GLOBAL WARMING? NASA says Antarctic has been COOLING for past

[IanC]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

Antarctica is showing the greatest impact from CO2....it is cooling....as I have pointed out repeatedly, CO2 is not a blanket...it is like holes in the blanket...sensitivity of zero or less.

I think you are foolish to believe that CO2 is causing Antarctica to cool.

 

[IanC]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

Antarctica is showing the greatest impact from CO2....it is cooling....as I have pointed out repeatedly, CO2 is not a blanket...it is like holes in the blanket...sensitivity of zero or less.

Ian, are you still with your man here? Do you believe CO2 has a negative sensitivity Ian?

is rdean your man??

I believe what makes sense to me and I could care less who agrees with me.

 

[SSDD]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

Antarctica is showing the greatest impact from CO2....it is cooling....as I have pointed out repeatedly, CO2 is not a blanket...it is like holes in the blanket...sensitivity of zero or less.

I think you are foolish to believe that CO2 is causing Antarctica to cool.

Like you said...CO2 is having its greatest effect in Antarctica because the conditions are right for it to have its greatest effect....ergo...Antarctica is cooling...

And I think you are foolish for thinking that CO2 causes warming...and eventually, you will come to know that as well....not a shred of empirical evidence that it happens and yet, you guys believe...

 

[IanC]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

"Much less noise caused by water vapour"? Care to explain that one Ian?

the various pathways of water mask the effect of CO2. Antarctica should have a much clearer CO2 signal. it does not.

 

[SSDD]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

"Much less noise caused by water vapour"? Care to explain that one Ian?

the various pathways of water mask the effect of CO2. Antarctica should have a much clearer CO2 signal. it does not.

Of course it does...you just don't like the direction of the signal....zero....or less...

 

[IanC]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

Antarctica is showing the greatest impact from CO2....it is cooling....as I have pointed out repeatedly, CO2 is not a blanket...it is like holes in the blanket...sensitivity of zero or less.

I think you are foolish to believe that CO2 is causing Antarctica to cool.

And I think you are foolish for thinking that CO2 causes warming...and eventually, you will come to know that as well....not a shred of empirical evidence that it happens and yet, you guys believe...

is that your latest mantra? not a shred of empirical evidence?

CO2 obviously has an effect at the surface boundary. the total effect at all altitudes, and in combination with other energy pathways is much less stark.

 

[SSDD]

is that your latest mantra? not a shred of empirical evidence?

nope...just the truth.

CO2 obviously has an effect at the surface boundary. the total effect at all altitudes, and in combination with other energy pathways is much less stark.

Holes in any blanket have an effect...even the luke warmer position is becoming untenable Ian...when are you guys going to wake up?

 

[IanC]

is that your latest mantra? not a shred of empirical evidence?

nope...just the truth.

CO2 obviously has an effect at the surface boundary. the total effect at all altitudes, and in combination with other energy pathways is much less stark.

Holes in any blanket have an effect...even the luke warmer position is becoming untenable Ian...when are you guys going to wake up?

explain your 'holes in the blanket' idea. I get tired of stating my case only to have you guys say nuh-uh in response. explain and defend your idea for a change.

 

[Crick]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

"Much less noise caused by water vapour"? Care to explain that one Ian?

the various pathways of water mask the effect of CO2. Antarctica should have a much clearer CO2 signal. it does not.

The net warming effect of increased CO2 includes a large reinforcement from increased water vapor caused by increased temperatures. With virtually no water vapor increase, the net increase is smaller than elsewhere and more easily overwhelmed by noise. The lack of water vapor makes it more difficult to see the direct correlation, not easier.

 

[SSDD]

is that your latest mantra? not a shred of empirical evidence?

nope...just the truth.

CO2 obviously has an effect at the surface boundary. the total effect at all altitudes, and in combination with other energy pathways is much less stark.

Holes in any blanket have an effect...even the luke warmer position is becoming untenable Ian...when are you guys going to wake up?

explain your 'holes in the blanket' idea. I get tired of stating my case only to have you guys say nuh-uh in response. explain and defend your idea for a change.

Not going through it again....look back through our conversations...explanation is the same.

 

[SSDD]

The net warming effect of increased CO2 includes a large reinforcement from increased water vapor caused by increased temperatures. With virtually no water vapor increase, the net increase is smaller than elsewhere and more easily overwhelmed by noise. The lack of water vapor makes it more difficult to see the direct correlation, not easier.

And where is the empirical evidence that supports your claim? Oh...that's right...it doesn't exist and by your own admission, people who make claims but can't produce supporting evidence are just talking out their asses...

 

[Crick]

If you're only strategy is to deny existence to that which exists, then you no longer have an argument. Or any self respect.

 

[SSDD]

If you're only strategy is to deny existence to that which exists, then you no longer have an argument. Or any self respect.

You keep saying that but you also keep not providing the empirical evidence you claim exists...and like you say....people who make claims but don't put up are just talking out of their asses....we all know that you are always talking out your ass.

 

[mamooth]

Here Ian....there is a lot of this sort of thing out there....trying to resolve the faint young sun paradox....

"Young sun"

That would exclude our sun for at least the past 2 billion years. Yet you're using the discussion of that science to claim the sun was brighter 50 million years ago.

As usual, the science you're invoking has zero to do with the crap you're trying to peddle.

 

[SSDD]

Here Ian....there is a lot of this sort of thing out there....trying to resolve the faint young sun paradox....

"Young sun"

That would exclude our sun for at least the past 2 billion years. Yet you're using the discussion of that science to claim the sun was brighter 50 million years ago.

As usual, the science you're invoking has zero to do with the crap you're trying to peddle.

clearly you haven't done the reading..enjoy wallowing in your ignorance....its your best thing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

"Much less noise caused by water vapour"? Care to explain that one Ian?

the various pathways of water mask the effect of CO2. Antarctica should have a much clearer CO2 signal. it does not.

The net warming effect of increased CO2 includes a large reinforcement from increased water vapor caused by increased temperatures. With virtually no water vapor increase, the net increase is smaller than elsewhere and more easily overwhelmed by noise. The lack of water vapor makes it more difficult to see the direct correlation, not easier.

Your statement is categorically false by empirical evidence. Please provide your data, methods, and math as to how you came to this unsupported and false conclusion.

THIS FALLACY IS EXACTLY WHY ALL MODELING TO DATE FAILS!

 

[Crick]

Your statement is categorically false by empirical evidence. Please provide your data, methods, and math as to how you came to this unsupported and false conclusion.

And you're going to show us the empirical evidence you claim falsifies my statement, right?

 

[IanC]

---
Yep, that's just wiki, but every other source agrees with them. If you've got a source that says the earth was in an ice age 3.6 million years ago, show it to us. Anyways, given that you pooched that so badly, it invalidates most of your rambling.

The graphs from the peer reviewed published work I gave you don't agree at all....to bad that, like crick, you can't look at one and get anything from it.

Solar output was 0.5% lower.

Sorry hairball...old science..outdated....new science had to deal with the dim sun frozen earth paradox....seems that science now thinks that the sun back then was a bit larger and brighter than what we see today..

The Panama isthmus, or lack of it, significantly changes climate. The creation of that isthmus totally rerouted ocean currents, and that significantly changed precipitation. More snowfall moved to the poles, which allowed the ice sheets to form on Greenland and Antarctica, changing albedo and reducing temperatures even more.

Is there no limit to your penchant for denial?

So, to explain the warming out of snowball earth, you wave your hands around and invoke unexplained magic.

Like I said....science isn't preaching a dim sun anymore...science is preaching a larger, brighter sun which eliminates the dim sun paradox. Guess skeptical science never mentioned it.

And aren't you people always claiming that volcanoes don't put out enough CO2 to dramatically alter the climate? Which is it?

The intelligent people understand that a small outgassing of CO2 over millions of years on a planet without CO2 sinks will slowly raise CO2 levels over those millions of years. That same rate of outgassing on a planet with active CO2 sinks won't raise CO2 levels at all, being the CO2 gets absorbed by the sinks. That's some basic math, science and logic there, so naturally you failed completely at it.

I would be interested in a link to the new science that overturns stellar patterns of radiance as stars age.

it is of course impossible to be certain of the changes that happened when the Panama closed but how could it have not had a large impact? what's the difference in sea level between the two coasts? 3 feet or more? must have been a pretty spectacular gorge before it finally closed.

Here Ian....there is a lot of this sort of thing out there....trying to resolve the faint young sun paradox....makes more sense than the idiot idea that CO2 is powerful enough to bring the earth out of a deep ice age....interesting that they claim that volcanoes could do it alone back then but volcanoes are not a significant part of the equation now.

The analysis of young solar-like stars and their s..|INIS[/QUOTE]



Lame!!!! a two sentence description of a lecture! with no quantifications.

Full text: An astrophysical hypothesis to solve the 'Faint Young Sun Paradox' has been proposed: It assumes that the Sun was brighter than suggested, which would be possible if the Sun had been more massive than today, which results in a higher mass loss rate driven by the solar wind. For an estimate of the enhanced young solar wind, the free-free emission radio flux of young solar-like analogs at the main sequence are observed with the Extended Very Large Array (EVLA) to detect signatures of radio Bremsstrahlung to determine a mass loss rate or upper limits for the winds of young stars.

I suppose it is an interesting idea but it has no data to back it up. and this is what you say has turned the study of solar progression from aging on its head?

 

[SSDD]

Antarctica should be showing the greatest impact from CO2 because it is also extremely dry, therefore much less noise caused by water vapour. the fact that it seems like the main continent is cooling should be a stick in the spokes of the CO2 bandwagon.

"Much less noise caused by water vapour"? Care to explain that one Ian?

the various pathways of water mask the effect of CO2. Antarctica should have a much clearer CO2 signal. it does not.

The net warming effect of increased CO2 includes a large reinforcement from increased water vapor caused by increased temperatures. With virtually no water vapor increase, the net increase is smaller than elsewhere and more easily overwhelmed by noise. The lack of water vapor makes it more difficult to see the direct correlation, not easier.

Your statement is categorically false by empirical evidence. Please provide your data, methods, and math as to how you came to this unsupported and false conclusion.

THIS FALLACY IS EXACTLY WHY ALL MODELING TO DATE FAILS!

He can't even provide any empirical evidence to support the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature to increase....much less to support that steaming pile...

As he has said...people who make claims but can't produce supporting data are talking out of their asses....guess like all liberals, he just doesn't like being held to his own standards.

 

[SSDD]

Your statement is categorically false by empirical evidence. Please provide your data, methods, and math as to how you came to this unsupported and false conclusion.

And you're going to show us the empirical evidence you claim falsifies my statement, right?

You are an idiot child...you know that? You are the one making the claim, therefore it is you who needs to support it...You seem to be constantly talking out of your ass. One claim after another...no empirical evidence in support...Sucks to be held to your own standards doesn't it?