientists say that because of the basic physics of the GHGs that the world is warming. And the melting of the glaciers is a result of that. So who should I believe, those that deny reality, or the scientists?

No, we would say you are witnessing a phenomenon that began 160 years ago. Is normal and has occured countless times in the past. You are the people who are denying basic science...not us. You seem to think that all that has occurred in the previous millions of years count for nothing. You ignore basic geology that states geologic processes take a long time, far longer than the time man is around. You never did answer a basic question on geology I asked oh so long ago... do you remember what it was olfraud?

I will refresh your memory, I asked you how long it would take for a magma body to cool once it had been injected into the country rock above. So we are talking about an intrusive igneous body. Do you remember that question? Hmmm? Well it has been a few months so I will answe it for you because clearly you never took a single geology class you claim to have taken, or you flunked out and had to go back to underwater basket weaving or whatever else it is that occupys your time.

The answer is it takes 1,000,000 years for the temperature to drop 1degree C. Imagine that, a million years to drop one degree. And you think that your infinitesmally short lifespan is a significant measure of what occurs in the world? You are as scientifically illiterate as they come and an embarrasment to the environmental movement.

 

[mdn2000]

i dont believe the CO2 consensocrats are in any position to preach on honesty or scientific integrity, Old Rocks.

When I look at the glacier that I can see from where I live, in my lifetime, I have seen a rapid and continueing retreat. When I have traveled in the Western States and Canada, and have veiwed glaciers in there present state and compared them to where they were at around 1900, there has been major changes, the glaciers have lost much of their mass.

Now the deniers would tell me that what I have seen is an illusion. The scientists say that because of the basic physics of the GHGs that the world is warming. And the melting of the glaciers is a result of that. So who should I believe, those that deny reality, or the scientists?

Old Crock, your an Old Man, your fucking a hundred years old, of course you saw it change.

What is great about Old Crock is he is funny dumb. You crack me up.

 

[elvis]

i dont believe the CO2 consensocrats are in any position to preach on honesty or scientific integrity, Old Rocks.

When I look at the glacier that I can see from where I live, in my lifetime, I have seen a rapid and continueing retreat. When I have traveled in the Western States and Canada, and have veiwed glaciers in there present state and compared them to where they were at around 1900, there has been major changes, the glaciers have lost much of their mass.

Now the deniers would tell me that what I have seen is an illusion. The scientists say that because of the basic physics of the GHGs that the world is warming. And the melting of the glaciers is a result of that. So who should I believe, those that deny reality, or the scientists?

Old Crock, your an Old Man, your fucking a hundred years old, of course you saw it change.

What is great about Old Crock is he is funny dumb. You crack me up.

But, but, he can see the glacier from his house.

 

[konradv]

The basic physics says, if you trap more energy, you'll get more heat. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped energy. Where's the causation problem?

ive illustrated it in great detail prior and addressed this specific oversimplified causation argument of yours directly.

basic physics says water traps 1000x more energy than CO2. that's the start of your causation problem.

I think you're not thinking this out. You're saying that CO2 would trap 1/1000th the energy of water but, regardless, any extra trapped energy would convert to added heat. The result would be more water in the atmosphere and, consequently as you pointed out, much more trapped energy. Rather than debunking my claim, I feel you've actually pointed out the amplification aspect of the system, bolstering my point.

 

[IanC]

The basic physics says, if you trap more energy, you'll get more heat. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped energy. Where's the causation problem?

konradv- I dont think you understand the problem. the increase in CO2, by itself, will only increase temperature by 1C or less by 2100. no one is claiming disaster from that. the disaster scenarios come from computer models that say we will get much more warming from feedbacks to the CO2. there are many problems with the inputs and assumptions put into the models. they dont look like reality in what they describe, only the final temperature is adjusted to look reasonable. check out some roy spencer video lectures to get a more balanced view about what we know and dont know.

the OP of this thread was the supposedly heroic throwing down of the guantlet by AGW to debate the pros and cons of both sides. obviously they didnt actually mean it, they just want the appearance of being willing to debate. an actual debate would show the massive uncertainties of claiming future predictions with precision higher than our ability to accurately measure today! if 25 percent of the money being dumped into computer models was put into studying natural processes we would be 10 times further along in our understanding.

Why can't we have a real debate to show what science is backed up by real observations and what claims are just masturbation by computer modellers.

 

[westwall]

The basic physics says, if you trap more energy, you'll get more heat. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped energy. Where's the causation problem?

konradv- I dont think you understand the problem. the increase in CO2, by itself, will only increase temperature by 1C or less by 2100. no one is claiming disaster from that. the disaster scenarios come from computer models that say we will get much more warming from feedbacks to the CO2. there are many problems with the inputs and assumptions put into the models. they dont look like reality in what they describe, only the final temperature is adjusted to look reasonable. check out some roy spencer video lectures to get a more balanced view about what we know and dont know.

the OP of this thread was the supposedly heroic throwing down of the guantlet by AGW to debate the pros and cons of both sides. obviously they didnt actually mean it, they just want the appearance of being willing to debate. an actual debate would show the massive uncertainties of claiming future predictions with precision higher than our ability to accurately measure today! if 25 percent of the money being dumped into computer models was put into studying natural processes we would be 10 times further along in our understanding.

Why can't we have a real debate to show what science is backed up by real observations and what claims are just masturbation by computer modellers.

Very true Ian. However you have to remember that most of the dogma is pushed by the modelers and they don't want their money taken away from them. They've spent years developing the fraud (much like Madoff) and now they will fight tooth and nail to preserve their lifestyles.

 

[IanC]

I can't believe it is not the climate scientists that are clamouring for better temperature recording stations, better code and auditing of temperature collection and 'adjustments', more inter-collegial help from other fields to help in statistics and code writing, etc. instead they stonewall and refuse to correct past mistakes until they are absolutely forced to. skeptics and the climategate scandal are the only thing bringing climate science into the 21st century.

 

[antagon]

The basic physics says, if you trap more energy, you'll get more heat. More CO2 in the atmosphere, means more trapped energy. Where's the causation problem?

ive illustrated it in great detail prior and addressed this specific oversimplified causation argument of yours directly.

basic physics says water traps 1000x more energy than CO2. that's the start of your causation problem.

I think you're not thinking this out. You're saying that CO2 would trap 1/1000th the energy of water but, regardless, any extra trapped energy would convert to added heat. The result would be more water in the atmosphere and, consequently as you pointed out, much more trapped energy. Rather than debunking my claim, I feel you've actually pointed out the amplification aspect of the system, bolstering my point.

your feeling is not well thought out in itself. the sea is warmer than the atmosphere most of the time. the second law of thermodynamics negates your forcing idea. it supports the idea that the sea warms the atmosphere.

without accounting for the sun, the atmosphere and the ocean operate at a constant net loss of heat. for this reason, it is important to consider which vectors function to trap more energy inbound to the system. i've pointed out that water is 1000 times as effective for this purpose, making it that much more likely than CO2 to be the cause of global warming.

ocean surface temperature rises due to anomalies in virtually all bipolar systems (like el nino) coincide with atmospheric warming trends and can be supported by physical laws of heat transfer to have warmed the atmosphere and lent greater humidity thereto. your claim that a 2*-3* rise in atmospheric temps could illicit an according increase in sea temps is a blaring physical miracle in so little time as 30 years because of the sensible heating properties of water relative to atmosphere. the opposite is not so miraculous. it is plausible.

what i have explained examines why there is no correlation between CO2 levels in the last 30 years and temperature rises, but there is direct correlation between these oceanic anomalies and temperature rises inasmuch time.

this is your causation problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

i dont believe the CO2 consensocrats are in any position to preach on honesty or scientific integrity, Old Rocks.

When I look at the glacier that I can see from where I live, in my lifetime, I have seen a rapid and continueing retreat. When I have traveled in the Western States and Canada, and have veiwed glaciers in there present state and compared them to where they were at around 1900, there has been major changes, the glaciers have lost much of their mass.

Now the deniers would tell me that what I have seen is an illusion. The scientists say that because of the basic physics of the GHGs that the world is warming. And the melting of the glaciers is a result of that. So who should I believe, those that deny reality, or the scientists?

this is more of the reflex to refer to warming and 'basic physics' to make the tie to GHGs, particularly CO2. this does not support the prevailing causation attribution to CO2, however. why cant this application of basic physics support the more plausible conclusion that sea temps, rather than atmospheric temps, are responsible for warming? this is what basic physics and climate data actually indicates as far as i can see.

rather than believing individuals, i have chosen to believe or disbelieve their arguments, and i think that is where i see this issue of causation being contentious rather than settled. this is classic emperor's new clothes. the bottom line is, no matter who says what, he either has clothes on or not.

Crap, Antagon, have you bothered to really look at the physics of GHGs? If so, how can you possibly say that the physics does not support the role of CO2 in the present warming that we are seeing.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now this is a site maintained by the American Institute of Physics, the parent organizaion of most of the scientific societies involved in physics, including the American Geophysical Union.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

Sea-Air Heat Exchange (Fig. 3)
Solar Radiation: Much of the direct and diffuse solar short wave (less than 2 micros, mostly in the visible range) electromagnetic radiation that reaches the sea surface penetrates the ocean (the ocean has a low albedo, except when the sun is close to the horizon), heating the sea water down to about 100 to 200 meters, depending on the water clarity. It is within this thin sunlit surface layer of the ocean that the process of photosynthesis can occur. Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.Net Back Radiation: The ocean transmits electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere in proportion to the fourth power of the sea surface temperature (black-body radiation). This radiation is at much longer wavelengths than that of the solar radiation (greater than 10 micros, in the infrared range), because the ocean surface is far cooler that the sun's surface. The infrared radiation emitted from the ocean is quickly absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases residing in the lower atmosphere. Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.
Conduction: When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.

 

[antagon]

rocks, i have yet to read through the extremely long-winded first link that you've provided, but do your recognize that the link above, particularly the parts which you have highlighted specifically substantiate those claims which i have made regarding the role of the ocean in absorbing the sun's energy and transferring that energy to the atmosphere through evaporation and conduction. this is what i am saying. the role of CO2 in this process is marginal. that is why there is no direct correlation between warming in the last 30 years and CO2 levels in the same period. there is a direct relationship with bipolar system anomalies which increase surface temperatures. i argue that these have facilitated the warming, for which there is corollary evidence, through the amplification of the effects which you pointed out in red.

 

[antagon]

When I look at the glacier that I can see from where I live, in my lifetime, I have seen a rapid and continueing retreat. When I have traveled in the Western States and Canada, and have veiwed glaciers in there present state and compared them to where they were at around 1900, there has been major changes, the glaciers have lost much of their mass.

Now the deniers would tell me that what I have seen is an illusion. The scientists say that because of the basic physics of the GHGs that the world is warming. And the melting of the glaciers is a result of that. So who should I believe, those that deny reality, or the scientists?

this is more of the reflex to refer to warming and 'basic physics' to make the tie to GHGs, particularly CO2. this does not support the prevailing causation attribution to CO2, however. why cant this application of basic physics support the more plausible conclusion that sea temps, rather than atmospheric temps, are responsible for warming? this is what basic physics and climate data actually indicates as far as i can see.

rather than believing individuals, i have chosen to believe or disbelieve their arguments, and i think that is where i see this issue of causation being contentious rather than settled. this is classic emperor's new clothes. the bottom line is, no matter who says what, he either has clothes on or not.

Crap, Antagon, have you bothered to really look at the physics of GHGs?

you've not always participated in discussions where i have put forward extensive information supporting the physics of the matter. i think i understand this stuff fairly well. i am questioning the understanding of those who have mischaracterized the extent of the effect of CO2 relative to H20 vapor, and challenge the concept of forcing from this source on the basis of the physical limitations of so small a net increase in CO2 to influence global evaporation to the extent claimed...

If so, how can you possibly say that the physics does not support the role of CO2 in the present warming that we are seeing.

well, my challenge on the forcing bit is informed by the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and the rise in temps or humidity, while sea surface temperatures and anomalies in virtually all of the bipolar ocean systems favoring the warm cycles does directly correlate.

in a similar vein to your question, have you considered this or are you seriously maintaining an argument because of who has made it, rather than what it says? what do you say to the facts of the matter with respect to the alternative causation which i offer? how do you defend the lack of direct causation in CO2 levels, while such exists for my argument?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now this is a site maintained by the American Institute of Physics, the parent organizaion of most of the scientific societies involved in physics, including the American Geophysical Union.

i've spent years studying chemistry, physics and earth sciences, to the extent that I hold a BSc in Biology and am an actively qualified chemical engineer. the link you've offered above is a long read about the history of your perspective and everything. i guess i could read all that some time, but is there any specific part of that which contradicts any claim i've made? i couldn't imagine that it reveals any breaking new understanding of the properties of CO2 or GHGs. if it does, could you point that out in lieu of me reading all that?