Gather all ye Greenhouse Skeptics

[ScienceRocks]

So we need to burn our entire palo record and understanding of extinctions. Wow....

Thanks professors.

 

[Abraham3]

The posters I quoted above have clearly rejected the greenhouse effect.

None of you that know the greenhouse effect is quite valid seem to be willing to correct them. I have had several discussion in the last couple of days with posters that had VERY fundamental misunderstandings of basic physical processes. It is not uncommon in this crowd to find people who simply reject the greenhouse effect out of hand. I suspect you don't want to correct them because they often DO support your favorite theory that the last 150 years' warming is due to a very wee increase in TSI, amplified by a number of apparently invisible processes, through a function that creates a complex and nonlinear delay between forcing and response. Well, actually they just say something like "If you knew anything at all about science you'd know that all warmth comes from the sun. If we're getting warmer, it must be from the sun. Duh..."

 

[ScienceRocks]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]

Wikipedia, "The Greenhouse Effect"

Why do YOU guys think the Earth is not -18C?

Are you, Old, Rocks, Matthew and Jake all the same person?

It's a honest fucking question, man. Why is the earth 33c warmer then the solar energy would otherwise suggest? You say there's no effect of co2 as there's no green house effect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we need to burn our entire palo record and understanding of extinctions. Wow....

Thanks professors.

What the fuck are you babbling about Jake?

The ice cores show CO2 LAGGING temperature

Game

Set

Match

 

[PredFan]

Give it up moron, you get your ass handed to you in one thread so you just start another one.

The Greenhouse Effect is real, no one us denying it. The planet may or may not be heating up, both of those points are irrelevant. What matters is the question of whether man has any effect on it. Clearly we are not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]

Wikipedia, "The Greenhouse Effect"

Why do YOU guys think the Earth is not -18C?

Are you, Old, Rocks, Matthew and Jake all the same person?

It's a honest fucking question, man. Why is the earth 33c warmer then the solar energy would otherwise suggest? You say there's no effect of co2 as there's no green house effect.

I'm saying 200PPM of additional CO2 has no effect on temperature

 

[westwall]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]

Wikipedia, "The Greenhouse Effect"

Why do YOU guys think the Earth is not -18C?

Because water vapor keeps us warm.

 

[Kosh]

I see the AGW cultists are out promoting their religious beliefs again.

CO2 does NOT drive climate, never has, nor did it cause an extension.

Science Fiction is sometimes pretty cool, but this thread of religious fiction is just boring.

 

[westwall]

Most extinctions were caused by green house gases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPO6DiaYNPg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVz7a8Kkg1Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOejZLUQU8k

Like 4 out of 6 of the biggest extinctions in the history of the earth was caused by volcanos spilling this shit into the atmosphere. Snowball earth was caused by methane being taken out of the atmosphere and ended by volcano's spilling co2 into atmosphere, PT around 250 million years ago and the other 200 million years ago was caused by co2.

10f increase in global temperatures killed 95% of all animals on earth.

55 million years is another co2 warming event.

This is what the palo record shows.

No, they weren't. There are many possible explanations for the mass extinctions and warming do to global warming is the LEAST likely. Especially when one considers that the planet has been significantly warmer for the vast majority of its history.

Cold now, that is a true killer and there is ample evidence of a non science fiction computer model type.

Can't say the same for your contention.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I see the AGW cultists are out promoting their religious beliefs again.

CO2 does NOT drive climate, never has, nor did it cause an extension.

Science Fiction is sometimes pretty cool, but this thread of religious fiction is just boring.

same ol same ol

repent all you global warming sinners

one of these dudes the other day offered

a "physics refresher" thread

explaining how heat is drawn to a fireplace

--LOL

that too was a short lived thread

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

Are you, Old, Rocks, Matthew and Jake all the same person?

It's a honest fucking question, man. Why is the earth 33c warmer then the solar energy would otherwise suggest? You say there's no effect of co2 as there's no green house effect.

I'm saying 200PPM of additional CO2 has no effect on temperature

maybe it is true

after all mars was warmer then many parts of the Earth yesterday

--LOL

but then again Mars has 996,000 ppm co2

 

[Politico]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

No one has denied the climate changes.

 

[Abraham3]

Are you, Old, Rocks, Matthew and Jake all the same person?

It's a honest fucking question, man. Why is the earth 33c warmer then the solar energy would otherwise suggest? You say there's no effect of co2 as there's no green house effect.

I'm saying 200PPM of additional CO2 has no effect on temperature

But that's a really stupid thing to say. 280 ppm is keeping your ass and the asses of everyone else on this planet from freezing to death. This Arctic cold snap would be the weather in July.

 

[Abraham3]

And all those USMB poster quotes are all LARGELY correct.

1) no significant warming in at least 15 yrs..

WRONG. The only thing you EVER had was a hiatus in surface warming. Ocean heat content was rising at a tremendous rate. The ToA imbalance was unchanged. And now better data from the poles show that there was never any hiatus in surface warming. The planet is STILL heating up.

2) CO2 is a minor climate influence. Will never cause runaway warming of the planet short of major volcanic periods. Has as much power in FORCING as it has as a RESULT of warming.

Climate sensitivity of 3C, which has more support than ever and significant support showing it should be slightly HIGHER, is not "a minor climate influence". "As much power in FORCING as it has as a RESULT of warming" is a meaningless statement. At least two different studies have shown that in every instance when warming from Milankovitch cycles or other causes forced CO2 levels up, they augmented the warming process and quickly came to dominate. Without CO2, we NEVER would have left any ice age Milankovitch put us in. Milankovitch changes are the "minor climate influence". TSI variations are the "minor climate influence".

3) Runaway thermal warming due SOLELY to CO2 IS a weak theory..

AGW is an extremely well supported theory. I don't know what you mean by runaway. 3C+ is enough for me to be worried.

4) There is an undeniable socio-political agenda behind the focus of finding man-caused warming.

No. There is an undeniable disinformation campaign financed by the fossil fuel industry behind global warming deniers.

5) The models developed for AGW have INHIBITED a discussion of how the climate really works and how heat is stored and distributed around the globe. AND -- the effects of NATURAL forcings and cycles have been GRAVELY minimized and ignored.. Things like the fact that Total Solar Insolation is holding steady at a 300 relative maximum.. Or that the 1degC since 1900 is of the same approximate magnitude of the variance from natural cycles.. While effects of CO2 from anthro sources has been HIGHLY exaggerated.

The models have no covert purposes and you're bizarrely paranoid to suggest it. The evidence supporting your contention isn't one one-hundredth the evidence supporting AGW.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm saying 200PPM of additional CO2 has no effect on temperature

I would guarantee you that you could not get ANY - ZERO, ZILCH, NADA - climate scientists to agree with that statement.

You couldn't even get any of the more educated deniers to agree with that statement. SwimExpert, the self-proclaimed genius of god, says that no one with a decent education rejects the greenhouse effect. Do you have a decent education. FlaCalTenn says I am wrong when I say people on the denier side reject the Greenhouse Effect. He's arguing that CO2 is a minor influence. Does HE agrees with this statement?

Educate yourself Frank.

 

[orogenicman]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Since many skeptics do doubt the greenhouse effect, I believe you've hit the nail on the head as to why they hold such beliefs.

 

[orogenicman]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

Hahahahahaha

I suppose you find it easier fighting against strawmen than actual posters. I certainly am not going to rehash hundreds of old posts but to simplify the greenhouse effect down to mankind's addition of extra CO2 is absurd. And to claim that 'deniers' deny it in any form just proves that you have no conception of the skeptical viewpoint.

What makes you think that the effects of manmade CO2 on the atmosphere is simple?

 

[orogenicman]

And all those USMB poster quotes are all LARGELY correct.

1) no significant warming in at least 15 yrs..

Not correct

2) CO2 is a minor climate influence. Will never cause runaway warming of the planet short of major volcanic periods. Has as much power in FORCING as it has as a RESULT of warming.

So what do you believe is the effect of billions of tons per year of human produced CO2 discharged into the atmosphere? Anything at all?

3) Runaway thermal warming due SOLELY to CO2 IS a weak theory.

Good thing no climate scientist is promoting such a straw man argument.

4) There is an undeniable socio-political agenda behind the focus of finding man-caused warming.

There certainly is an undeniable political agenda with regard to climate change science denial. That much is very clear.

5) The models developed for AGW have INHIBITED a discussion of how the climate really works and how heat is stored and distributed around the globe. AND -- the effects of NATURAL forcings and cycles have been GRAVELY minimized and ignored.. Things like the fact that Total Solar Insolation is holding steady at a 300 relative maximum.. Or that the 1degC since 1900 is of the same approximate magnitude of the variance from natural cycles.. While effects of CO2 from anthro sources has been HIGHLY exaggerated.

Well, since none of that is true, perhaps you should try your hand at brain salad surgery. You might even become an expert at it.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's a honest fucking question, man. Why is the earth 33c warmer then the solar energy would otherwise suggest? You say there's no effect of co2 as there's no green house effect.

I'm saying 200PPM of additional CO2 has no effect on temperature

But that's a really stupid thing to say. 280 ppm is keeping your ass and the asses of everyone else on this planet from freezing to death. This Arctic cold snap would be the weather in July.

That's a really stupid thing to day. The primary greeehouse gas in the atmosphere is water.

 

[PredFan]

I see the AGW cultists are out promoting their religious beliefs again.

CO2 does NOT drive climate, never has, nor did it cause an extension.

Science Fiction is sometimes pretty cool, but this thread of religious fiction is just boring.

They are out in full force trying to spin the fact that there is severe cold and they don't want people to remember that they said in the past that this wouldn't happen.