Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[Old Rocks]

What ol' Fritz is doing is a fancy form of lying. He states the percentage of the annual carbon flux that is produced by man, as a part of the carbon that the ocean and biosphere puts into the atmosphere, without also pointing out that the ocean and biosphere actually absorb a larger amount than it emits.

Anyone can google Carbon Cycle and see this for himself. Liars like Fritz like to use half truths to create total lies.

 

[wirebender]

Oh yes, it will all settle out. And there will some interesting times as it does. And not a few of our descendents are going to have some interesting names for this generation.

Our decendents will look back on warmists and snicker and claim confidently that their grandparents didn't buy into it just as we might claim that our grandparents didn't fall for eugenics. To bad your grandkids are going to have to lie about good ole grandpa rocks if they want to put him on the right side of the science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What ol' Fritz is doing is a fancy form of lying. He states the percentage of the annual carbon flux that is produced by man, as a part of the carbon that the ocean and biosphere puts into the atmosphere, without also pointing out that the ocean and biosphere actually absorb a larger amount than it emits.

Anyone can google Carbon Cycle and see this for himself. Liars like Fritz like to use half truths to create total lies.

Is this "Theory"

"Do incremental contributions by human activities to atmospheric CO2 cause "global warming?"

Day 4: Still no Theory

It's just not science, Sparky

 

[Toronado3800]

What ol' Fritz is doing is a fancy form of lying. He states the percentage of the annual carbon flux that is produced by man, as a part of the carbon that the ocean and biosphere puts into the atmosphere, without also pointing out that the ocean and biosphere actually absorb a larger amount than it emits.

Anyone can google Carbon Cycle and see this for himself. Liars like Fritz like to use half truths to create total lies.

Is this "Theory"

"Do incremental contributions by human activities to atmospheric CO2 cause "global warming?"

Day 4: Still no Theory

It's just not science, Sparky

"It's not science" = hopes and dreams.

I mean hell, it could be wrong. Perhaps greenhouse gasses suspended in air behave differently than greenhouse gasses in fish tanks. And there is the whole ppm question of how much does what.

Question is, do you feel lucky punk?

Sorry, just had to try to use a movie quote lol.

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh yes, it will all settle out. And there will some interesting times as it does. And not a few of our descendents are going to have some interesting names for this generation.

Our decendents will look back on warmists and snicker and claim confidently that their grandparents didn't buy into it just as we might claim that our grandparents didn't fall for eugenics. To bad your grandkids are going to have to lie about good ole grandpa rocks if they want to put him on the right side of the science.

Or they will look back like we look back at the folks who fought the switch to unleaded gas.

Or the guys who were pissed they could not use dirty coal burning ovens to heat their st louis homes last century.

Seems even less radical than that. I am not saying do not burn fossik fuels. Just watch it and lets try to be cleaner.

Between my care for the environment and my dislike of the countries in the middle east my dream regulations would have hot rod cars stuck around 300hp. I mean we are talking perhaps 13 sec out of the box cars here. Nothing booring. I am not coming to

​

take away your car.

 

[newpolitics]

Wait... why is the burden of proof on us?

What is YOUR theory Frank? That Cosmic Rays apparently are what cause clouds to form (nothing to do with evaportation and condensation), which of course do have a greenhouse effect, and therefore it all depends on whether the Sunspots are present or not which would deflect the cosmic rays? I saw a video on this once, and if this is the only competing theory, then please, give up.

The otherside has no explanation as to why this happens, or do they? Maybe if I actually heard it I might actually consider it, but all I ever here is how global warming is a conspiracy that people use to make money... Haha... Oil Companies don't make any money *sarcasm* (and every company that produces anything with Oil, which is practically EVERYTHING). They don't have any vested interest in maintaining this infrastructure or anything so they can continue to profit... no, not at all!

 

[konradv]

It's true. Here are some graphs of backradiation measurements at various locations:

You don't seem to be able to grasp that those measurements don't relate to the real world. They were taken with one of two types of radiometers. They were either taken with an uncooled radiometer which means that the instrument believed it was reading blackbody radiation emitted into space at zero degrees kelvin or they were taken by an artifically cooled instrument which was pretending to be in a much colder environment than it was actually in. In either case, the readings taken don't mean anything in the real world.

Backradiation is a myth. It is not supported by the laws of physics. Ignoring the molten center of the earth and gravity, the sun is the only source of energy source. The earth and atmosphere are not energy sources which means that the 168 watts per square meter from the sun is the only energy available. According to your theory, the atmosphere is nearly doubling the energy from the sun without the input of any work at all. Like it or not, that is an impossibility and therefore your hypothesis is an imposibility.

You don't get energy from nothing no matter how hard you wish it were so.

You seem to have a poor understanding of AGW theory. No one says that we "get energy from nothing". It's simply that more CO2 or other GHGs slows down the escape of heat, thereby raising temps. The claim that the theory calls for a doubling of the sun's energy is just a red-herring that has NO basis in reality.

 

[konradv]

This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.

But "Warmism" is a religion?!?! I'm afraid, given other things man has done to the planet, I don't have as much "faith" as you do.

 

[Big Fitz]

This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.

But "Warmism" is a religion?!?! I'm afraid, given other things man has done to the planet, I don't have as much "faith" as you do.

yes less than 1% is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. And that's on a single component of the atmosphere that is even SMALLER than 1% while other greenhouse gases with much larger effects are in greater concentration. (methane and water vapor leap to the front of the list), are casually ignored because they are inconvenient to the theory.

Because if your theory was applied to the other 99% created by nature, the response would be that many multiples more. What you are confusing is local poisoning of the environment which CAN be accomplished very effectively by us. Love Canal comes to mind, and now Chernobyl and Fukushima. Neither of these are global catastrophes and the danger zone quickly dissipates by range. Not to mention you are stating that because we are producing 'extra' CO2, that nature can't handle it and it's accumulating out of control. Really? less than 1% of an increase is equaling a reaction that is sending the climate of this planet spiraling out of control? That's a lot of faith when one burp from a moderate volcano equals all the CO2 production of mankind throughout it's entire history.

Your faith is plenty sufficient to deny the fact your theory is popped by common sense. But since the goal is to instill global fascism, why am I not surprised you'd ignore common sense for the sake of politics.

Compared to nature, man has ALWAYS been insignificant.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wait... why is the burden of proof on us?

What is YOUR theory Frank? That Cosmic Rays apparently are what cause clouds to form (nothing to do with evaportation and condensation), which of course do have a greenhouse effect, and therefore it all depends on whether the Sunspots are present or not which would deflect the cosmic rays? I saw a video on this once, and if this is the only competing theory, then please, give up.

The otherside has no explanation as to why this happens, or do they? Maybe if I actually heard it I might actually consider it, but all I ever here is how global warming is a conspiracy that people use to make money... Haha... Oil Companies don't make any money *sarcasm* (and every company that produces anything with Oil, which is practically EVERYTHING). They don't have any vested interest in maintaining this infrastructure or anything so they can continue to profit... no, not at all!

I believe his theory is that there IS no Anthropogenic global warming. There is only the natural cycle which mankind can do nothing to influence. Hence, all AGW legislation is a fraud designed for a political end towards global fascism.

fair to say, Frank?

 

[konradv]

This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.

But "Warmism" is a religion?!?! I'm afraid, given other things man has done to the planet, I don't have as much "faith" as you do.

yes less than 1% is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. And that's on a single component of the atmosphere that is even SMALLER than 1% while other greenhouse gases with much larger effects are in greater concentration. (methane and water vapor leap to the front of the list), are casually ignored because they are inconvenient to the theory.

Because if your theory was applied to the other 99% created by nature, the response would be that many multiples more. What you are confusing is local poisoning of the environment which CAN be accomplished very effectively by us. Love Canal comes to mind, and now Chernobyl and Fukushima. Neither of these are global catastrophes and the danger zone quickly dissipates by range. Not to mention you are stating that because we are producing 'extra' CO2, that nature can't handle it and it's accumulating out of control. Really? less than 1% of an increase is equaling a reaction that is sending the climate of this planet spiraling out of control? That's a lot of faith when one burp from a moderate volcano equals all the CO2 production of mankind throughout it's entire history.

Your faith is plenty sufficient to deny the fact your theory is popped by common sense. But since the goal is to instill global fascism, why am I not surprised you'd ignore common sense for the sake of politics.

Compared to nature, man has ALWAYS been insignificant.

You say 1%, which I agree is insignificant. However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution CO2 is 25-35%, depending on whose numbers you use. Since the effect of added CO2 is loigarithmic rather than linear, that would be a 10-13% increase in IR absorption. That IS a a significant number and I categorically reject yours as the product of faulty logic.

 

[wirebender]

The otherside has no explanation as to why this happens, or do they? Maybe if I actually heard it I might actually consider it, but all I ever here is how global warming is a conspiracy that people use to make money... Haha... Oil Companies don't make any money *sarcasm* (and every company that produces anything with Oil, which is practically EVERYTHING). They don't have any vested interest in maintaining this infrastructure or anything so they can continue to profit... no, not at all!

Oil companys stand to make trillions as the result of green regulation. Follow the money and you can't help but find a hoax.

 

[Big Fitz]

This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.

But "Warmism" is a religion?!?! I'm afraid, given other things man has done to the planet, I don't have as much "faith" as you do.

yes less than 1% is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. And that's on a single component of the atmosphere that is even SMALLER than 1% while other greenhouse gases with much larger effects are in greater concentration. (methane and water vapor leap to the front of the list), are casually ignored because they are inconvenient to the theory.

Because if your theory was applied to the other 99% created by nature, the response would be that many multiples more. What you are confusing is local poisoning of the environment which CAN be accomplished very effectively by us. Love Canal comes to mind, and now Chernobyl and Fukushima. Neither of these are global catastrophes and the danger zone quickly dissipates by range. Not to mention you are stating that because we are producing 'extra' CO2, that nature can't handle it and it's accumulating out of control. Really? less than 1% of an increase is equaling a reaction that is sending the climate of this planet spiraling out of control? That's a lot of faith when one burp from a moderate volcano equals all the CO2 production of mankind throughout it's entire history.

Your faith is plenty sufficient to deny the fact your theory is popped by common sense. But since the goal is to instill global fascism, why am I not surprised you'd ignore common sense for the sake of politics.

Compared to nature, man has ALWAYS been insignificant.

You say 1%, which I agree is insignificant. However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution CO2 is 25-35%, depending on whose numbers you use. Since the effect of added CO2 is loigarithmic rather than linear, that would be a 10-13% increase in IR absorption. That IS a a significant number and I categorically reject yours as the product of faulty logic.

And zero proof it's mankind except in mathematical THEORY, and even if you are correct it's still insignificant. I leave the debunking of the stored energy to Wirebender and others who have done a masterful job of showing the science just ain't so. What is a 25-30% increase of CO2, if this is actually true? A change from 0.04% total atmospheric composition to 0.05%. Really? This is going to mean jack shit when water vapor fluctuates 3-5% total atmospheric composition an is a more powerful greenhouse gas? Puhleeze! Till you can disprove and count out water vapor, I think you need to start ignoring the insignificant increase in CO2 that cannot be linked to man except in theory.

Nature has produced more CO2 over the eons, and less as well. But yet the only significant source of heat for this planet is still the Sun.

 

[wirebender]

You seem to have a poor understanding of AGW theory. No one says that we "get energy from nothing". It's simply that more CO2 or other GHGs slows down the escape of heat, thereby raising temps. The claim that the theory calls for a doubling of the sun's energy is just a red-herring that has NO basis in reality.

It is you who doesn't understand the hypothesis. It is you who has discounted the actual hypothesis in favor of your own version of some sort blanket mechanism. Here, from warmist sources. I have already posted this once in this thread, which you obviously ignored.

Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona

Clip: "In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere.

However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere: it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere -- for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model.

Now like the atmosphere, the Earth's surface is near an equilibrium where it gains and loses energy at almost the same rate. Because the surface gains 480 Watts/meter2 (half from sunlight and half from the atmosphere), it also must radiate 480 Watts/meter2. Unlike the atmosphere, however, the ground can only radiate in one direction -- upward. Thus, the surface radiates 480 Watts/meter2 upward, and because the atmosphere is opaque to this infrared light, it is absorbed by the atmosphere rather than escaping to space. Notice that the atmosphere, the surface, and the planet as a whole each gain energy at exactly the same rate it is lost. "

Clearly there is a claim there that the surface of the earth is receiving more energy than it gets from the sun. In order for that to happen, the atmosphere must be making energy.

Here, have another:

The Greenhouse Effect

Clip: “Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.”


Again, the claim of free energy. Energy from no where. More energy than comes from the sun.

Why do you claim that the atmosphere acts as a blanket when the documents from your high priests say that backradiation from CO2 is actually warming the earth? Where do you get off disagreeing with climate scientists? Is it that you know that the hypothesis as stated is really a load of crap and therefore you feel the need to make up your own?

Both of the above statements violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because they claim that heat is flowing from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer earth. They are describing a perpetual motion device caught in a positive feedback loop.

Look at your own propaganda

The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun AND being absorbed by the ground in addition to the energy from the sun. The energy budget clearly shows 356 Watts per square meter of surface radiation emanating from the surface of the earth when the sun is providing only 166 watts per square meter. Where is the other energy Do you actually believe that? Look at the backradiation. It clearly states that that radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.

If you don't buy this hypothesis (and you clearly don't) exactly where are you getting your blanket hypothesis?

 

[konradv]

There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory. What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs. You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir. From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.

 

[Big Fitz]

There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory. What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs. You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir. From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.

Riiiight, iAGW facty and chock full of truthiness.

I light a match the next time you crap such a big religious mess.

 

[konradv]

yes less than 1% is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. And that's on a single component of the atmosphere that is even SMALLER than 1% while other greenhouse gases with much larger effects are in greater concentration. (methane and water vapor leap to the front of the list), are casually ignored because they are inconvenient to the theory.

Because if your theory was applied to the other 99% created by nature, the response would be that many multiples more. What you are confusing is local poisoning of the environment which CAN be accomplished very effectively by us. Love Canal comes to mind, and now Chernobyl and Fukushima. Neither of these are global catastrophes and the danger zone quickly dissipates by range. Not to mention you are stating that because we are producing 'extra' CO2, that nature can't handle it and it's accumulating out of control. Really? less than 1% of an increase is equaling a reaction that is sending the climate of this planet spiraling out of control? That's a lot of faith when one burp from a moderate volcano equals all the CO2 production of mankind throughout it's entire history.

Your faith is plenty sufficient to deny the fact your theory is popped by common sense. But since the goal is to instill global fascism, why am I not surprised you'd ignore common sense for the sake of politics.

Compared to nature, man has ALWAYS been insignificant.

You say 1%, which I agree is insignificant. However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution CO2 is 25-35%, depending on whose numbers you use. Since the effect of added CO2 is loigarithmic rather than linear, that would be a 10-13% increase in IR absorption. That IS a a significant number and I categorically reject yours as the product of faulty logic.

And zero proof it's mankind except in mathematical THEORY, and even if you are correct it's still insignificant. I leave the debunking of the stored energy to Wirebender and others who have done a masterful job of showing the science just ain't so. What is a 25-30% increase of CO2, if this is actually true? A change from 0.04% total atmospheric composition to 0.05%. Really? This is going to mean jack shit when water vapor fluctuates 3-5% total atmospheric composition an is a more powerful greenhouse gas? Puhleeze! Till you can disprove and count out water vapor, I think you need to start ignoring the insignificant increase in CO2 that cannot be linked to man except in theory.

Nature has produced more CO2 over the eons, and less as well. But yet the only significant source of heat for this planet is still the Sun.

If you don't know the basics, should you really be commenting? Sure water vapor is a more potent GHG, but if CO2 only raises temps a little, that would mean more moisture in the atmosphere and even higher temps, by your own admission on the power of water vapor. If the extra CO2 isn't coming from man then where, considering that we emit more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year?!?!

 

[konradv]

There's no claim of "free enrgy" in AGW theory. What you're calling free energy is actually that energy which is prevented from leaving the atmosphere by GHGs. You may be able to fool Fitz, but with you're preaching to the choir. From my perspective your analysis doesn't hold water in that one of it's major premises is FALSE, i.e. that there's some sort extra energy that isn't accounted for, when in actuality the extra energy is just a figment of your imagination.

Riiiight, iAGW facty and chock full of truthiness.

I light a match the next time you crap such a big religious mess.

Religious?!?! Who's saying we must accept on faith the declaration that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate of something as large as earth?

 

[RWatt]

My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.

To the contrary, I expect that someone will read the report. That is why I gave page numbers.


As to duplicating mann's graph, you can plug in random phone numbers, baseball scores, or breast sizes and get the same hockey stick shape.

But it's not statistically significant. That's the key thing. The actual hockey stick based on the input paleo records was statistically signficant. The result you get from feeding in random numbers is not.

 

[Toronado3800]

This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.

But "Warmism" is a religion?!?! I'm afraid, given other things man has done to the planet, I don't have as much "faith" as you do.

yes less than 1% is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. And that's on a single component of the atmosphere that is even SMALLER than 1% while other greenhouse gases with much larger effects are in greater concentration. (methane and water vapor leap to the front of the list), are casually ignored because they are inconvenient to the theory.

Because if your theory was applied to the other 99% created by nature, the response would be that many multiples more. What you are confusing is local poisoning of the environment which CAN be accomplished very effectively by us. Love Canal comes to mind, and now Chernobyl and Fukushima. Neither of these are global catastrophes and the danger zone quickly dissipates by range. Not to mention you are stating that because we are producing 'extra' CO2, that nature can't handle it and it's accumulating out of control. Really? less than 1% of an increase is equaling a reaction that is sending the climate of this planet spiraling out of control? That's a lot of faith when one burp from a moderate volcano equals all the CO2 production of mankind throughout it's entire history.

Your faith is plenty sufficient to deny the fact your theory is popped by common sense. But since the goal is to instill global fascism, why am I not surprised you'd ignore common sense for the sake of politics.

Compared to nature, man has ALWAYS been insignificant.

You say 1%, which I agree is insignificant. However, the rise in CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution CO2 is 25-35%, depending on whose numbers you use. Since the effect of added CO2 is loigarithmic rather than linear, that would be a 10-13% increase in IR absorption. That IS a a significant number and I categorically reject yours as the product of faulty logic.

Are you saying 1% or .5% a year is insignificant? I agree a 1% increase in a trace gas does not sound like much and might not be.

Here in America we have our short attention spans tuned to Wall Street's quarterly and monthly attention span if not hourly news updates. Civilization HAS TO exist on this planet for the foreseeable future or at least I don't want to count on my grandchildren being able to fix problems I caused.

.5% a year over forty years is 20%.