Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Absorption bands of the GHGs are totally without significance. Yes, Si, of course, that's it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where have I ever said that CO2 (or any other molecules with a dipole, induced or otherwise) is not IR active?Absorption bands of the GHGs are totally without significance. Yes, Si, of course, that's it.
I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.
I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.It's sad to see the APW cultists having their total belief system fucked up by reality.
I'm sorry modo... But what the hell are you talking about?
'AGW cultists' (or as I call them... rather amusingly in another thread... 'The whole world except American Republicans) are witnessing every single one of their predictions coming true.
It's not our fault that others interpreted "This will happen" as "This will happen right away." Now deniers are saying "SEE - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY!" and we're supposed to accept that as proof that it's all a big conspiracy?
(Wait for someone to present correlation thinking they have proven causation. Just wait for it....)
The existence of the 'greenhouse' effect does nothing at all to support the hypothesis of APW.I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.
Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change
The greenhouse effect has been understood for a long time. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere is reasonably predicted to cause warming. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere over the last century by human beings is a documented and incontroversial fact of history. So here we have a reasonable cause of warming, documentation that that reasonable cause is taking place, and documentation of the warming itself.
(Strictly speaking there is no way to prove that anything causes anything. All that we can show is correlation plus a theoretical mechanism of causation that makes sense and fits the data.)
If you are looking for sufficiently precise quantification that all feedback loops (positive and negative) are taken into consideration, when many of those are poorly understood, you are looking for the impossible, and when someone expects the impossible as proof of a proposition they are simply making excuses.
Who are you addressing and what is your antecedent for 'it'?But when someone else mentions it, and the inevitable results of it, you start your logic schtick again. Sorry old gal, you are part of the problem.
Actually, it was the concern over particulate-based pollutants in cooling.It was the greenhouse effect in the 70s that cause the panic over global cooling.
Actually, it was the concern over particulate-based pollutants in cooling.It was the greenhouse effect in the 70s that cause the panic over global cooling.
I have no idea what your point is.LOL. CO2 and other GHGs absorb UV and re-emit some of it back to the ground or oceans. And we all know that cannot possibly have anything to do with a warming we are experiancing.
So what are you trying to deny this time, Si? For sure PolySci is your science.
I am a little curious when the comparison is made to millions of year ago and they told me what the temps were. There once was an ice age and it went away and guess what no mane made CO2. Wonder what weather stations they got their reading from.
What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."
The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.
"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."
The basic physics of anthropogenicmanmadeglobal warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.
The impact has been widespread.
An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.
The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.
Even Wally Broecker's jestthat deniers could blame Godmay not be an option for long.
Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.
Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."
The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag
-------------------------------------------------------
Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.
When you say "worldwide body of scientists" are you trying to say that all the scientists, or even close to all of them, have the same opinion about the hypothesis of APW? If so, you are egregiously misinformed.I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.I'm sorry modo... But what the hell are you talking about?
'AGW cultists' (or as I call them... rather amusingly in another thread... 'The whole world except American Republicans) are witnessing every single one of their predictions coming true.
It's not our fault that others interpreted "This will happen" as "This will happen right away." Now deniers are saying "SEE - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY!" and we're supposed to accept that as proof that it's all a big conspiracy?
(Wait for someone to present correlation thinking they have proven causation. Just wait for it....)
So what's the motivation for the worldwide body of scientists touting the likelyhood that man's activities are the cause, if it really isn't?
As I said, and you didn't contend, all their predictions are coming true, and at an accelerated rate as industrialization accelerates.
What causes you to dismiss the worldwide body of science which says it's the near-certain cause, and favor the outlying possibility that they're wrong and it's all a coincidence?
I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.
Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change
The greenhouse effect has been understood for a long time. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere is reasonably predicted to cause warming. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere over the last century by human beings is a documented and incontroversial fact of history. So here we have a reasonable cause of warming, documentation that that reasonable cause is taking place, and documentation of the warming itself.
(Strictly speaking there is no way to prove that anything causes anything. All that we can show is correlation plus a theoretical mechanism of causation that makes sense and fits the data.)
If you are looking for sufficiently precise quantification that all feedback loops (positive and negative) are taken into consideration, when many of those are poorly understood, you are looking for the impossible, and when someone expects the impossible as proof of a proposition they are simply making excuses.
When you say "worldwide body of scientists" are you trying to say that all the scientists, or even close to all of them, have the same opinion about the hypothesis of APW? If so, you are egregiously misinformed.I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.
(Wait for someone to present correlation thinking they have proven causation. Just wait for it....)
So what's the motivation for the worldwide body of scientists touting the likelyhood that man's activities are the cause, if it really isn't?
As I said, and you didn't contend, all their predictions are coming true, and at an accelerated rate as industrialization accelerates.
What causes you to dismiss the worldwide body of science which says it's the near-certain cause, and favor the outlying possibility that they're wrong and it's all a coincidence?
Regardless, scientists are persons and have opinions. When they have science to support the hypothesis I will be more than happy to agree with their opinions. Until then, I and many others, will continue to point out to those who come to scientific conclusions which are not based on existing science, that the science does not support the APW hypothesis. That's just how I roll.
What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."
The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.
"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."
The basic physics of anthropogenicmanmadeglobal warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.
The impact has been widespread.
An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.
The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.
Even Wally Broecker's jestthat deniers could blame Godmay not be an option for long.
Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.
Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."
The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag
-------------------------------------------------------
Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.
Sanity
Rationality
Intelligence
Not Gullible
Reasonable
Lacking Foolishness
Potato - Potahto.