a Realistic Precis of the Skeptical View on Greenhouse Effect, Climate Sensitivity, etc

[IanC]

Cowards lack specificity. You are a coward unless you specify what you disagree with.

1. Earth ice is determined by the position of land
2. The actual climate data completely rejected a theory of CO2 causing temperature change

Just to clarify your position, could you answer a coupla questions?

The Earth's surface radiates about 400W but solar insulation at the surface is less than 200W. Do you agree or disagree that the Greenhouse Effect is supplying the extra energy needed to close the energy budget.

If yes to the above, do you think CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If the answer is no, then why not?

I am not arguing the amounts due to the recent changes in CO2, I am arguing the whole effect.

This is all the proof anyone needs to conclude the obvious - that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth temperature change...


Key claim against global warming evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed."



"faulty analyses" = anything that shows NO WARMING

In reality, the balloons and satellites showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere in 2005 and the data from both correlated - in 1998, for example, the then "warmest year (for surface of growing urban areas only) on record," both balloons and satellites recorded a cooler than normal atmosphere.

If you have two and only two measures of the same subject, and those two measures produce highly correlated data, what grounds does a real scientist have to challenge the data?

A: NONE

Increasing CO2 did not warm the atmosphere... until the Tippy Toppiests fudged the data in 2005...

So....no answers to my specific questions, and another rant. With a link that disputes what you say.

Stupid of me to expect anything different. Carry on then.

 

[LaDexter]

So tell us, oh wise one, when you have two different instruments measuring the same thing and they return highly correlated data, should you accept that data or insist both series are wrong and fudge both with uncorrelated "corrections?"

 

[jc456]

Cowards lack specificity. You are a coward unless you specify what you disagree with.

1. Earth ice is determined by the position of land
2. The actual climate data completely rejected a theory of CO2 causing temperature change

Just to clarify your position, could you answer a coupla questions?

The Earth's surface radiates about 400W but solar insulation at the surface is less than 200W. Do you agree or disagree that the Greenhouse Effect is supplying the extra energy needed to close the energy budget.

If yes to the above, do you think CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If the answer is no, then why not?

I am not arguing the amounts due to the recent changes in CO2, I am arguing the whole effect.

ian, what is the greenhouse effect in your words?

And no CO2 does not contribute to any warming.

 

[SSDD]

Cowards lack specificity. You are a coward unless you specify what you disagree with.

1. Earth ice is determined by the position of land
2. The actual climate data completely rejected a theory of CO2 causing temperature change

Just to clarify your position, could you answer a coupla questions?

The Earth's surface radiates about 400W but solar insulation at the surface is less than 200W. Do you agree or disagree that the Greenhouse Effect is supplying the extra energy needed to close the energy budget.

If yes to the above, do you think CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If the answer is no, then why not?

I am not arguing the amounts due to the recent changes in CO2, I am arguing the whole effect.

ian, what is the greenhouse effect in your words?

If he bothers to answer your question...you will see that his "version" of the greenhouse effect does not match the greenhouse effect that climate science has promoted...

 

[IanC]

Cowards lack specificity. You are a coward unless you specify what you disagree with.

1. Earth ice is determined by the position of land
2. The actual climate data completely rejected a theory of CO2 causing temperature change

Just to clarify your position, could you answer a coupla questions?

The Earth's surface radiates about 400W but solar insulation at the surface is less than 200W. Do you agree or disagree that the Greenhouse Effect is supplying the extra energy needed to close the energy budget.

If yes to the above, do you think CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If the answer is no, then why not?

I am not arguing the amounts due to the recent changes in CO2, I am arguing the whole effect.

ian, what is the greenhouse effect in your words?

And no CO2 does not contribute to any warming.

How would repeating the whole thing to you AGAIN result in a different outcome? The last time I broke it down into simple steps that even a child could understand. But you couldn't.

And yes, CO2 is responsible for a significant portion of the Greenhouse Effect. Probably more than 10%.

 

[jc456]

Cowards lack specificity. You are a coward unless you specify what you disagree with.

1. Earth ice is determined by the position of land
2. The actual climate data completely rejected a theory of CO2 causing temperature change

Just to clarify your position, could you answer a coupla questions?

The Earth's surface radiates about 400W but solar insulation at the surface is less than 200W. Do you agree or disagree that the Greenhouse Effect is supplying the extra energy needed to close the energy budget.

If yes to the above, do you think CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If the answer is no, then why not?

I am not arguing the amounts due to the recent changes in CO2, I am arguing the whole effect.

ian, what is the greenhouse effect in your words?

And no CO2 does not contribute to any warming.

How would repeating the whole thing to you AGAIN result in a different outcome? The last time I broke it down into simple steps that even a child could understand. But you couldn't.

And yes, CO2 is responsible for a significant portion of the Greenhouse Effect. Probably more than 10%.

Absolutely no evidence. You're as bad as a warmer

 

[IanC]

Cowards lack specificity. You are a coward unless you specify what you disagree with.

1. Earth ice is determined by the position of land
2. The actual climate data completely rejected a theory of CO2 causing temperature change

Just to clarify your position, could you answer a coupla questions?

The Earth's surface radiates about 400W but solar insulation at the surface is less than 200W. Do you agree or disagree that the Greenhouse Effect is supplying the extra energy needed to close the energy budget.

If yes to the above, do you think CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If the answer is no, then why not?

I am not arguing the amounts due to the recent changes in CO2, I am arguing the whole effect.

ian, what is the greenhouse effect in your words?

And no CO2 does not contribute to any warming.

How would repeating the whole thing to you AGAIN result in a different outcome? The last time I broke it down into simple steps that even a child could understand. But you couldn't.

And yes, CO2 is responsible for a significant portion of the Greenhouse Effect. Probably more than 10%.

Absolutely no evidence. You're as bad as a warmer

Just out of curiosity, do you even remember our past conversations about the GHE etc?

 

[SSDD]

Cowards lack specificity. You are a coward unless you specify what you disagree with.

1. Earth ice is determined by the position of land
2. The actual climate data completely rejected a theory of CO2 causing temperature change

Just to clarify your position, could you answer a coupla questions?

The Earth's surface radiates about 400W but solar insulation at the surface is less than 200W. Do you agree or disagree that the Greenhouse Effect is supplying the extra energy needed to close the energy budget.

If yes to the above, do you think CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect? If the answer is no, then why not?

I am not arguing the amounts due to the recent changes in CO2, I am arguing the whole effect.

ian, what is the greenhouse effect in your words?

And no CO2 does not contribute to any warming.

How would repeating the whole thing to you AGAIN result in a different outcome? The last time I broke it down into simple steps that even a child could understand. But you couldn't.

And yes, CO2 is responsible for a significant portion of the Greenhouse Effect. Probably more than 10%.

Absolutely no evidence. You're as bad as a warmer

What did I tell you...he knows that his "version" of how the greenhouse effect doesn't jibe with the description of the greenhouse effect described by climate science....he has picked his own little cult to follow and he believes with all his might....because to question at this point is to admit that he might have been wrong all this time and he just could't do that....

 

[Crick]

Dex, SSDD, the night sky radiates IR towards the ground (and every other direction. The spectrum of that IR matches that of H2O and CO2. Care to explain?