16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[SSDD]

Any of the basic mechanisms can be reproduced in a lab....the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work can not because it does not exist.

Are you rejecting the Keeling curve?

Of course not. The long term trend in the climate is towards warmer since we are, in fact, trying to get out of an ice age. Warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans. The term is outgassing. Warmer temperatures result in outgassing which results in higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Increased CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause as every ice core has told us.

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

Already answered...see above.

 

[Abraham3]

Any of the basic mechanisms can be reproduced in a lab....the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work can not because it does not exist.

Are you rejecting the Keeling curve?

Of course not. The long term trend in the climate is towards warmer since we are, in fact, trying to get out of an ice age. Warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans. The term is outgassing. Warmer temperatures result in outgassing which results in higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Increased CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause as every ice core has told us.

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

Already answered...see above.

Ice cores may tend to show that (though you should read Shakun 2012 before you make up your mind) but it is not what the Keeling curve says. Since 1880, CO2 has led temperature.

If the recent temperature rise is simply recovering from... what? The LIA or the last Holocene Ice Age? In either case, do you have an explanation for the five to ten fold increase in the warming rate starting about 1880?

And if all that extra CO2 came from the ocean, why does it bear the isotopic signature of fossil fuel? And what happened to the gigatonnes of CO2 that was produced by all the fossil fuel humans have burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

Eh?

 

[westwall]

Are you rejecting the Keeling curve?

Of course not. The long term trend in the climate is towards warmer since we are, in fact, trying to get out of an ice age. Warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans. The term is outgassing. Warmer temperatures result in outgassing which results in higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Increased CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause as every ice core has told us.

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

Already answered...see above.

Ice cores may tend to show that (though you should read Shakun 2012 before you make up your mind) but it is not what the Keeling curve says. Since 1880, CO2 has led temperature.

If the recent temperature rise is simply recovering from... what? The LIA or the last Holocene Ice Age? In either case, do you have an explanation for the five to ten fold increase in the warming rate starting about 1880?

And if all that extra CO2 came from the ocean, why does it bear the isotopic signature of fossil fuel? And what happened to the gigatonnes of CO2 that was produced by all the fossil fuel humans have burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

Eh?

Shakun has been discredited. You should try and stay more current.

 

[Abraham3]

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

Yes I am...for a couple of reasons. The most fundamental reason is that if you try to calculate the temperatures of the other planets in the solar system that have atmospheres using the greenhouse effect, the resulting predicted temperature isn't even close. The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct fabricated explicitly to fix the incorrect temperature that the flawed energy budget yields.

I subscribe to an atmospheric thermal effect which is quite a bit larger than the so called greenhouse effect, but doesn't depend on the composition of an atmosphere beyond what it weighs. It explains the temperature here on earth very well and requires little more than the TSI and the ideal gas laws....in addition, when applied to every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere, it yields an accurate temperature.

From Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect:

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

I don't think Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall or Arrrhenius were looking for an ad hoc constructs to fix a flawed energy budget. I suspect they were missing their TOA data. Probably swiped by the great grandfathers of Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

When you reject the Greenhouse Effect, do you reject the lab findings that CO2, methane and water vapor absorb infrared radiation. Or do you think that still happens but is offset by some ad hoc construct you've dreamed up?

What is your "atmospheric thermal effect"? Is it yours or is it someone else's idea?

 

[Abraham3]

Shakun has been discredited. You should try and stay more current.

Let's see the link.

And while you're at it, why don't you try answering some of the other questions:

If all that CO2 came from the oceans, why does it have the isotopic signature of fossil fuels?

What happened to all the CO2 that humans DID produce burning fossil fuels?

 

[skookerasbil]

Are you rejecting the Keeling curve?

Of course not. The long term trend in the climate is towards warmer since we are, in fact, trying to get out of an ice age. Warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans. The term is outgassing. Warmer temperatures result in outgassing which results in higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Increased CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause as every ice core has told us.

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

Already answered...see above.

Ice cores may tend to show that (though you should read Shakun 2012 before you make up your mind) but it is not what the Keeling curve says. Since 1880, CO2 has led temperature.

If the recent temperature rise is simply recovering from... what? The LIA or the last Holocene Ice Age? In either case, do you have an explanation for the five to ten fold increase in the warming rate starting about 1880?

And if all that extra CO2 came from the ocean, why does it bear the isotopic signature of fossil fuel? And what happened to the gigatonnes of CO2 that was produced by all the fossil fuel humans have burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

Eh?

s0n.....got a flash for you......we're not going back to energy production circa 1840. 100% certainty. You could sit on this site and make 500 posts/day for the next ten years and its not going to change dick. Sign up for some group navel contemplation sessions s0n......it'll be far more productive.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

I can list 10 countries off the top of my head with clearly, openly conservative governments who fund climate research. Why do you deny it?

Do they have socialized medicine? If so, then by defninition, they aren't conservative.

Apparently, you do not understand what the word "conservative" means, and the terms is "universal healthcare". At least, unless you drive on "socialised roads".

I'll make this clearer - around half of all research into climate change was funded via Conservative governments and authorities.

 

[Boss]

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

Yes I am...for a couple of reasons. The most fundamental reason is that if you try to calculate the temperatures of the other planets in the solar system that have atmospheres using the greenhouse effect, the resulting predicted temperature isn't even close. The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct fabricated explicitly to fix the incorrect temperature that the flawed energy budget yields.

I subscribe to an atmospheric thermal effect which is quite a bit larger than the so called greenhouse effect, but doesn't depend on the composition of an atmosphere beyond what it weighs. It explains the temperature here on earth very well and requires little more than the TSI and the ideal gas laws....in addition, when applied to every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere, it yields an accurate temperature.

From Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect:

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

I don't think Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall or Arrrhenius were looking for an ad hoc constructs to fix a flawed energy budget. I suspect they were missing their TOA data. Probably swiped by the great grandfathers of Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

When you reject the Greenhouse Effect, do you reject the lab findings that CO2, methane and water vapor absorb infrared radiation. Or do you think that still happens but is offset by some ad hoc construct you've dreamed up?

What is your "atmospheric thermal effect"? Is it yours or is it someone else's idea?

****, you are really a dense little twit, aren't you? No one in their right mind, with any knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere and how it works, is arguing there isn't a greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, we would all DIE! Do you not comprehend that? Your "argument" is not that there IS a greenhouse effect. Your "argument" is that man's contribution of CO2, is causing an amplification of the effect, resulting in global warming. To a very small degree, you may be correct, but the results are so insignificant, it doesn't warrant concern. We may have increased the median global temperature by 1 degree in a century, if you attribute ALL the warming to man. This is completely insignificant, and will not cause catastrophic results. Even if every theory you've presented is true and valid, the results are not worth noting in comparison to what industrialization has done for mankind.

This whole entire AGW nonsense is a liberal socialists ploy to extort money from large corporations. This is why you have virtually NO viable "solution" to the problem, and yammer on and on about a "carbon offset" which is nothing but a shake down. All you are after, is the profits and money from rich greedy corporations, but you can't be honest about that. You have to generate fear and alarmism, over a made up "crisis" that doesn't exist. It's been rebuked, and it's been rebutted, but you people just keep right on marching! You all need to be roundly dismissed for the frauds and fakes you are, and called out on your stupidity every time you open your traps.

 

[Saigon]

This whole entire AGW nonsense is a liberal socialists ploy to extort money from large corporations.

And there it is again.

Conservative governments are running a giant socialist conspiracy.

Given obviously no one believes conservatives would really be involved in a socialist conspiracy, why do so many posters resort to suggesting otherwise?

 

[Boss]

Shakun has been discredited. You should try and stay more current.

Let's see the link.

And while you're at it, why don't you try answering some of the other questions:

If all that CO2 came from the oceans, why does it have the isotopic signature of fossil fuels?

What happened to all the CO2 that humans DID produce burning fossil fuels?

What you should do is shut the **** up. All you have done is spew science like you know what the hell you're talking about. The isotopic signature of every CO2 molecule has not been examined and found to be the result of man burning fossil fuel, idiot. Why don't YOU answer your own question Mr. Science? What has happened to the tons and tons of CO2 man has produced through industrialization, it's obviously not still floating around in the atmosphere, or we'd all be dead. Nor is the tons and tons of sulfur dioxide and volcanic ash produced by thousands of volcanoes over the years. What happens to it all? Do you believe every element and compound released into the atmosphere just stays there for all of eternity? Matter never changes?

Lots of things happen to carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, most of them are absorbed by plant life and the ocean, and yes... some dissipate into space, as you earlier laughed about, carried away by the solar winds, never to be seen or heard from again. For every million parts of atmosphere we have, three-hundred to four-hundred are carbon dioxide. This is not a big deal, there have been times on the planet where we've had MORE carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Earth had endured much warmer and colder climates, and the ecosystem didn't collapse, the icecaps didn't all melt away, the convection currents in the ocean didn't cease to function, the polar bears survived.

Your whole shtick is talking down to people and trying to sound intelligent, but you are an abject idiot, who is promoting a sham and a lie.

 

[Boss]

This whole entire AGW nonsense is a liberal socialists ploy to extort money from large corporations.

And there it is again.

Conservative governments are running a giant socialist conspiracy.

Given obviously no one believes conservatives would really be involved in a socialist conspiracy, why do so many posters resort to suggesting otherwise?

What conservative government? Where???

 

[Saigon]

Boss -

As you are obviously aware, at any one time around half of the developed world has right-wing government.

Right now, there are conservative governments in Germany, the UK, New Zealand, across most of Scandinavia and much of southern and central Europe. Check the websites of the conservative parties in those countries, and it isn't difficult to find statements on climate change confirming man's role. A week or so back I posted a statement from the conservative NZ government, based on advice from the govt's own scientific advisory board.

A good half of climate change science is conducted in those countries, particularly in Germany and the UK.

Of course, most EU uniersities use a bulk funding approach precisely so that governments cannnot manipulate data or "buy" research, but we also know that a lot of research is conducted.

If you can explain exactly why a conservative politician would deliberately set up some kind of global socialist conspiracy, I'm all ears.

Certainly, no other poster has come up with a theory that made a lick of sense.

 

[westwall]

Boss -

As you are obviously aware, at any one time around half of the developed world has right-wing government.

Right now, there are conservative governments in Germany, the UK, New Zealand, across most of Scandinavia and much of southern and central Europe. Check the websites of the conservative parties in those countries, and it isn't difficult to find statements on climate change confirming man's role. A week or so back I posted a statement from the conservative NZ government, based on advice from the govt's own scientific advisory board.

A good half of climate change science is conducted in those countries, particularly in Germany and the UK.

Of course, most EU uniersities use a bulk funding approach precisely so that governments cannnot manipulate data or "buy" research, but we also know that a lot of research is conducted.

If you can explain exactly why a conservative politician would deliberately set up some kind of global socialist conspiracy, I'm all ears.

Certainly, no other poster has come up with a theory that made a lick of sense.

Bullshit. The vast majority of world governments are COLLECTIVIST.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Please try and post with a minimum of common sense.

The UK, Germany, Finland, New Zealand and a dozen other countries all have Conservative governments.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Please try and post with a minimum of common sense.

The UK, Germany, Finland, New Zealand and a dozen other countries all have Conservative governments.

Piss off and go away. Your shtick isn't working anymore. You've been busted lying too many times now mr. I don't know first grade Finish geography even though I claim to be a Finnish journalist.

 

[Saigon]

Does anyone remember what Westwall was like before he was broken?

Really, dude - maybe it's time to log out and come back in a few months when you can make sense.

 

[SSDD]

Ice cores may tend to show that (though you should read Shakun 2012 before you make up your mind) but it is not what the Keeling curve says. Since 1880, CO2 has led temperature.

The little ice age ended prior to 1880, so again, temperature increases have led increased atmospheric CO2.

And if all that extra CO2 came from the ocean, why does it bear the isotopic signature of fossil fuel? And what happened to the gigatonnes of CO2 that was produced by all the fossil fuel humans have burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

I guess you are unaware that the oceans are a net source of CO2. I suppose you are also unaware that man's, and nature's CO2 only hangs around in the atmosphere for about 5 years before moving along in the cycle. You seem to be unaware of lots of important facts that disprove your hypothesis. Here, have some peer reviewed literature.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

A new paper published in Deep-Sea Research finds the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists that the ocean removes CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the authors, "At the [research] site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events." The paper also notes, "Astor et al.(2005) observed the interactions between physical and biochemical parameters that lead to temporal [over time] variations in fCO2 [CO2 flux from the] sea, finding that even during periods of high production, the CO2 flux between the ocean and the atmosphere decreased but remained positive, i.e. CO2 escaped from the ocean to the atmosphere."

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years

http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf

A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC.

 

[SSDD]

From Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect:

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

I don't think Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall or Arrrhenius were looking for an ad hoc constructs to fix a flawed energy budget. I suspect they were missing their TOA data. Probably swiped by the great grandfathers of Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

Those quaint old scientists hypothesized the reason the earth was warm...the modern charlatans defined it explicitly to cover the errors yielded from a piss poor energy budget.

When you reject the Greenhouse Effect, do you reject the lab findings that CO2, methane and water vapor absorb infrared radiation. Or do you think that still happens but is offset by some ad hoc construct you've dreamed up?

Of course not. Cleary they absorb IR, but they also immediately emit it in the direction of higher entropy. Since radiation is a more rapid means of transferring energy than either convection or conduction from a state of less to more entropy, radiative gasses actually serve as coolants rather than insulators.

What is your "atmospheric thermal effect"? Is it yours or is it someone else's idea?

Certainly not mine. For a full explanation, and calculation applied to every planet in the solar system look up Nikolov and Zeller.

The fact is that the greenhouse calculations don't work on a single planet in the solar system. In order to believe it is accurate, you must believe that physics work in an entirely unique manner here vs everywhere else.

 

[SSDD]

****, you are really a dense little twit, aren't you? No one in their right mind, with any knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere and how it works, is arguing there isn't a greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, we would all DIE!

Actually, when the fur stops flying and the science really is settled, it will be found that the greehhouse effect as described by climate science is a failed hypothesis. Search Nikolov and Zeller for a realistic explanation for why the earth is the temperature it is without the need for magic gasses that defy the laws of physics.

The effect is called the atmospheric thermal effect and is explained entirely by the ideal gas laws...pressure...volume...temperature plus solar input and it works with every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere as opposed to the greenhouse hypothesis which only works here because it was made up to work here and never tested with other planets.

 

[SSDD]

Right now, there are conservative governments in Germany, the UK, New Zealand, across most of Scandinavia and much of southern and central Europe. Check the websites of the conservative parties in those countries, and it isn't difficult to find statements on climate change confirming man's role. A week or so back I posted a statement from the conservative NZ government, based on advice from the govt's own scientific advisory board.

What an idiot you are...calling socialist cesspools conservative governments.