Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[CrusaderFrank]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

 

[konradv]

You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?

See what I mean?

 

[martybegan]

The basic premise is the relase of long term sequestered organic carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

Carbon in the form of oil, coal and natural gas is now stored in a form that is kept out of the atmosphere. By burning it we are returning it to the atmosphere.

By using it faster than it is sequestered you increase the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere, increasing the retention of heat in the atmosphere, and thus AGW.

My issues arent with the general cycle, it is known. My issues are with

1) the true impact of increases in CO2 concentration, i.e. is it a functional increase or is there some sort of "buffer" or "dead-band" effect that mitigates increases.

2) The ability of models to appricate every sink and addition to a system this large. Also can some sinks be triggered by increased concentration.

3) The effects of AGW vs. normal background variation and changes.\

4) That the overall proposals put together to fight AGW basically consist of more government, and more sacrifice by certain groups of people.

 

[wirebender]

You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?

There has never been any logic presented; only a blind faith. In the past day or so, I gave you guys instructions to manufacture a very inespensive device that will prove that downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the AGW, and greenhouse hpothesies) simply does not exist.

It involves pointing a parabolic dish at the sky and producing a cooling effect. (precisely what the second law of thermodynamics predicts). In fact it produces such a cooing effect that during night time hours, one can actually produce ice when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees and depending on altitude and relative humidity, maybe even at higher temperatures. In addition, the dish can be used to realise some cooling during daylight hours.

If downdwelling radiation from greenhouse gasses existed, you could not point a parabolic dish into the sky and cool anything. Day or night, the downdwelling IR would always cause warming. Feel free to describe the physical law that would allow downdwelling IR from "greenhouse gasses" to warm the atmosphere and at the same time allow one to create ice by pointing a parabolic dish at that downdwelling radiation when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees.

Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus.

 

[konradv]

Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus.

What hypothesis would that be? Your posts are so disjointed and jump from topic to topic so erratically, you're going to have to be more specific. To keep it simple for you, CO2 and the other GHGs act like a blanket, keeping in more heat. It's easily demonstrated in a lab that they absorb IR and since statistically half would be re-emitted towards earth, the earth stays warmer. Add another blanket(more GHGs) and the atmosphere would retain even more heat than if they weren't present.

 

[konradv]

You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?

See what I mean?

"See, see" says the blind man!!!

 

[konradv]

BTW, what requires more "faith"? The notion that since GHGs trap IR, they may be adding heat to the globe or the notion the earth is so large that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate?

 

[wirebender]

Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus.

What hypothesis would that be? Your posts are so disjointed and jump from topic to topic so erratically, you're going to have to be more specific. To keep it simple for you, CO2 and the other GHGs act like a blanket, keeping in more heat. It's easily demonstrated in a lab that they absorb IR and since statistically half would be re-emitted towards earth, the earth stays warmer. Add another blanket(more GHGs) and the atmosphere would retain even more heat than if they weren't present.

You keep saying blanket, blanket, as if that meant something. Do you have one of the new temporal thermometers for kids? The sort that you touch the child's skin with to read a surface temperature? If so, try this out. Take the temperature of your skin. Then put a blanket over your skin for a minute or so, then take the surface temperature of your skin. Do you know what you will see? The surface temperature of your skin will have dropped. Heat will have flowed from your skin to the blanket, exactly as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. Putting a blanket over yourself actually cools your surface temperature.

As to downward emitted radiation, try the experiment I have provided with the parabolic dish. If IR were being emitted downward, you could not achieve a cooler temperature than the surrounding air by pointing a dish upwards at the downdwelling radiation. Do you have such a poor grasp of the science that you believe that downdwelling IR could actually warm the planet and promote cooling if one points a parabolic dish towards it? What laws of physics do you suppose predict such a thing?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Konrad is flailing badly from the get go, so let's help him out

"...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toronado3800]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Neg rep for lying. I have given you my theory on global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Neg rep for lying. I have given you my theory on global warming.

Can you please take precious time away from trying to suck your own dick and post it up here?

 

[konradv]

Observational fact and direct experiment prove that your hypothesis is bogus.

What hypothesis would that be? Your posts are so disjointed and jump from topic to topic so erratically, you're going to have to be more specific. To keep it simple for you, CO2 and the other GHGs act like a blanket, keeping in more heat. It's easily demonstrated in a lab that they absorb IR and since statistically half would be re-emitted towards earth, the earth stays warmer. Add another blanket(more GHGs) and the atmosphere would retain even more heat than if they weren't present.

You keep saying blanket, blanket, as if that meant something. Do you have one of the new temporal thermometers for kids? The sort that you touch the child's skin with to read a surface temperature? If so, try this out. Take the temperature of your skin. Then put a blanket over your skin for a minute or so, then take the surface temperature of your skin. Do you know what you will see? The surface temperature of your skin will have dropped. Heat will have flowed from your skin to the blanket, exactly as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. Putting a blanket over yourself actually cools your surface temperature.

As to downward emitted radiation, try the experiment I have provided with the parabolic dish. If IR were being emitted downward, you could not achieve a cooler temperature than the surrounding air by pointing a dish upwards at the downdwelling radiation. Do you have such a poor grasp of the science that you believe that downdwelling IR could actually warm the planet and promote cooling if one points a parabolic dish towards it? What laws of physics do you suppose predict such a thing?

I say blanket because it DOES mean something. What doesn't mean much is the explanation you give, especially without a cite from someone who has a better grasp of the science than you do. I find it hard to believe what you've posted is anything more than made up gobble-de-gook and irrelevancies without back up from someone with certifiable credentials.

 

[theHawk]

What I would like to know from the warmers is why is global warming a bad thing?

It happened several times in the past already. There have been periods of time when earth had no ice caps, yet the Earth ended up cooling and forming them. So please explain, why would it be the end of the world if the ice caps melt? Please note, saying that someone's beach front property may end up going underwater doesn't constitute the end of the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Neg rep for lying. I have given you my theory on global warming.

Where's your "Theory", Buckwheat?

Neg rep heading your way too while Im at it

 

[Toronado3800]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.

 

[konradv]

What I would like to know from the warmers is why is global warming a bad thing?

It happened several times in the past already. There have been periods of time when earth had no ice caps, yet the Earth ended up cooling and forming them. So please explain, why would it be the end of the world if the ice caps melt? Please note, saying that someone's beach front property may end up going underwater doesn't constitute the end of the world.

It's because it's NOT about "the end of the world". That's just skeptic gibberish intended to confuse the issue. Those fluctuations occurred over 100s of thousands to millions of years, not the ~200 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It's about the fact that humans and civilization evolved in a world of relatively moderate temperatures and the feeling that it should stay that way. Who wants to go back to a world where the central US is an inland sea?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.

That's it? That's not a "Theory"!!

Try again

 

[Grace]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

I ain't no scientist, but....tell me this scenario doesn't fit:

Chickens. 5. Small section of yard, say 8 x 10. There is grass. An apple tree. Some greenery. I decide to get 5 more. I decide to get a rooster, too. 10 hens, 1 rooster. They have babies. They are still in the 8 x 10 section. The grass is almost gone now. The greenery has been eaten. The ground is no longer smooth but has pits and holes where they scratched to get bugs. The poop they generate can fill a large trash can in two weeks. They ran out of yard space.

Now picture the earth. It is not like it was 100 years ago, much less a few thousand years ago. It's polluted. Holes have been scratched in it. More people are being born. There is no more room, so things are getting worse as people progress. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect A to B.

 

[Toronado3800]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?

Must have.

As simply stated as i can:

Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.

That's it? That's not a "Theory"!!

Try again

Frank, i am not going to write u a scientific paper on climate models. I make a good portion of my posts via cell while watching the kid or sitting on the throne. Its difficult to jump through your hoops.

Perhaps you could use Google to dig up some links to scientific papers?

Sure it is you?

You seemed soo much more on top of it yesterday asking for experiments showing temp increases with realistic ppm changes.

Does your wife share your log in and did u upset her? I share a password or two with mine for different photo sites.