Challenge to the Skeptics: What's Your Theory?

[wirebender]

I agree, they're the "deniers". You can tell who they are because their orientation is political, rather than scientific. Whenever you hear someone discuss Gore in a negative way, they're in that group. People who really know the issue, discuss it. Those that don't bash Al.

Really? What is my political leaning? I grow, or kill most of what I eat. I heat my barns with solar. I use wind to pump water and charge batteries for my electric fences. I have set aside 100 acres of old hardwoods to be preserved after my death. To the best of my recollection, I have not posted a word on a thread that is political in nature on this board.

Are you going to call me a conservative because I can do the math and prove my case and expect anyone who wants me to beleive to be able to prove their own position by doing the math and describing the physical laws upon which they base their belief? Are you going to define yourself as a liberal because you can't, but believe anyway?

You haven't the slightest clue as to what my position is on any topic other than the climate and you believe you can pidgeonhole me? Your grasp into human nature is as poor as your grasp of the science concerning climate change.

 

[wirebender]

[
Substitute "heretics" and "The Pope" for "deniers" and "Gore", respectively, in that paragraph and you'll clearly see the thematic structure I talked about in #14.

konradv is clearly a believer. He has demonstrated that he can't discuss the science so for him, this is a matter of faith. He has no real idea whether his belief is founded in hard observable science or not. He identifies with, and leans politically in the direction of those who are of a warmist bent. If they were manmade denying climate change, then he would be denying manmade climate change based on as little actual knowledge as he has in support of it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are those who doubt global warming really "skeptics"?

To me, skeptics are those who refuse to believe anything without convincing proof, and, in this case, since we're dealing with a scientific issue, the proof would have to be generated by rigorous scientific inquiry.

Merely saying "I don't believe in global warming" (because I heard on Rush Limbaugh, or read in a book by a politico, or heard on the street, etc., that it's untrue) does not constitute true skepticism.

Right, and as near as I can tell this "ManMade Global Warming" has never been subjected to any inquiry, it's just a bunch of EnviroMarxists using big boy science words

 

[Old Rocks]

At the risk of being repeating myself, I understand the laws of nature to work a certain way. I grasp their meaning and implication and am able to do the math necessary to prove them to myself. If you believe that I am mistaken, then do the math and prove me wrong. Subtract the two EM fields in question and show me that 1) the EM field of the atmosphere is greater in magnitude than that of the earth or 2) show me mathematically that two EM fields can move in opposite directions along the same vector. If you can prove either one of those, then you have an argument. If you can't, then you have none.

Without one of those proofs, at best you have thought experiments that are in violation of the laws of science.

Bentwire, of the magical EM fields, meet Franky boy of the hollow moon. You two should get aquinted, for I can see that both of you have been very successful in channeling Velikovsky.

 

[Old Rocks]

I know of dozens of things that affect the climate. Do you agree that there has been warming? Do you agree that CO2 has some part in climate change, even a small one?

The Warmers have only one course on their plate but the lukewarmers and skeptics have a full buffet. What are your favourites? Meat and potatoes like solar and ENSO? Vegetables like land use and clouds. Or do you head straight to the dessert tray and pick out data fraud, public misdirection or fiscal naivete?

Thematic structure.

The whole warmist hoax swirls around the same themes offered up by misanthropes, eugenicists, social engineers and other assorted collectivist authoritarians throughout the ages.

From the Revelation, to Malthus, to the Luddites, to Galbraith, to Ehrlich, to Algore...Every one of them have peddled the same basic story of the utter ruination of mankind, unless you REPENT NOW!.. ...Not at all surprisingly, virtually every one of them has excluded themselves from being part of the problem, who need to drastically change their lifestyles to comport with the "solutions" they seek to foist upon everyone else.

Forget all the purposefully confusing and misdirecting slew of statistics, charts, graphs and reputed "experts"....The mere thematic framework of the anthropogenic gullible warming hoax will tell you everything you need to know.

So Thematic Structure melts glaciers, ice caps, and warms the earth by 0.7 C.

Oddie, you are one stupid ass.

 

[wirebender]

Bentwire, of the magical EM fields, meet Franky boy of the hollow moon. You two should get aquinted, for I can see that both of you have been very successful in channeling Velikovsky.

Impotent insults and not even an attempt at proving me wrong. Clearly the work I laid out and the laws of physics I used as proof is over your head. You believe I am wrong but don't have a clue as to whether I am actually wrong. Once again, it is just a matter of faith for you.

It is sad that you have been reduced to nothing more than an impotent hurler of insults and a pom pom waving cheerleader for whoever voices your political opinion. If you ever want to actually try your hand at the math, let me know. I will be happy to help you out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Bent is a source of constant amusement as he flaps yap about things which he has zero understanding.

Still waiting for you to name the law of science that supports your belief as well rocks. The best you can do is post a link to that scripture you believe in so much but when asked specific questions about it, you are unable to answer. I have proved my position and shown my work. Thus far, you haven't even demonstrated that you understand your position, much less done any work to prove it.

I don't know how many people I have seen in posts 'proving' that they have proved Einstein wrong. So you throw around some mathematical terms, and expect someone to reply in kind. Were your meanderings valid, you would publish them in a peer reviewed journal, not on an internet message board.

I present articles from peer reviewed journals, PNAS publications, the information from the sites of NASA, NOAA, Woods Hole Institute, Scripts Institute, and other sources actually involved in research. You post nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

I know of dozens of things that affect the climate. Do you agree that there has been warming? Do you agree that CO2 has some part in climate change, even a small one?

The Warmers have only one course on their plate but the lukewarmers and skeptics have a full buffet. What are your favourites? Meat and potatoes like solar and ENSO? Vegetables like land use and clouds. Or do you head straight to the dessert tray and pick out data fraud, public misdirection or fiscal naivete?

This is a backhanded compliment to my challenge to the Death Worshiping Cult that is AGW whom I've labeled the "Warmers" who still have not even stated their hypothesis.

My understanding of the scientific method is that you observe something in the world, you state a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis to fail it, to see if there is anything else that might be at work then at some point you say, "It's probably like this" Even time and gravity are relative concepts.

I will grant that we have been in a recent warming period and by recent I mean within the last 14,000 years.

It probably has a lot to do with a) that Big Yellow Thing in the sky and b) slight variations in the planet we're on.

I can say with absolute confidence that the CO2 mankind has dumped into the atmosphere did not melt the glaciers that once covered North America, so it's a good bet that it's not melting them today.

On a personal note, I turned down my chance to attend Bronx High School of Science in favor of becoming a merchant.

Were you selling 'really good shit'?

 

[wirebender]

I don't know how many people I have seen in posts 'proving' that they have proved Einstein wrong. So you throw around some mathematical terms, and expect someone to reply in kind. Were your meanderings valid, you would publish them in a peer reviewed journal, not on an internet message board.

And you don't have a clue one way or another. As I said, it is a matter of faith for you.

I present articles from peer reviewed journals, PNAS publications, the information from the sites of NASA, NOAA, Woods Hole Institute, Scripts Institute, and other sources actually involved in research. You post nonsense.

The bulk of reference I make is to peer reviewed papers rocks and they don't agree with you. Hell, I just linked to a new one on your ocean acidification thread that shows that the oceans are more alkaline now than the average for the past 250 million years.

Face it, you are being hoodwinked. Your position is weak. You simply believe and have no idea whether what you believe in is right or not. You claim confidently that I am wrong but the fact is that you just don't know. You just sound silly telling me that I am wrong when it is clear that you dont' have anything to go on but what people who depend on grant money for a living tell you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At the risk of being repeating myself, I understand the laws of nature to work a certain way. I grasp their meaning and implication and am able to do the math necessary to prove them to myself. If you believe that I am mistaken, then do the math and prove me wrong. Subtract the two EM fields in question and show me that 1) the EM field of the atmosphere is greater in magnitude than that of the earth or 2) show me mathematically that two EM fields can move in opposite directions along the same vector. If you can prove either one of those, then you have an argument. If you can't, then you have none.

Without one of those proofs, at best you have thought experiments that are in violation of the laws of science.

Bentwire, of the magical EM fields, meet Franky boy of the hollow moon. You two should get aquinted, for I can see that both of you have been very successful in channeling Velikovsky.

Have you ever actually stated your hypothesis?

I've never seen it even once. Be a big boy and tell all of us what it is

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By the way, for all the "consensus" and "settled science" the Warmer still have never stated their hypothesis, not even once.

Doubt me? Ask them to post it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See what I mean?

 

[daveman]

Ol' Bent is a source of constant amusement as he flaps yap about things which he has zero understanding.

Still waiting for you to name the law of science that supports your belief as well rocks. The best you can do is post a link to that scripture you believe in so much but when asked specific questions about it, you are unable to answer. I have proved my position and shown my work. Thus far, you haven't even demonstrated that you understand your position, much less done any work to prove it.

I don't know how many people I have seen in posts 'proving' that they have proved Einstein wrong. So you throw around some mathematical terms, and expect someone to reply in kind. Were your meanderings valid, you would publish them in a peer reviewed journal, not on an internet message board.

I present articles from peer reviewed journals, PNAS publications, the information from the sites of NASA, NOAA, Woods Hole Institute, Scripts Institute, and other sources actually involved in research. You post nonsense.

Why do you refuse to answer this question?

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still waiting for you to name the law of science that supports your belief as well rocks. The best you can do is post a link to that scripture you believe in so much but when asked specific questions about it, you are unable to answer. I have proved my position and shown my work. Thus far, you haven't even demonstrated that you understand your position, much less done any work to prove it.

I don't know how many people I have seen in posts 'proving' that they have proved Einstein wrong. So you throw around some mathematical terms, and expect someone to reply in kind. Were your meanderings valid, you would publish them in a peer reviewed journal, not on an internet message board.

I present articles from peer reviewed journals, PNAS publications, the information from the sites of NASA, NOAA, Woods Hole Institute, Scripts Institute, and other sources actually involved in research. You post nonsense.

Why do you refuse to answer this question?

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

They can't even tell us what their hypothesis is

 

[daveman]

I don't know how many people I have seen in posts 'proving' that they have proved Einstein wrong. So you throw around some mathematical terms, and expect someone to reply in kind. Were your meanderings valid, you would publish them in a peer reviewed journal, not on an internet message board.

I present articles from peer reviewed journals, PNAS publications, the information from the sites of NASA, NOAA, Woods Hole Institute, Scripts Institute, and other sources actually involved in research. You post nonsense.

Why do you refuse to answer this question?

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

They can't even tell us what their hypothesis is

"American SUVs and coal are going to kill us all!

"But Chinese cars and coal are OK!"


Something like that, I think.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't know how many people I have seen in posts 'proving' that they have proved Einstein wrong. So you throw around some mathematical terms, and expect someone to reply in kind. Were your meanderings valid, you would publish them in a peer reviewed journal, not on an internet message board.

I present articles from peer reviewed journals, PNAS publications, the information from the sites of NASA, NOAA, Woods Hole Institute, Scripts Institute, and other sources actually involved in research. You post nonsense.

Why do you refuse to answer this question?

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

They can't even tell us what their hypothesis is

co2=green house gas, meaning it retains heat within the climate system that otherwise would go to space. Increase co2=retain more heat within the system. Less energy going to space with the same amount going to earth=surplus of energy within the climate system. This idea is a case in point below inside of the " ".

My friends water vapor is a green house gas too. We all know it retains heat within our atmosphere and so does co2. Frank remember my post about how the extra co2 within our atmosphere currently is unnatural and doesn't fit within the ice cores of the past 2.1 million years? That is what our friends the warmers believe is causing the extra imbalance.

"Kind of like the seasons on earth
In summer you have the sun at near 20 north around this time of the year and the northern hemisphere is getting a surplus of energy=warmer temperatures. But once you get into September the sun is within both hemispheres is creating equal energy into the climate system. As you go into winter then the southern hemisphere is getting the energy and the northern hemisphere is getting a less energy=cooling temperatures. It also has to do with length of day and sun angle, which has a effect on how much energy is reaching the surface."

Look at the ice cores and you find that during the interglacial periods that co2 avg's near 260-300 ppm. 300 ppm 120 thousand years ago during the interglacial that was hotter then today. You get more out gassing of the oceans when they are warmed. So higher co2 levels. Ice ages or glacial periods go down to about 160-180 ppm...Now we're at near 390 or 90 to 130 ppm more then a natural interglacial. Most likely caused by human beings at least the global warmers believe that is so. I don't understand what your theory would be as to why this is so?

You people love to use mars to disprove this, but the truth is heat and temperature are different. Different being that heat energy can only produce a higher temperature if the molecules bump into each other. Mars atmosphere is so thin that the protocols are far away from each other and so the temperature is COOL. The opposite is true on venus with a thick atmosphere and which molecules can bump into each other and create higher temperatures. Case in point is the thermalsphere that is cool, but produces very little molecules that strike into each other.

As you increase green house gases on the planet, we call earth you get=increased temperature because a green house gas radiates heat back towards the surface, which causes a compounding of energy within the system. Small, yes, but there. That is what global warming is. How much warming, who knows.

That is the hypothesis of global warming.

 

[wirebender]

co2=green house gas, meaning it retains heat within the climate system that otherwise would go to space.

How does it do that? It is true that CO2 absorbs IR radiation, but it immediately emits precisely the same amount of energy and it emits it in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. This absorption and emission is happening at the speed of light. Once the energy is emitted, it is again on its way at the speed of light.

Where is the retention of heat, how is it retained, and what law of physics supports the claim?

Increase co2=retain more heat within the system. Less energy going to space with the same amount going to earth=surplus of energy within the climate system. This idea is a case in point below inside of the " ".

Retain it where? CO2 can't retain it. CO2 only absorbs and immediately emits it. It can't be emitted down towards the earth because the EM field propagated by the earth is stronger than the field propagated by the atmosphere and as a result, all energy flow is in the direction of the field propagated by the stronger field. No energy can go against the current unless you can prove that energy from two opposing EM fields can travel in opposite directions along the same vector.

My friends water vapor is a green house gas too.

Greenhouse gas is a misnomer. CO2 and none of the other gasses are greenhouse gasses if you are referring to them as capable of retaining heat EXCEPT water vapor. Water vapor can trap and retain heat, but the molecule itself doesn't necessarily get warmer. If you would like an experiment to prove this to yourself, ask and I will be happy to describe it.

We all know it retains heat within our atmosphere and so does co2. Frank remember my post about how the extra co2 within our atmosphere currently is unnatural and doesn't fit within the ice cores of the past 2.1 million years? That is what our friends the warmers believe is causing the extra imbalance.

Water vapor is the only substance in our atmosphere that can actually absorb and retain energy. CO2 does not. If you believe it does, then describe the mechanism. If you expose CO2 or any of the other so called "greenhouse gasses" to IR, you will see an absorptio spectrum and before you can even form the thought, you see an emission spectrum that is precisely the opposite of the absorption spectra. No energy is retained.

All you need do is look at the past climate to see that CO2 is not the culprit. It has been both warmer and cooler with less CO2 in the atmosphere. It has been warmer and cooler with more CO2 in the atmosphere. When the climate has been warmer and cooler with more and less CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that CO2 is not causing the rise and fall in temperature.

The earth has one energy source. It is the sun. The climate is driven by energy. You want to know what drives the climate, look to the energy source.

"Kind of like the seasons on earth
In summer you have the sun at near 20 north around this time of the year and the northern hemisphere is getting a surplus of energy=warmer temperatures.

There is no surplus of energy. There is only the amount of energy incoming from the sun.

Look at the ice cores and you find that during the interglacial periods that co2 avg's near 260-300 ppm. 300 ppm 120 thousand years ago during the interglacial that was hotter then today.

Look at the same ice cores and you see that the rise in CO2 lagged behind the warming. This tells a rational being that CO2 is the result of warmer themperatures, not the cause. You want to know what started the warming in the first place? Again, look to the only energy source available.

And if you believe that CO2 is an amplifier, describe the mechanism and show me the math.

You people love to use mars to disprove this, but the truth is heat and temperature are different. Different being that heat energy can only produce a higher temperature if the molecules bump into each other. Mars atmosphere is so thin that the protocols are far away from each other and so the temperature is COOL. The opposite is true on venus with a thick atmosphere and which molecules can bump into each other and create higher temperatures. Case in point is the thermalsphere that is cool, but produces very little molecules that strike into each other.

By the same token, warmers like to use venus as a proof. Venus, however has an atmospheric pressure of more than 90 times that of the earth. One only need look at the ideal gas laws to explain the heat there. If you go up in the atmosphere of venus to a point where the atmospheric pressure is 1 bar (earth equivilent) the temperature is the same as on earth once you compensate for the difference in incoming solar radiation. If you take earth atmosphere and increase it 92 times that of earth, ideal gas law tells you that the temperature here would be near that of venus once you compensate for the difference in incoming solar radiation.

As you increase green house gases on the planet, we call earth you get=increased temperature because a green house gas radiates heat back towards the surface, which causes a compounding of energy within the system. Small, yes, but there. That is what global warming is. How much warming, who knows.

Absolutely not true. The whole hypothesis of the greenhouse effect rests on that statement and the mathematics required to prove it wrong are very basic. The law of conservation of energy states pretty clearly that you can not create energy. There is X amount of energy coming in from the sun and that is what we have. You can't compound it. You can change it, you can use it, you can ignore it if you like, but you can not compound it. If compounding energy were possible, we would have no energy woes at all. We could simply set up reflectors, compound the energy and collect the excess for our use.

According to warmists, the surface of the earth receives 161 watts per square meter of radiation from the sun. If it were a perfect reflector, which it is not, the most energy it could reflect would be 161 watts per square meter. According to the same warmists, the surface of the earth that receives 161 watts per square meter of radiation from the sun is radiating 356 watts per square meter. I would like for you to describe the law of physics that predicts such a thing, and describe the mechanism by which it happens, and show me the math to prove it. To date, no climate scientist has done those three things. Acceptance of the claim is a matter of faith, not science.

Here is an exchange between RWatt and myself in which he eventually proves once again that the atmosphere is not radiating downward to warm the earth.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739629-post138.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3747723-post160.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3749183-post165.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3752896-post193.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757921-post208.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757983-post209.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3758427-post211.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3774581-post215.html

Energy can not travel in opposite directions along a single vector. That is an undeniable fact and is at the very core of energy transfer. If you propose a hypothesis that requires that energy move in opposite directions along a single vector, then your hpothesis is false.

The earth radiates some of the energy it absorbs from the sun outward. That radiation take the form of an EM field. That EM field has a magnitude of X. The atmosphere radiates an EM field as well. Its magnitude is Y. When the two fields are in opposition as in the claim that the atmosphere radiates downward toward the earth, you simply subtract the two fields and the result tells you in which direction all energy flows. All energy flows in the direction propagated by the field of greater magnitude. No energy flows against it. The EM field generated by the atmosphere is "swept" so to speak in the same direction as the greater EM field propagated by the earth. No energy from the atmosphere is coming down to warm the earth.

Once more, if you believe that radiation can come down from the cooler atmosphere and warm the earth, describe which law of physics might allow energy to move in opposite directions along the same vector, and show me the math to prove it.

That is the hypothesis of global warming.

And it is false because the mechanics required, at its very foundation violate both the law of conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you want a simple, inexpensive experiment in which you can prove to yourself and actually observe that downdwelling radiation is not warming the earth, just ask and I will describe it to you and provide a link to construction instructions.

 

[IanC]

thanks Matthew, good post

the lukewarmer's position is that, yes, CO2 is intrumental in forming the 'greenhouse effect' along with water vapour and a few other GHGs. but CO2 is much more effective with the initial addition and any extra CO2 has less and less effect. calculations from physical properties lead to the conclusion that doubling CO2 would add 1C *IF* everything else stayed the same. this part is commonly accepted by the majority of both camps.

the warmers think that the extra 1C from doubled CO2 will increase water evaporation, which is a GHG, and this extra water vapour will multiply the 1C to 3C total. positive feedback. runaway warming and tipping points.

the lukewarmers think that the extra 1C from doubled CO2 will increase water evaporation and the extra water vapour will cause more cloud formation which bypasses the direct radiant loss of energy by pumping phase change heat high into the atmosphere while also increasing albedo. a negative feedback which will drop the calculated 1C to something less than that. a negative feedback. no runaway warming, no tipping points.

the warmers had circumstantial evidence that supported their case in the 90's. their models were adjusted to that paradigm and everything looked catastophic. since the high point in 1998 nature has stopped cooperating with the models and the projections are increasingly out of touch with reality. the lukewarmers believe that there are many factors that control the climate, some known some unknown some poorly understood.

the Skeptics are disturbed by the numerous examples of less than stellar science, the naivete of expecting the world to give up industrialized lifestyle, the tremendously expensive cuts for little return and no certainty. especially since there have been fibs and exaggerations all the way down the line.

 

[wirebender]

the warmers think that the extra 1C from doubled CO2 will increase water evaporation, which is a GHG, and this extra water vapour will multiply the 1C to 3C total. positive feedback. runaway warming and tipping points.

the lukewarmers think that the extra 1C from doubled CO2 will increase water evaporation and the extra water vapour will cause more cloud formation which bypasses the direct radiant loss of energy by pumping phase change heat high into the atmosphere while also increasing albedo. a negative feedback which will drop the calculated 1C to something less than that. a negative feedback. no runaway warming, no tipping points.

And us skeptics are waiting for either the warmers or the lukewarmers to describe the mechanism by which this warming might be caused, the physical law that predicts it and a look at the math by which they validate thier claims. To date, I have seen a great deal of math, descriptions and applications of the laws of physics by skeptics but not much beyond thought experiments and appeals to authority and complexity by both the warmers and lukewarmers.

In both the warm and lukewarm camps, a great many assumptions are accepted as fact. In the skeptics camp. if you can't prove it, do the math, and lay it out for inspection and critique by the other side, we wonder why anyone would even bother to make the claim.

I am no mathematician but have laid my position out, described the physical laws upon which I base my position, and done the math out in public in support of my position. Thus far, I have been told that I am uneducated and wrong, but no one has pointed out any error in the calculations or any misused physical law, nor has any alternate mathematical result been presented.

Which camp is more credible?

 

[IanC]

the scientists who have done the layer by layer calcs are more credible to me. it would be nice if the info were more accessible but I have seen enough references to the work to believe it is in the ballpark. why dont you write a paper to show everyone that they are wrong?