Global warming

[CrusaderFrank]

I see. So what you are stating is that heat causes GHGs. The fact that the absorption spectra of GHGs has nothing at all to do with warming the atmosphere.

Now Code, only the whole of the scientific information in physics and chemistry says that is totally wrong.

The causation of the present warming is the fact that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4, along with many industrial GHGs that are tens of thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. Every single Scientific Society dealing with Physics and Chemistry states that this is a fact.

Physics Society Quietly Reaffirms Climate Change Policy Stance Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine.

In April of this year, the APS posted an addendum to its official policy stance on climate change. The addendum strongly reaffirmed the Society’s existing policy and support of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

The posting was the last chapter in a fabricated controversy that started out with blustering, gale-force winds blowing throughout the endless corridors of the Internet and ended with hardly a whisper. That the APS was revisiting its policy received massive amounts of attention from the blogosphere as well as major media outlets in 2009. However, the actual result, borne from a year-long process that included the solicitation, review, and incorporation of comments from the Society’s 46,034 members, was barely noticed.

Originally issued in November 2007, the APS’ official policy statement on Climate Change concluded that “emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate” and that “if no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.”

So what confused the Vostok Ice cores? Why do they show heat first, then CO2 increase?

Also, "The causation of the present warming is the fact that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4, along with many industrial GHGs that are tens of thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. Every single Scientific Society dealing with Physics and Chemistry states that this is a fact."

So is should be a piece of cake for you to show us how this happens in a laboratory setting, right?

I'll give you a 200PPM increase in CO2 and a 4000 additional PPB CH4 (that's billion, I know you Warmers like to put your thumb on the scale when you do these experiments and go up to 400,000PPM when you show CO2 increasing temperatures)

 

[konradv]

So what confused the Vostok Ice cores? Why do they show heat first, then CO2 increase?

Also, "The causation of the present warming is the fact that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4, along with many industrial GHGs that are tens of thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. Every single Scientific Society dealing with Physics and Chemistry states that this is a fact."

So is should be a piece of cake for you to show us how this happens in a laboratory setting, right?

I'll give you a 200PPM increase in CO2 and a 4000 additional PPB CH4 (that's billion, I know you Warmers like to put your thumb on the scale when you do these experiments and go up to 400,000PPM when you show CO2 increasing temperatures)

Done repeatedly and you KNOW it. I guess to be worried about intellectual dishonesty, you actually have to have an intellect!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Done repeatedly and you KNOW it. I guess to be worried about intellectual dishonesty, you actually have to have an intellect!

You keep squawking that it's been "done repeatedly" and all you've ever done is trotted out an experiment done when people used wooden teeth showing that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

We're not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, we're asking you to assume the burden of proof and show us how a 200PPM increase (are you still confused about what an increase is?) does any of the things you say it does.

 

[konradv]

You keep squawking that it's been "done repeatedly" and all you've ever done is trotted out an experiment done when people used wooden teeth showing that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

We're not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, we're asking you to assume the burden of proof and show us how a 200PPM increase (are you still confused about what an increase is?) does any of the things you say it does.

If you're not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, how do you get around, if there's more of it, there'll be more trapped infra-red radiation? Sounds like like YOU'RE the one with something to prove now!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you're not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, how do you get around, if there's more of it, there'll be more trapped infra-red radiation? Sounds like like YOU'RE the one with something to prove now!!!

So why are you so resistant to showing us in a laboratory oh a 200PPM increase raises temperature, kills phytoplankton and melts glaciers?

Pointing to a place where it's "warmer" and saying, "See that? Global Warming!!" is not science

 

[konradv]

So why are you so resistant to showing us in a laboratory oh a 200PPM increase raises temperature, kills phytoplankton and melts glaciers?

Pointing to a place where it's "warmer" and saying, "See that? Global Warming!!" is not science

Been done repeatedly. The only thing "resistant" is your reading comprehension level. It's resisting all attempts at being raised.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Been done repeatedly. The only thing "resistant" is your reading comprehension level. It's resisting all attempts at being raised.

Repeatedly? Do you realize that "repeatedly" means more that once?

Can you post even one laboratory experiment showing how a 200PPM or a tinier 67% increase in CO2 raises temperatures?

Just one.

 

[westwall]

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

Frank is a liar and BS artist...as are you. The ONLY difference between you two jokers and Moore is that Moore's a professional of a higher caliber in a specific field and a successful businessman.

People talking about POPULATION CONTROL are NOT advocating mass murder or any such nonsense. Moore and his ilk seek out quotes from fringe elements of a debate and paint everyone as such...or they just exaggerate/make stuff up. I defy you or Frank to produce a quote from a Greenpeace member who says that we should start murdering people to decrease the world's population, because Moore sure as hell hasn't done so.

Please answer my question.

You should have derived my stance from the last paragraph. And you should not try this lame dodge that so many Rove scholars use when they can't adequately defend their position. The discussion is NOT about how you or I would do things, but it's about whether Moore is telling a truthful story or is exaggerating/lying about what others say. My challenge to you stands, because like I said Moore sure as hell can't back up his accusations with documented quotes.

So you've got a choice.....met the challenge or acknowledge defeat or stubbornly pursue your dodge to the point of insipidness.

Answer the question I posed to you. I at least ask questions as opposed to your mindless bombardment of opinion. Moore has a PhD in a hard science. He left Greenpeace because they decided to oppose the chlorination of water. Here's a suggestion for you. Don't drink tap water. Don't drink bottled water. You may only drink water that you obtain from streams and rivers or wherever else you can naturally find it.

Here in the first world that will be very difficult if you live anywhere but in the woods. In the third world that is a natural way of life. The result is dysentery, typus and a whole host of other diseases that we don't get to enjoy here in the first world because of chlorinated water.

This is a fact. This is not opinion. Now please answer the original question I asked you.
Do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change?

 

[westwall]

I see. So what you are stating is that heat causes GHGs. The fact that the absorption spectra of GHGs has nothing at all to do with warming the atmosphere.

Now Code, only the whole of the scientific information in physics and chemistry says that is totally wrong.

The causation of the present warming is the fact that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4, along with many industrial GHGs that are tens of thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. Every single Scientific Society dealing with Physics and Chemistry states that this is a fact.

Physics Society Quietly Reaffirms Climate Change Policy Stance Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine.

In April of this year, the APS posted an addendum to its official policy stance on climate change. The addendum strongly reaffirmed the Society’s existing policy and support of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

The posting was the last chapter in a fabricated controversy that started out with blustering, gale-force winds blowing throughout the endless corridors of the Internet and ended with hardly a whisper. That the APS was revisiting its policy received massive amounts of attention from the blogosphere as well as major media outlets in 2009. However, the actual result, borne from a year-long process that included the solicitation, review, and incorporation of comments from the Society’s 46,034 members, was barely noticed.

Originally issued in November 2007, the APS’ official policy statement on Climate Change concluded that “emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate” and that “if no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.”

Yes they quietly reafirmed the policy, no doubt hoping no one would notice. Otherwise if they truly believed the "science" they would be trumpeting it to the four walls. No olfraud this just proves they're desperate to maintain the status quo.

 

[westwall]

If you're not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, how do you get around, if there's more of it, there'll be more trapped infra-red radiation? Sounds like like YOU'RE the one with something to prove now!!!

Here is a simple example of why what you claim can't occur.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{this is water vapor{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{


{ this is CO2.

Those are the absorbtion bands that they affect and in their relative amounts in the atmosphere. You will please note that CO2 shares it's single absorbtion band with H2O.

You should also notice the relative quantities of both gases. Any effect that CO2 may
have had is buried in the water vapor signal which is far more prevalent and affects far more of the spectrum.


On more thing. The water vapor amount is actually only about one quarter of what it actually is in the real world. It just won't be on the same page so I cut it short.

 

[taichiliberal]

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

Please answer my question.

You should have derived my stance from the last paragraph. And you should not try this lame dodge that so many Rove scholars use when they can't adequately defend their position. The discussion is NOT about how you or I would do things, but it's about whether Moore is telling a truthful story or is exaggerating/lying about what others say. My challenge to you stands, because like I said Moore sure as hell can't back up his accusations with documented quotes.

So you've got a choice.....met the challenge or acknowledge defeat or stubbornly pursue your dodge to the point of insipidness.

Answer the question I posed to you. I at least ask questions as opposed to your mindless bombardment of opinion. Moore has a PhD in a hard science. He left Greenpeace because they decided to oppose the chlorination of water. Here's a suggestion for you. Don't drink tap water. Don't drink bottled water. You may only drink water that you obtain from streams and rivers or wherever else you can naturally find it.

Here in the first world that will be very difficult if you live anywhere but in the woods. In the third world that is a natural way of life. The result is dysentery, typus and a whole host of other diseases that we don't get to enjoy here in the first world because of chlorinated water.

This is a fact. This is not opinion. Now please answer the original question I asked you.
Do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change?

As I thought, you're just parroting a dodge.....I already addressed the BS about chlorine, and I addressed the BS about population control.

Moore is a LIAR...because to date he has NOT PROVIDED DOCUMENTED FACT THAT ANYONE IN GREENPEACE STATED THE EXTREMES THAT HE CLAIMS.

I provided proof to the contrary.....and until you can do likewise, Westie, you're just blowing smoke as usual.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a simple example of why what you claim can't occur.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{


{ this is CO2.

Those are the absorbtion bands that they affect and in their relative amounts in the atmosphere. You will please note that CO2 shares it's single absorbtion band with H2O.

You should also notice the relative quantities of both gases. Any effect that CO2 may
have had is buried in the water vapor signal which is far more prevalent and affects far more of the spectrum.


On more thing. The water vapor amount is actually only about one quarter of what it actually is in the real world. It just won't be on the same page so I cut it short.

Damn, Walleyes, this is beyond stupidity! And so damned easy to refute. You are either one really stupid bastard, or you don't believe that people will check on your stupid statements. Here is an article from a blog with a rather good graph showing incoming radiation, outgoing radiation, H20 absorption bands, and CO2 absorption bands. Note that there is more than one absorption band for CO2, and that, while there is some overlap, there is more that is not overlapped.

Climate Change - A quick rebuttal to Augie Auer's opinion in the NZ Herald

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers view testing their theory in a laboratory like Dracula greeting a new dawn

 

[Old Rocks]

Radiative forcing and CO2 emissions | Global Warming Debate

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats controlled Congress during most of the recent "Warming" therefore we can safely conclude that Dem Congress causes Global Warming

 

[westwall]

You should have derived my stance from the last paragraph. And you should not try this lame dodge that so many Rove scholars use when they can't adequately defend their position. The discussion is NOT about how you or I would do things, but it's about whether Moore is telling a truthful story or is exaggerating/lying about what others say. My challenge to you stands, because like I said Moore sure as hell can't back up his accusations with documented quotes.

So you've got a choice.....met the challenge or acknowledge defeat or stubbornly pursue your dodge to the point of insipidness.

Answer the question I posed to you. I at least ask questions as opposed to your mindless bombardment of opinion. Moore has a PhD in a hard science. He left Greenpeace because they decided to oppose the chlorination of water. Here's a suggestion for you. Don't drink tap water. Don't drink bottled water. You may only drink water that you obtain from streams and rivers or wherever else you can naturally find it.

Here in the first world that will be very difficult if you live anywhere but in the woods. In the third world that is a natural way of life. The result is dysentery, typus and a whole host of other diseases that we don't get to enjoy here in the first world because of chlorinated water.

This is a fact. This is not opinion. Now please answer the original question I asked you.
Do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change?

As I thought, you're just parroting a dodge.....I already addressed the BS about chlorine, and I addressed the BS about population control.

Moore is a LIAR...because to date he has NOT PROVIDED DOCUMENTED FACT THAT ANYONE IN GREENPEACE STATED THE EXTREMES THAT HE CLAIMS.

I provided proof to the contrary.....and until you can do likewise, Westie, you're just blowing smoke as usual.

tackyliberal you have done nothing of the sort. You have dodged the questions because you know your answers will make you look like a complete kook.

Thanks for letting the world see what sort of person you are. Makes my job easier.

 

[westwall]

Damn, Walleyes, this is beyond stupidity! And so damned easy to refute. You are either one really stupid bastard, or you don't believe that people will check on your stupid statements. Here is an article from a blog with a rather good graph showing incoming radiation, outgoing radiation, H20 absorption bands, and CO2 absorption bands. Note that there is more than one absorption band for CO2, and that, while there is some overlap, there is more that is not overlapped.

Climate Change - A quick rebuttal to Augie Auer's opinion in the NZ Herald

The only band that CO2 absorbs and redirects IR radiation in is the 14.5 micron band. Try looking that up olfraud.

 

[IanC]

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:Resize/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.png?width=600&height=600


looks like 3 main bands to me