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

[Brambo]

Basically you weirdo Holocaust Deniers deny that CO2 absorbs Infrared wavelengths.

 

[jc456]

Sir, I answered your question. I really wasn't expecting anything from you though.

If you don't believe in convection and conduction, not sure what else I can tell you. The atmospheric pressure and gravity keep the heat around the surface.

Why do you deny that a trace gas can have a big impact on climate?

Even Mars has 70Degree Fahrenheit days even though it has 0.02% the CO2 that the Earth has and CO2 makes up 95% of its atmosphere.

Meaning that with 0.02% of Earth's Atmosphere, it can achieve those high temps.

because it has not been validated. kapeesh?

I don't think a drop of red dye in the ocean will cause it to turn red.

Of course it has been validated, it has been validated by all sorts of sources, including the US military.

well fine, post it up let's see this validation.

There is no point, because I already posted absorption spectra analysis and papers on how to quantify the results mathematically and you and others (I think it was Todd wasn't it??) said that those don't count.

Apparently you guys want a mercury wetbulb in a controlled environment, where CO2 is added and the effect observed...like what Arrhenius did, but apparently that's not good enough for you either.

but you assume absorption equates to heat somehow. I only ask that you show the temperature from that absorption. Can you do that? Nope!!!! I already know that answer, so it was a rhetorical question.

 

[Brambo]

Why do you deny that a trace gas can have a big impact on climate?

Even Mars has 70Degree Fahrenheit days even though it has 0.02% the CO2 that the Earth has and CO2 makes up 95% of its atmosphere.

Meaning that with 0.02% of Earth's Atmosphere, it can achieve those high temps.

because it has not been validated. kapeesh?

I don't think a drop of red dye in the ocean will cause it to turn red.

Of course it has been validated, it has been validated by all sorts of sources, including the US military.

well fine, post it up let's see this validation.

There is no point, because I already posted absorption spectra analysis and papers on how to quantify the results mathematically and you and others (I think it was Todd wasn't it??) said that those don't count.

Apparently you guys want a mercury wetbulb in a controlled environment, where CO2 is added and the effect observed...like what Arrhenius did, but apparently that's not good enough for you either.

but you assume absorption equates to heat somehow. I only ask that you show the temperature from that absorption. Can you do that? Nope!!!! I already know that answer, so it was a rhetorical question.

Of course it equates to heat, that's the definition of HEAT.

If infrared radiation were NOT absorbed, then it wouldn't be "heat".

 

[Brambo]

because it has not been validated. kapeesh?

I don't think a drop of red dye in the ocean will cause it to turn red.

Of course it has been validated, it has been validated by all sorts of sources, including the US military.

well fine, post it up let's see this validation.

There is no point, because I already posted absorption spectra analysis and papers on how to quantify the results mathematically and you and others (I think it was Todd wasn't it??) said that those don't count.

Apparently you guys want a mercury wetbulb in a controlled environment, where CO2 is added and the effect observed...like what Arrhenius did, but apparently that's not good enough for you either.

but you assume absorption equates to heat somehow. I only ask that you show the temperature from that absorption. Can you do that? Nope!!!! I already know that answer, so it was a rhetorical question.

Of course it equates to heat, that's the definition of HEAT.

If infrared radiation were NOT absorbed, then it wouldn't be "heat".

I've already shown that the answer to the absorbed heat is 4watts per square meter at 250ppm.

 

[IanC]

Obviously you don't understand your own question. Because despite your claim there is not enough energy...the temperature is maintained. Probably has something to do with all those Greenhouse gasses, including the 4watts per square meter retained by 250ppm CO2.

Who the fuck are you?

Obviously the extra energy comes from the stored energy in the atmosphere. jc is a 'backradiation' denier who refuses to state where he thinks the energy comes from to close the surface energy budget.

You should at least get it straight in your head where the extra 4w/m^2 comes from before running off your mouth.

 

[IanC]

Of course it has been validated, it has been validated by all sorts of sources, including the US military.

well fine, post it up let's see this validation.

There is no point, because I already posted absorption spectra analysis and papers on how to quantify the results mathematically and you and others (I think it was Todd wasn't it??) said that those don't count.

Apparently you guys want a mercury wetbulb in a controlled environment, where CO2 is added and the effect observed...like what Arrhenius did, but apparently that's not good enough for you either.

but you assume absorption equates to heat somehow. I only ask that you show the temperature from that absorption. Can you do that? Nope!!!! I already know that answer, so it was a rhetorical question.

Of course it equates to heat, that's the definition of HEAT.

If infrared radiation were NOT absorbed, then it wouldn't be "heat".

I've already shown that the answer to the absorbed heat is 4watts per square meter at 250ppm.

Link me up. I'm sure you're confused.

 

[SSDD]

I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.

I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.

Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.

And you believe fervently in back radiation even though it has never been observed....and the best you can do is throw out some insult based on your own flawed mischaracterization of my position...sad that you have been brought so low Ian...you are practically indistinguishable from crick, rocks, mammoth, et al. Congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.

Sorry guy...but there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the greenhouse hypothesis...it is all flawed mathematical models....all the way down.

 

[jc456]

because it has not been validated. kapeesh?

I don't think a drop of red dye in the ocean will cause it to turn red.

Of course it has been validated, it has been validated by all sorts of sources, including the US military.

well fine, post it up let's see this validation.

There is no point, because I already posted absorption spectra analysis and papers on how to quantify the results mathematically and you and others (I think it was Todd wasn't it??) said that those don't count.

Apparently you guys want a mercury wetbulb in a controlled environment, where CO2 is added and the effect observed...like what Arrhenius did, but apparently that's not good enough for you either.

but you assume absorption equates to heat somehow. I only ask that you show the temperature from that absorption. Can you do that? Nope!!!! I already know that answer, so it was a rhetorical question.

Of course it equates to heat, that's the definition of HEAT.

If infrared radiation were NOT absorbed, then it wouldn't be "heat".

give me a link to the test that shows it do be heat. I can light a match and see the flame and I can measure it's heat output.

 

[IanC]

I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.

I can only suggest that you and your fellow 'smart photon' enthusiasts get to work on presenting a coherent case on how you think physics work. You say all the evidence supports your position yet you never present any data or actual nuts and bolts explanations of how you think things happen. Have at it, I wish you luck.

Just remember that it will take more than strident but unsubstantiated claims.

And you believe fervently in back radiation even though it has never been observed....and the best you can do is throw out some insult based on your own flawed mischaracterization of my position...sad that you have been brought so low Ian...you are practically indistinguishable from crick, rocks, mammoth, et al. Congratulations.

I am easily distinguishable from zealots like you or crick. You don't believe in physics and crick wants so much to believe in prophecies of Doom that he refuses to see anything except what supports his case.

 

[IanC]

You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.

Sorry guy...but there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the greenhouse hypothesis...it is all flawed mathematical models....all the way down.

Of course there is. You're just like crick though. You just refuse to acknowledge any evidence that you don't like.

 

[Crick]

My conclusions don't violate basic physics Ian.

 

[LaDexter]

Your "conclusions" are rejected by any rational analysis of the actual climate data, not to mention the fact that Earth ice content is determined by the position of land, not by CO2, which doesn't affect temperature at all.

 

[SSDD]

You have been presented with lots of evidence that supports the basic underpinnings of the Greenhouse Effect.

Sorry guy...but there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the greenhouse hypothesis...it is all flawed mathematical models....all the way down.

Of course there is. You're just like crick though. You just refuse to acknowledge any evidence that you don't like.

No there isn't...but if you believe there is...by all means post it. I am quite sure it won't be actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the greenhouse hypothesis...but it is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in you people's minds.

 

[SSDD]

Your "conclusions" are rejected by any rational analysis of the actual climate data, not to mention the fact that Earth ice content is determined by the position of land, not by CO2, which doesn't affect temperature at all.

So are yours...but who is counting?

 

[LaDexter]

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

 

[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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What a mishmash of assertions.

^ didn't read the article

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1.6 for doubling, yet we have not doubled, and we are over halfway there. But we shall see who is correct in the near future.

Any lab work???

No.

 

[LaDexter]

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...