Challenge to the Skeptics: What's Your Theory?

[Oddball]

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.

The theme is that man is the cause of global ruination and the only cure is self-immolation.

Leave it to a doomsaying dipschitt like you to not be able to differentiate irrelevant and misleading details from overall thematic structure.

 

[konradv]

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.

The theme is that man is the cause of global ruination and the only cure is self-immolation.

Leave it to a doomsaying dipschitt like you to not be able to differentiate irrelevant and misleading details from overall thematic structure.

There's no such theme, except in the fevered minds of the deniers. They have to say it's political, because neither the science nor logic is on their side. It's gotten so bad that Frank has to pretend daily that no AGW theory has ever been presented. I mean, WTF have we been talking about then?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Oddie, you are one stupid ass.

The theme is that man is the cause of global ruination and the only cure is self-immolation.

Leave it to a doomsaying dipschitt like you to not be able to differentiate irrelevant and misleading details from overall thematic structure.

There's no such theme, except in the fevered minds of the deniers. They have to say it's political, because neither the science nor logic is on their side. It's gotten so bad that Frank has to pretend daily that no AGW theory has ever been presented. I mean, WTF have we been talking about then?

Can you, for the very first time, please state this theory?

 

[konradv]

Can you, for the very first time, please state this theory?

WTF, Matthew did it just a few posts up. How does that make you like anything but a trolling moron?

 

[Old Rocks]

That is the denier method. Just keep repeating the same dumb ass question no matter how many times it is answered.

The fancier ones throw pages of really bad math, call on magical EM hypothesis, and generally make a fool of themselves. And all of them claim to be far smarter than the scientists that have spent decades studying the climate and atmospheric physics. In fact, they go so far as to claim a worldwide conspriracy among scientists of all political systems to mislead us on the issue toward some 'one world' goal, what ever they mean by that.

 

[Oddball]

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

Oddie, you are one stupid ass.

The theme is that man is the cause of global ruination and the only cure is self-immolation.

Leave it to a doomsaying dipschitt like you to not be able to differentiate irrelevant and misleading details from overall thematic structure.

There's no such theme, except in the fevered minds of the deniers. They have to say it's political, because neither the science nor logic is on their side. It's gotten so bad that Frank has to pretend daily that no AGW theory has ever been presented. I mean, WTF have we been talking about then?

The only issue in denial here is that you're spouting exactly the same crap that doomsayers for no less than 2,000 years, and you're denying it.

 

[wirebender]

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?

The papers have already been written and published. Take a look out there at the work by actual scientists (physicists/chemists as opposed to climate pseudoscientists who need pass only the bare minimum of actual science courses to get their degree) who state flatly that the greenhouse effect is so much bunkum

I have described my position, described the physical laws upon which it is based and done the work here on this board and it is open to critique. You haven't pointed out any error on my part nor gone the first milimeter towards proving your own position in any way other than an appeal to authority and yet, you call me uneducated.

 

[wirebender]

Can you, for the very first time, please state this theory?

WTF, Matthew did it just a few posts up. How does that make you like anything but a trolling moron?

That hypothesis has been proven to violate both the law of conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Got one that doesn't violate the laws of physics?

 

[wirebender]

The fancier ones throw pages of really bad math, call on magical EM hypothesis, and generally make a fool of themselves.

So tell me rocks, what sort of math error did I make? Which physical law did I not apply correctly? Which claim did I make that I didn't support with mathematics to prove my point?

You admit that the science is over your head and you claim I have put forward bad math? How would you know rocks? What clue do you have as to whether the work I did is right or wrong? You can't do it yourself because by your own admission it is over your head.

You are a cheerleader waving your pompoms.

Tell me rocks, if the radiation emitted by the surface of the earth is not an EM field, what, pray tell, is it? If the radiation emitted by the atmosphere isn't an EM field, what else might it be? Tell me rocks, how might energy move in opposite directions on the same vector? Write an email to your favorite high priest and ask. If you get a reply, it will be calling you a denier and your question won't be answered.

And all of them claim to be far smarter than the scientists that have spent decades studying the climate and atmospheric physics.

Have you seen the academic requirements for climate science? Hate to tell you rocks but atmospheric physics isn't on the menu. Take a look at the requirements of a degree in climatology vs a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Climatology as a program of study more closely resembles alchemy than any actual science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you, for the very first time, please state this theory?

WTF, Matthew did it just a few posts up. How does that make you like anything but a trolling moron?

You realize that there was no hypothesis in Matthew's post right? He's just making observations. Are you sure you know what a hypothesis is?

So, put on your big boy pants, feel free to send an IM to Old Rocks, because he's never stated it either. You can turn Matthews post into a hypothesis or allow me to state it based on what the Warmers have claimed to date:

"Are incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate?"

 

[daveman]

The theme is that man is the cause of global ruination and the only cure is self-immolation.

Leave it to a doomsaying dipschitt like you to not be able to differentiate irrelevant and misleading details from overall thematic structure.

There's no such theme, except in the fevered minds of the deniers. They have to say it's political, because neither the science nor logic is on their side. It's gotten so bad that Frank has to pretend daily that no AGW theory has ever been presented. I mean, WTF have we been talking about then?

The only issue in denial here is that you're spouting exactly the same crap that doomsayers for no less than 2,000 years, and you're denying it.

Yeah, but this time, they're RIGHT! No, honest! So, uh....send all your money to China so they can pollute at will.


It's the only thing that will save us!!

 

[daveman]

Can you, for the very first time, please state this theory?

WTF, Matthew did it just a few posts up. How does that make you like anything but a trolling moron?

That hypothesis has been proven to violate both the law of conservation of energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Got one that doesn't violate the laws of physics?

American SUVs and coal are so evil they break the laws of physics.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm truly trying to follow anything technical that's part of this thread. And for the record, I'm a true skeptic only as it applies to any accuracy of the "statement of the problem". Meaning -- I worry about reducing this complex problem to one simple-ass number such as "global mean temp" and the accuracy inherent in determining that -- and also as to claims of DAMAGE that result based on models that are obviously flawed.

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?

ANY gas can retain heat. Just as it can shed heat. Otherwise you'd never get a phase change from solid to liquid to gas. What am I missing?

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.

Vector cancellation of EM radiation is more complex than just the relative STRENGTH (magnitude) of both vectors. Depends on Phase, Freq as well. Whatever "cancellation" is occuring is pure serendity -- no? Now if you consider THERMAL FLOW -- then the coherence of the sources doesn't matter in the addition and HEAT will be affected as you said.

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.

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.

See above, I believe EVERY gas is capable of retaining heat from EM absorbtion.

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.
OK. That's likely. That irradiation comes in a very spectrum, has anyone checked to make sure that our YELLOW sun isn't chromatically changing? There are also long-term CYCLICAL variations in the physical pole orientation that brilliant folks ought to rule out.
There is no surplus of energy. There is only the amount of energy incoming from the sun.

Let's stop there and see where I'm wrong...

 

[wirebender]

ANY gas can retain heat. Just as it can shed heat. Otherwise you'd never get a phase change from solid to liquid to gas. What am I missing?

Sorry guy, water vapor is the only gas in our atmosphere that can actually retain heat. Do feel free to prove otherwise if you like.

Vector cancellation of EM radiation is more complex than just the relative STRENGTH (magnitude) of both vectors. Depends on Phase, Freq as well. Whatever "cancellation" is occuring is pure serendity -- no? Now if you consider THERMAL FLOW -- then the coherence of the sources doesn't matter in the addition and HEAT will be affected as you said.

Feel free to prove my assertion wrong. Lets see your math. Appeals to complexity are fun, but they really don't prove anything. Mostly such appeals serve little purpose other than to detract from the more obvious flaws in a hypothesis. Prove that radiation from the cooler atmosphere is warming the surface of the earth as claimed by the greenhouse gas hypothesis. I am interested in seeing your work, especially the bottom line.

See above, I believe EVERY gas is capable of retaining heat from EM absorbtion.

Demonstrate the mechanism by which any gas other than water vapor can retain heat. You are certainly free to "believe" anything you want. Belief, however, doesn't make it so.

OK. That's likely. That irradiation comes in a very spectrum, has anyone checked to make sure that our YELLOW sun isn't chromatically changing? There are also long-term CYCLICAL variations in the physical pole orientation that brilliant folks ought to rule out.

Once again, an appeal to complexity does not alter the basic laws that govern the energies at work. If you think I am wrong, then show me. Lets see your work.

Let's stop there and see where I'm wrong...

Thus far you haven't said anything. You have made appeals to complexity and hinted that you might be a keeper of odd knowledge. Since you have made no actual declaration other than the claim that a gas other than water vapor can retain heat which is patently wrong, you have said nothing else that might be either right or wrong.

If you believe a gas other than water vapor can retain heat, prove it.

BY the way, I see that you are from Nashville. I used to live there way back in the 60's. I graduated from Antioch and then moved over to what is now Brentwood although there weren't any high dollar houses there when I was there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In any event, America under Obama is a third rate country, shouldn't the Warmers be convincing China and India to ween off carbon?

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender:

I find it bizarre that you can't impart heat to CO2 ("or ANY OTHER GAS, other than water vapor"). It makes that opening scene in MacBeth with all the witches pure magic... How does it get from frozen witches brew to spewing around the stage?

In fact, I used to work in optical computing and we tried to avoid heat distortion from the laser EM by evacuating the optical path. And it wasn't JUST water vapor that was the problem.

And what's the fuss about HARP then? I thought the claim was that HARP had enough power to IONIZE gases in the atmosphere?

ANyway -- CO2 can be used as a refrigerant substitute for freon. Granted that's compression, but it also has a Temperature retention curve which you'll find at:

Chapter 9: Carbon Dioxide (R744) The New Refrigerant (updated 5/7/09)

Yeah -- we chose this area after we fled California --- thus the flaCALTENN signature. It's a little bit rocknroll and a LOT country.. Kinda like the beverley hillbillies..

 

[flacaltenn]

More specifically WireBender;

Here's a guy who AGREES with your overall analysis (fellow IEEE member), but shows that although water vapor is a far more efficient retainer of heat from EM -- that it's not alone..

http://vipclubmn.org/Documents/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf

And there's the chart below... Please explain your "ALL or NONE gassy" assertion based on that...

This guys says:

Greenhouse gases, except water vapor, only trap heat at certain narrow wavelengths of infrared radiation related to their molecular structures. Data shows that present concentrations of CO2, a strong absorber, are already well above the saturation value at its principal wavelength, so increases in it have a relative small affect. These new calculations are based on atmospheric models of the energy absorption bandwidths of greenhouse gases coupled with Max Planck’s equations relating to
infrared wavelength distributions. A new simple technique is also proposed in the appendix to
measure actual trapped heat being radiated back from the atmosphere to the Earth.

SNIP

However it is felt that the simple role of long-term heat rises due to only CO2 changes is a much simpler process and better estimated by basic models as used herein. Certain shortcomings in the IPCC data and estimates, as reported by others, are also summarized. Based on this new information, recommendations are made regarding future U.S. energy policy. While it does appear that the recent years show a warming trend, the role of CO2 in this is very small, and perhaps beneficial in moderating winter temperatures in colder climates.

SNIP

Understanding Heat “Trapping” It is well known that certain gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, methane, and others in the atmosphere absorb radiant infrared heat that is leaving the Earth’s surface, warm the air, and re-radiate heat in all directions, including back to Earth.

Essentially, this is how the "POWER" of greenhouse gases are judged. Against their width of spectral absorbtion and resultant heat retention. And as you say -- water vapor is FAR more important than CO2. I think you reach the same conclusion if you allow that "at some narrower band of frequencies" CO2 can retain heat energy from EM radiation....

 

[syrenn]

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?

Hot, Warm, Cold, Warm, Hot.....

Been happening since the earth was formed. Sucks that humans like the warm periods.

 

[wirebender]

More specifically WireBender;

Here's a guy who AGREES with your overall analysis (fellow IEEE member), but shows that although water vapor is a far more efficient retainer of heat from EM -- that it's not alone..

http://vipclubmn.org/Documents/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf

And there's the chart below... Please explain your "ALL or NONE gassy" assertion based on that...

The chart references radiation transmission, not heat retention. I never suggested that CO2 could not transmit IR, of course it can. It absorbs and immediately emits precisely the same amount. There is no trapping, slowing down, or retention of that energy though.

This guys says:

A new simple technique is also proposed in the appendix to measure actual trapped heat being radiated back from the atmosphere to the Earth.[/quote]

There is no heat being radiated back to the earth from the cooler atmosphere.

Understanding Heat “Trapping” It is well known that certain gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, methane, and others in the atmosphere absorb radiant infrared heat that is leaving the Earth’s surface, warm the air, and re-radiate heat in all directions, including back to Earth.

Again, describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 or any other gas to be able to absorb and retain or trap heat. If it emits exactly the amount absorbed, where is the retention?

Tell me, do you believe you can place reflectors around a heater in your home that radiates 1000 watts and realize a net gain of even one watt of energy out of that heater that you don't have to pay the electric company for?

According to climate science, the surface of the earth radiates more than double the amount of energy it receives from its only energy source. Describe the law of physics that predicts such a thing is possible.

Essentially, this is how the "POWER" of greenhouse gases are judged. Against their width of spectral absorbtion and resultant heat retention.

There is no heat retention. There is absorption and immediate emission of precisely the same amount of energy.

As to radiation from the atmosphere warming the surface of the earth, again, lets see your math and name and describe the physical laws upon which you base your claim.

And as you say -- water vapor is FAR more important than CO2. I think you reach the same conclusion if you allow that "at some narrower band of frequencies" CO2 can retain heat energy from EM radiation....

Because water vapor can, in fact, absorb and retain heat without necessarily becoming warmer itself (till it changes phases anyway).It is the only naturally occuring substance known to man that can do that trick. If you would like an easy experiment to see the phenomenon for your self, just ask. I will be happy to describe it.

All other gasses emit exactly the same amount of energy they absorb. Transmission of energy and the retention of energy are two entirely different things. CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses can certainly transmit energy, but there is no retention of that energy.

 

[wirebender]

WireBender:

I find it bizarre that you can't impart heat to CO2 ("or ANY OTHER GAS, other than water vapor"). It makes that opening scene in MacBeth with all the witches pure magic... How does it get from frozen witches brew to spewing around the stage?

I never said that you couldn't impart heat to the substance. I said that it wouldn't retain it.

In fact, I used to work in optical computing and we tried to avoid heat distortion from the laser EM by evacuating the optical path. And it wasn't JUST water vapor that was the problem.

Again, you aren't describing a gas retaining heat. Part of the problem you would experience with distortion having CO2 in your optical path is that energy emitted by CO2 and any of the other so called greenhouse gasses is emitted in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another like molecule. Distortion would be unavoidable.

ANyway -- CO2 can be used as a refrigerant substitute for freon. Granted that's compression, but it also has a Temperature retention curve which you'll find at:

Chapter 9: Carbon Dioxide (R744) The New Refrigerant (updated 5/7/09)

And this heat retention curve applies to CO2 in the open atmosphere exactly how?

Yeah -- we chose this area after we fled California --- thus the flaCALTENN signature. It's a little bit rocknroll and a LOT country.. Kinda like the beverley hillbillies..

Last time I was in that area was about 1999. It sure looked different than it did in the late 60's and early 70's. Do they still have free concerts all summer long at the Parthenon?