Gather all ye Greenhouse Skeptics

[PredFan]

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.

In other words, the people who make their living studying global warming won't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[PredFan]

It's funny to me that the AGW faithful think that cutting and pasting the work of others, without actually understanding what they are posting, somehow proves their knowledge.

If you can't explain it in your own words, you cannot argue that you know it.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's funny to me that the AGW faithful think that cutting and pasting the work of others, without actually understanding what they are posting, somehow proves their knowledge.

If you can't explain it in your own words, you cannot argue that you know it.

It really is ridiculous. And it's the reason why these fools aren't even capable of having a reasonable conversation on the matter. They end up fabricating our arguments because they're so unknowing they haven't the first clue what we're even saying. Just look at Dirt Eater and Dishonest Abe. These guys actually think that the greenhouse effect and global warming are the same thing!

It's like trying to play chess with a four year old. They make up their own rules as they go, they win just because they say, and if you want to object they throw a righteous hissy fit until you give them more candy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's a honest ******* 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.

How easy should it be for you to show us how that works in a lab experiment?

 

[westwall]

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".



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.

If the ocean heat content is rising so fast, why can't they find it? Remember that old "the dog ate my global warming" email? Yes that one. There is ZERO empirical data to support what you're saying.

 

[westwall]

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.

I've never met a single sceptic who doubts the greenhouse effect. Your statement is a fabrication.

 

[westwall]

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?

Man supplies 5% of the entire globes CO2 budget. What makes you think that is so "powerful"?

 

[westwall]

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?



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.

The only certifiable political agenda belongs to the warmists and you know it. Every demand, and every goal of the warmists requires massive political backing and a complete abrogation of human rights, which are to be handed over to the politicians who frankly are not to be trusted with anything.

 

[PredFan]

It's funny to me that the AGW faithful think that cutting and pasting the work of others, without actually understanding what they are posting, somehow proves their knowledge.

If you can't explain it in your own words, you cannot argue that you know it.

It really is ridiculous. And it's the reason why these fools aren't even capable of having a reasonable conversation on the matter. They end up fabricating our arguments because they're so unknowing they haven't the first clue what we're even saying. Just look at Dirt Eater and Dishonest Abe. These guys actually think that the greenhouse effect and global warming are the same thing!

It's like trying to play chess with a four year old. They make up their own rules as they go, they win just because they say, and if you want to object they throw a righteous hissy fit until you give them more candy.

Well stated.

 

[PredFan]

And all those USMB poster quotes are all LARGELY correct.

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

Not correct



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?



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



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.

The only certifiable political agenda belongs to the warmists and you know it. Every demand, and every goal of the warmists requires massive political backing and a complete abrogation of human rights, which are to be handed over to the politicians who frankly are not to be trusted with anything.

One piece of dig initiate proof that climate change is a scam is that the answer to the problem is the socialist agenda.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?



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.

EVERYTHING i asserted is correct.. Although I should have been more specific if I was really commiting science here and not just jousting with I-Net morons.. So ---

1) no significant increase in surface temperature in at least 15 yrs.
That is now an unassailable truth..

#2 Stands as is --- I've answered your question DOZENS of times on this forum. A doubling of CO2 will contribute MAYBE as much 1degC to the surface temp... Get any text on Atmos Physics to verify...

3) Runaway thermal warming due SOLELY to CO2 IS a weak theory.
Youre wasting everyones time if you don't recognize the HEART of AGW theory.
It's the ONLY PART of AGW that matters since the "CO2 alone" increases are hardly newsworthy.. AGW states that the warming from man-made CO2 will be "THE TRIGGER" for multiple mostly positive feedbacks that will destroy the planet. These are the MAGIC MULTIPLIER that raise a couple degrees to 3 and 4 times that amount.. Call it a straw man argument again and see what happens..

4) There is an undeniable socio-political agenda behind the focus of finding man-caused warming.
Tis your side that is DEMANDING an IMMEDIATE fix.. I'd be good with just continuing the science in a direction that gets us a better understanding OVERALL of the climate system.

#5 is correct and stands as is...

Really man --- dont' know that AGW is based on the premise of a "fragile planet" that will commit suicide if it experiences a couple degree rise?? If that's the case, we need to recruit some better warmers..

 

[Politico]

It's funny to me that the AGW faithful think that cutting and pasting the work of others, without actually understanding what they are posting, somehow proves their knowledge.

If you can't explain it in your own words, you cannot argue that you know it.

That's what they do. Matthew is a master at it.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Di-hydrogen Monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info

 

[flacaltenn]

The warming power of CO2 is logarithmic. Contributes about a 1degC per doubling. So when we hit 500ppm --- we have to put about TWICE as much (500ppm instead of 250ppm) into the atmos to get the same effect..

Now if we came out of a series of Ice Ages that bottomed the CO2 out at 150ppm --- you'll see that CO2was NOT the major driver getting us out of a 7 or 10degC ice age deficit..

And how many doublings would you like to go back thru?? 250 at the end of the last glacial, 125 ppm would be the one before, then 62ppm, 31 ppm, and so on.. STILL only contributes 3 or so degrees down to 31ppm...

Count the effect anyway you like --- it's NOT the major determinant of climate..

 

[Abraham3]

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.

I think a review of my writings here would NOT support a charge of using strawmen. This post came from the beginning of a new thread and the topic was the opinions of people (plural). I was not creating a strawman, I was characterizing a group of people who HAVE attempted to reject the greenhouse effect. I posted quotes from a number of them and could have carried on with that effort for a good long while.

I have used the term "GHGs" at least as often as "CO2" and discussed and explained long wave and short wave and re-radiation. I have no needlessly oversimplified the greenhouse effect.

I did not name you as someone who rejects the greenhouse effect. But if you have not read a post here in the last week that rejects it, explicitly or implicitly, then you simply haven't been here in the last week.

 

[Abraham3]

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.

If the Greenhouse Effect is real, how can you say that man - who has irrefutably pumped billions and billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, has raised the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to in excess of 400 ppm - has had no effect?

 

[Abraham3]

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

Because water vapor keeps us warm.

And CO2, methane and ozone.

Do you deny that?

From Wikipedia, Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse gases

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[21][22]
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%

And, as we all know, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, though it IS rising, is LAGGING the temperature increase and has not come up enough to 'own' any significant share of the credit for the last century's warming.

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

Di-hydrogen Monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

If the Greenhouse Effect is real, how can you say that man - who has irrefutably pumped billions and billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, has raised the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to in excess of 400 ppm - has had no effect?

You do realize that the primary gas that powers the greenhouse effect is water, right?

 

[Abraham3]

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

I thought Orogenicman has corrected you on this faux pas. My apologies if this is a repeat.

The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 0.6 kPa (0.087 psi), 1/169th the Earth's pressure. Additionally its orbital radius is 227,000,000 km (141,051,000 miles), 52% further from the sun.