The Warmer's Hypothesis

[daveman]

Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.

Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Conservative scientists take on climate change deniers | Deseret News

Texas Tech atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian who travels widely talking to conservative audiences and wrote a book with her husband, a pastor and former climate change denier, explaining climate change to skeptics.

A physicist by training, John Cook is an evangelical Christian who runs the website skepticalscience.com, which seeks to debunk climate change deniers' arguments.

Barry Bickmore is a Mormon, a professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University and the blogger behind Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah, where he recently rebuked Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) for his climate views and posted editorials mentioning his Republican affiliation.

------------------------------------------------------

You gotta admit, it's pretty fucking hilarious these "right wing conservative scientists" think they still belong to the Republican Party.'

HELLO!

That party doesn't want you. No academics. No "elites". No "smarts". NOT WANTED in the Republican Party. Sheesh, what does it take to get through?

If they're conservatives, why do you believe them? Conservatives are anti-science, right? People of faith are irrational, right?

Poor dean. He desperately wants to have it both ways, but he can't.

Not all conservatives are complete jackasses...present company excepted!

I can't tell you how little that means to me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I feel like I'm dealt pocket Aces here. Since none of the Warmers posted their hypothesis, I'm going to stick with that hypothesis.

 

[wirebender]

Here's some math for you:

Your banner says that the estimate for MAY is -0.179 degrees lower than the yearly historical average.

Did I claim otherwise?

It got news for you - hottest part of the year is yet to come. If we're only at -0.179 degrees below the yearly average already in May, the full yearly average for this year is going to be quite a bit higher than the historical average.

Thanks for proving the Earth is apparently considerably warmer this year than the historical average!

Actually the banner is in reference to a monitor that can be found here. Right now the average is .074C warmer than the 1901 - 2000 average. Should I add a disclaimer or something so you guys don't have to wring your hands over it?

 

[editec]

"instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible " ???

Now who says that, exactly?

Nobody.

But apparently that's the debate Cru would like to have with somebody, I guess.

 

[sparky]

I feel like I'm dealt pocket Aces here. Since none of the Warmers posted their hypothesis, I'm going to stick with that hypothesis.

no, you're simply going to stick to your denial Frank

in your stance, man's pollution has no permanent effect on mother earth, although permanent damage , and the specture of it esculating isn't hard to find, and has been presented to you repeatedly

you seem to think lumping it all together as liberal science makes your case

it does'nt

for example, our oceans are suffering irreparable damage as we speak

acidification would be a key word there btw

now we know google provides much info on this, and we also know the ecosystem is seriously threatened , and by proxy us, being the fragile interconnectability from plankton to humans exists for those aware enough to realize it

so, would it be arguable that man made pollutants have an impact on our oceanic enviroment ?

methinks most would conclude that it has

conversley, would it be arguable that man made pollutants could also have an effect on our atmospheric environ?

methinks most would opine in the positive


~S~

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible " ???

Now who says that, exactly?

Nobody.

But apparently that's the debate Cru would like to have with somebody, I guess.

Because that's EXACTLY what the Warmers and Decline Hiders have been saying!!!

Since your side refuses to post a hypothesis, I had to go with one that fits what you've been telling us: that the warming only started with the industrial age, that even the tiny wisps of CO2 added from 1850-present was enough to melt the glaciers and that we're going to be 6-7 degrees warmer, you never say we can reverse it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I feel like I'm dealt pocket Aces here. Since none of the Warmers posted their hypothesis, I'm going to stick with that hypothesis.

no, you're simply going to stick to your denial Frank

in your stance, man's pollution has no permanent effect on mother earth, although permanent damage , and the specture of it esculating isn't hard to find, and has been presented to you repeatedly

you seem to think lumping it all together as liberal science makes your case

it does'nt

for example, our oceans are suffering irreparable damage as we speak

acidification would be a key word there btw

now we know google provides much info on this, and we also know the ecosystem is seriously threatened , and by proxy us, being the fragile interconnectability from plankton to humans exists for those aware enough to realize it

so, would it be arguable that man made pollutants have an impact on our oceanic enviroment ?

methinks most would conclude that it has

conversley, would it be arguable that man made pollutants could also have an effect on our atmospheric environ?

methinks most would opine in the positive


~S~

Of course you're correct, I'd need to add in that we're turning the oceans into stomach acid too. Correction coming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Correction.

AGW Standard Hypothesis: De minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 are solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate and turning the oceans to acid.

 

[sparky]

moving the goal posts yet again Frank?

 

[konradv]

Frank's in TROLL territory.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

moving the goal posts yet again Frank?

Feel free to post the AGW standard hypothesis anytime

You said agw was turning the oceans acidic, right?

 

[konradv]

moving the goal posts yet again Frank?

Feel free to post the AGW standard hypothesis anytime

You said agw was turning the oceans acidic, right?

I think what most have said is that high CO2 levels can lead to ocean acidification. I know of no one that's said the oceans would turn acidic. They're two different things. Acidification means the lowering of pH. Acidic means a pH below 7.0. Therefore, there can be acidification without the sea becoming acidic. Hope that helps, Frank. Wirebender never seemed to understand it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

moving the goal posts yet again Frank?

Feel free to post the AGW standard hypothesis anytime

You said agw was turning the oceans acidic, right?

I think what most have said is that high CO2 levels can lead to ocean acidification. I know of no one that's said the oceans would turn acidic. They're two different things. Acidification means the lowering of pH. Acidic means a pH below 7.0. Therefore, there can be acidification without the sea becoming acidic. Hope that helps, Frank. Wirebender never seemed to understand it.

You're so darn helpful. I'm only a lay person. It would be helpful if you could post the hypothesis to this settled science of yours

Correction. AGW Standard Hypothesis:

De minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 are solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

 

[konradv]

Feel free to post the AGW standard hypothesis anytime

You said agw was turning the oceans acidic, right?

I think what most have said is that high CO2 levels can lead to ocean acidification. I know of no one that's said the oceans would turn acidic. They're two different things. Acidification means the lowering of pH. Acidic means a pH below 7.0. Therefore, there can be acidification without the sea becoming acidic. Hope that helps, Frank. Wirebender never seemed to understand it.

You're so darn helpful. I'm only a lay person. It would be helpful if you could post the hypothesis to this settled science of yours

Correction. AGW Standard Hypothesis:

De minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 are solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Increases in CO2 are responsible for changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Minus the BS, Frank FINALLY acknowledges that CO2 IS a driver of climate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think what most have said is that high CO2 levels can lead to ocean acidification. I know of no one that's said the oceans would turn acidic. They're two different things. Acidification means the lowering of pH. Acidic means a pH below 7.0. Therefore, there can be acidification without the sea becoming acidic. Hope that helps, Frank. Wirebender never seemed to understand it.

You're so darn helpful. I'm only a lay person. It would be helpful if you could post the hypothesis to this settled science of yours

Correction. AGW Standard Hypothesis:

De minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 are solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Increases in CO2 are responsible for changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Minus the BS, Frank FINALLY acknowledges that CO2 IS a driver of climate.

Stating a hypothesis is the start, not the end.

 

[konradv]

You're so darn helpful. I'm only a lay person. It would be helpful if you could post the hypothesis to this settled science of yours

Correction. AGW Standard Hypothesis:

De minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 are solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Increases in CO2 are responsible for changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Minus the BS, Frank FINALLY acknowledges that CO2 IS a driver of climate.

Stating a hypothesis is the start, not the end.

..............AAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD???????????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Increases in CO2 are responsible for changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Minus the BS, Frank FINALLY acknowledges that CO2 IS a driver of climate.

Stating a hypothesis is the start, not the end.

..............AAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD???????????

Well, you said that " that CO2 IS a driver of climate" and that's never happened, not even once on Earth. Moreover, it fails every lab experiment when you only add 500PPM of CO2, so they hypothesis fails.

 

[daveman]

Increases in CO2 are responsible for changes in Earth's climate and ocean acidification.

Minus the BS, Frank FINALLY acknowledges that CO2 IS a driver of climate.

Stating a hypothesis is the start, not the end.

..............AAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD???????????

And then you have to prove it.

 

[konradv]

Stating a hypothesis is the start, not the end.

..............AAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD???????????

Well, you said that " that CO2 IS a driver of climate" and that's never happened, not even once on Earth. Moreover, it fails every lab experiment when you only add 500PPM of CO2, so they hypothesis fails.

You're wrong on both counts. High CO2 levels have led to higher temps many times in earth's history. Sometimes there are other major influences that could lower temps, hence the need to "hide the decline" from diverse sources to winnow out the contribution of CO2.

As for the lab expt., whenever I put CO2 into a spectrophotometer, it absorbs IR. Logic tells you that half the CO2 in the atmosphere would re-emit towards earth instead of escaping into space, thereby preventing some heat from escaping as readily and retaining it on earth. Increase the CO2 and more would be trapped and reflected back towards earth. QED

 

[Oddball]

..............AAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD???????????

Well, you said that " that CO2 IS a driver of climate" and that's never happened, not even once on Earth. Moreover, it fails every lab experiment when you only add 500PPM of CO2, so they hypothesis fails.

You're wrong on both counts. High CO2 levels have led to higher temps many times in earth's history. Sometimes there are other major influences that could lower temps, hence the need to "hide the decline" from diverse sources to winnow out the contribution of CO2.

Wrong again, Buckwheat...Higher CO2 concentrations have followed the higher temperatures many times in the Earf's history.

This is a verified scientific fact, that you doomsday cultists continue to ignore in lieu of your misanthropic climatic Armageddon fable.