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

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.

I posted the definition of a "theory"

Try again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I realized none of the Warmers has every actually answered the question.

Still haven't.

 

[konradv]

Bullshit, frank.

 

[Grace]

Um.ok. Nothing anyone says will be accepted by you anyway because your mind is set. So why bother?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was tired of negotiating against myself in the additional PPM of CO2 that is supposed to cause these changes.

In a way I can say your "Theory" is

"Does an increase in CO2 from 280PPM to 300PPM cause cataclysmic changes in Earth weather, spawning killer tornadoes and Cat 5 hurricanes?"

because that's what you're claiming.

So, what is it? What's this "Theory"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Um.ok. Nothing anyone says will be accepted by you anyway because your mind is set. So why bother?

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...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."

Here's what you need to focus on

"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"

Pointing to some weather event and going, "See that? Global Warming!!" is NOT a Theory

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bullshit, frank.

That's not a "Theory" either

 

[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.

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?

And the current warming trend has been happening since the last ice age, 15,000 years ago. So you're theory that this has only been happening for 200 years is a crock of shit.

We are not going to be able to control the Earth's tempatures, someday the ice caps will melt, and someday there will another ice age putting most of north America under ice.

Unlike the warmers, I don't have an ulterior motive to use global warming as a fear tactic in order to support draconian laws and mandates that will help destroy America in favor of a new socialized world order, where the UN gets to manipulate the US economy through 'carbon credits'.

So, carry on, 'Komrad'.

 

[wirebender]

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.

Actually, that is quite impossible as global warming as a consequence of increased CO2 emissions by man is not a theory. It is at best a hypothesis, a piss poor one, but a hypothesis.

 

[wirebender]

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.

I have given you two sets of instructions for simple experiments that you can perform yourself to see that what you claim is simply not happening as it would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.

You need no credentials to perform the simple, and inexpensive experiments I have given you, and you certainly don't need credentials to see that they don't conform to either the AGW or greenhouse hypothesis.

Are you really so challenged that you can't do a simple experiment yourself?

 

[wirebender]

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.

You keep saying that as well and it simply is not true. Both the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period came on more rapidly than the present warming and climbed to higher temperatures. In fact, in the past 10K years, there have been no less than 13 periods warmer than the present and all of them came on as rapidly as the present warming.

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?

Again, patently false. If you believe the dates postulated by evolutionists, modern humans appeared on the scene somewhere betwen 200,000 years ago and 160,000 years ago. As you can see if we appeared during that time, the earth was considerably colder than the present. Temprate hardly describes the conditions early humans were adapted to.

Then about 130K years ago, temperatures climbed to a point considerably warmer than the present and the climb to warm was more rapid than the present.

The first graphic shows the fact that since the present interglacial began some 14K years ago, it has been considerably warmer than our earliest ancestors adapted to. Logic should tell you that warm suits us better than cold.

 

[wirebender]

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.

Clearly, cause and effect are not part of your thinking.

 

[RWatt]

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 does exist, it's been directly measured.

Humans have for a long time been able to measure infrared radiation. And humans have for a long time pointed such devices towards the sky and measured significant (hundreds of watts) of infrared radiation coming downwards. It aint coming from space, it must be coming from the atmosphere.

 

[RWatt]

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.

You keep saying that as well and it simply is not true. Both the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period came on more rapidly than the present warming and [/b]climbed to higher temperatures[/b].

Based on what evidence?

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

You keep saying that as well and it simply is not true. Both the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period came on more rapidly than the present warming and climbed to higher temperatures. In fact, in the past 10K years, there have been no less than 13 periods warmer than the present and all of them came on as rapidly as the present warming.

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?

Again, patently false. If you believe the dates postulated by evolutionists, modern humans appeared on the scene somewhere betwen 200,000 years ago and 160,000 years ago. As you can see if we appeared during that time, the earth was considerably colder than the present. Temprate hardly describes the conditions early humans were adapted to.

Then about 130K years ago, temperatures climbed to a point considerably warmer than the present and the climb to warm was more rapid than the present.

The first graphic shows the fact that since the present interglacial began some 14K years ago, it has been considerably warmer than our earliest ancestors adapted to. Logic should tell you that warm suits us better than cold.

Huh. You have done all that typing bit never done the CO2 in the fish tank experiment. Weird and cocky.

I also think if you want to delay an ice age the best way to do it would be with greenhouse gasses. Not that I would be cocky enough to risk knocking the balance earth has had out of whack but hey, sone folks are radical, some like me worry about future generations instead of liberally reading an experiment and finding some way it might not work in the real world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Has anyone seen anything resembling a "Theory"?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

A good question, because there are. Burning coal in 'dirty' plants produces and aerosol haze that reflects light back into space. Also, because the ocean is one huge heat sink, the total effects are delayed for a generation or two.

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.

The models are getting more effective every year. However, there is a converse to what you state as a sink triggered by increased concentration. That is a sink that becomes less effective at increased concentrations. We know of one right now. The Ocean. As the ocean warms, it is less able to absorb CO2.

Then there are the real jokers. That is the prior sinks that may release their CO2 and CH4 as the temperature increases. We are seeing two of those in the Arctic right now. The release of CO2 and CH4 from the permafrost, particularly CH4 from a type of permafrost call yedoma, and the release of Ch4 from Arctic Ocean clathrates.

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

Actually, you can easily see that in any graph of the temperatures over the last 150 years. For a short term record, the satellite record of the troposphere temperatures found here shows the natural ups and downs, superimposed over an upward rise overall. Looking at the graph, one can readily see the highs have been getting higher, and the lows have also been getting higher.

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

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

OK. This is a worldwide problem. Every nation, and especially those on an upward economic curve produces massive amounts of GHGs. How are we going to reduce the amount of GHGs produced without agreements between governments? And, of course, those in the business that produce fossil fuels will suffer if their businesses are shut down.

However, I do not see that happening until something such as a change equaling that of the Younger Dryas is experianced. And, of course, it will then be too late.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

You keep saying that as well and it simply is not true. Both the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period came on more rapidly than the present warming and climbed to higher temperatures. In fact, in the past 10K years, there have been no less than 13 periods warmer than the present and all of them came on as rapidly as the present warming.

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?

Again, patently false. If you believe the dates postulated by evolutionists, modern humans appeared on the scene somewhere betwen 200,000 years ago and 160,000 years ago. As you can see if we appeared during that time, the earth was considerably colder than the present. Temprate hardly describes the conditions early humans were adapted to.

Then about 130K years ago, temperatures climbed to a point considerably warmer than the present and the climb to warm was more rapid than the present.

The first graphic shows the fact that since the present interglacial began some 14K years ago, it has been considerably warmer than our earliest ancestors adapted to. Logic should tell you that warm suits us better than cold.

Present your evidence!

Does it match this in credibility?

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

A good question, because there are. Burning coal in 'dirty' plants produces and aerosol haze that reflects light back into space. Also, because the ocean is one huge heat sink, the total effects are delayed for a generation or two.

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.

The models are getting more effective every year. However, there is a converse to what you state as a sink triggered by increased concentration. That is a sink that becomes less effective at increased concentrations. We know of one right now. The Ocean. As the ocean warms, it is less able to absorb CO2.

Then there are the real jokers. That is the prior sinks that may release their CO2 and CH4 as the temperature increases. We are seeing two of those in the Arctic right now. The release of CO2 and CH4 from the permafrost, particularly CH4 from a type of permafrost call yedoma, and the release of Ch4 from Arctic Ocean clathrates.

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

Actually, you can easily see that in any graph of the temperatures over the last 150 years. For a short term record, the satellite record of the troposphere temperatures found here shows the natural ups and downs, superimposed over an upward rise overall. Looking at the graph, one can readily see the highs have been getting higher, and the lows have also been getting higher.

UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

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

OK. This is a worldwide problem. Every nation, and especially those on an upward economic curve produces massive amounts of GHGs. How are we going to reduce the amount of GHGs produced without agreements between governments? And, of course, those in the business that produce fossil fuels will suffer if their businesses are shut down.

However, I do not see that happening until something such as a change equaling that of the Younger Dryas is experianced. And, of course, it will then be too late.

Like the Rapture!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Has anyone seen anything resembling a "Theory"?

Yes, you stupid ass. It has been posted repeatedly. From the American Institute of Physics. Not wingding wingnuts with third grade educations.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

About the American Institute of Physics

About AIP
Annual Report | News | Newsletter | Staff Directory

The American Institute of Physics (AIP) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit membership corporation created for the purpose of promoting the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and its application to human welfare. It is the mission of the Institute to serve the sciences of physics and astronomy by serving its member societies, by serving individual scientists, and by serving students and the general public.

As a "society of societies," AIP supports ten Member Societies and provides a spectrum of services and programs devoted to advancing the science and profession of physics. A pioneer in digital publishing, AIP is also one of the world's largest publishers of physics journals and produces the publications of more than 25 scientific and engineering societies through its New York-based publishing division.

Member Societies - American Institute of Physics