how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

Let's see. You have no theories that explain how AGW does not exist, no data, no peer reviewed science. All you can claim is that you don't want it to exist because then the media entertainers that you've mistaken for news reporters would be right and you would not look like the cultist that you are.

Not much to believe in. Science vs Fox News.

None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

What science do you offer that demonstrates that square mile of less ice and snow doesn't reduce earth's albedo? How about the release of co2 from melting permafrost?

What science do you offer socko,that explains the fact yours and several other posters with all too similar behavior and methods, all seem to have the same rep for their entire existence here?

LOL, it's okay you haven't answered it yet, and you never will we know socko, we know..

 

[PMZ]

There are, of course, many forces that produce the human variability on the spectrum from liberal to reactionary, but one of them is certainly the ability to imagine. To believe in the power of civilized mankind, and our ability to bring about the future that is best for us rather than to be limited to the present.

Here's a good article picturing what the next ten years of energy progress might bring. Unimaginable to those mesmerized by the present, exciting to those who imagine and bring about the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/b...orld-in-energy.html?ref=businessspecial2&_r=0

 

[PMZ]

One of the technologies that could emerge as an important gateway to a sustainable future is called Terrapower. The possible next generation of nuclear. It has some deep pockets behind it including Bill Gates. Here's a TED talk by Bill about why he's chosen this from among the almost infinite ways to invest his money for the greater good.

Bill Gates: Innovating to zero! | Video on TED.com

 

[gslack]

yes, yes those are all fine things to work towards and IN THE FUTURE, they will be wonderful I'm sure. But sadly we live in the here and now. We still have to pay for gas and electric and we are still bound by the reality of our situation.

No one is saying we shouldn't look to the future or research alternate or even replacements to fill our energy needs. In fact I'm a huge fan of Hydrogen fuel cell technologies. But again that is in the future and not NOW...

How much do you think carbon taxes and other such legislation that are in effect a tax on life will help such tech? When we are being taxed for the use of things we cannot do without, what will be the motivation for the benefactors of carbon taxes to seek a cheaper and more abundant source?

Of course you haven't thought of that, you warmers never do, because you think your guys are the good guys and wouldn't do such a thing.

And that's the problem isn't it.. A few decades ago everyone pretty much trusted religions and churches as well. Just like them, you believe in the total and complete "goodness' of your leaders.

 

[PMZ]

Why shouldn't the people causing and profiting from the problems that we are paying FEMA to help those who survive recover from not be paying to solve them?

 

[IanC]

Let's see. You have no theories that explain how AGW does not exist, no data, no peer reviewed science. All you can claim is that you don't want it to exist because then the media entertainers that you've mistaken for news reporters would be right and you would not look like the cultist that you are.

Not much to believe in. Science vs Fox News.

None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

Erm, then you won't mind detailing those "homeostatic mechanisms, and how they "compensate" for the greenhouse effect, will you?

By the way, skeptics don't deny that CO2 has an influence. Deniers, however, do.

Tropical thunderstorms are the easiest to understand, and I mentioned them obliquely in the OP. They are powered by available energy and once formed, move energy many orders of magnitude faster than radiation. If they form a couple of minutes earlier in the day that completely negates any surplus energy from increased CO2. Tropical waters have a narrow range of maximum temperature regulated by cloud activity.

 

[IanC]

Gslack- my evidence is all encompassing, from many converging fields. I don't have to throw out anything it is part of the equilibrium. SSDD is interested in pv=nrt. I think that is a majorpart of the equilibrium but it does little to explain effects from small changes in the atmoshere. I have no idea what your theory is because all you ever do is insult people.

I cannot understand how anyone can think changing conditions will not affect the equilibrium. Anyone who has taken any science knows that a change in one place will affect something elsewhere. We know increased CO2 causes a change, what we don't know is exactly what that change will be.

Ian you run from every challenge to your theory so seriously, you are full of it.. And the only reason I ever insulted you was the way you responded to me or anybody else who dares to question your theory.. I remember you insulting me instead of answering a question so many times it is ridiculous. I also remember you playing obtuse when you reach a point you can't debate.

As soon as your theory is questioned and you can't defend it, you turn into a sniveling little weasel or run away. And the worst part is you lack the spine to insult people directly, instead you play dumb and insult their intelligence or try some other weasel method. You think it's not actually not insulting someone if you do it like a cowardly punk?

Personally I'd rather be an intolerant prick, than a weasel or meally mouthed punk.. At least people know where they stand with me. For those unaccustomed to hidden insults or sarcasm, you may seem civil, but people with the proper social skills, will always spot you for the coward and weasel you are..

And as for your simplification, or claim regarding changing the sytem and equilibrium.. No one is saying any such thing, or opposing it. The problem is you are assuming the changes manifest in the way your pet theory claims, yet there has been NO proof of that yet. What I am saying for one thing is that perhaps the theory is flawed and the reality is my contention has as much scientific evidence that yours does if not more.

You agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely changes form? I hope so.. That being the case we can also assume that once that energy is used or changes form, we cannot re-use that energy within the same system to do the same task with out some kind of machine or mechanism to accomplish it.. If we can agree to that point, why do you still adhere to back-radiation?

Back-radiation is not needed in nature. It's a superflous bit of nonsense only needed in one scenario. And that is to prove AGW theory. You tell me what is more likely, that in this one instance, all natural laws are suddenly pliable and malleable to conform to the theory, or is it likely that the theory is flawed?

It's a completely silly pretense Ian, and what's more you know it by now. Why else do you run after a certain point in a debate to prove it? Because logically you cannot prove it beyond a mathematical possibility. It's another one of those things that may be mathematically possible, but somehow doesn't prove likely in the real world. Yet you ignore that and call if fact anyway...

Time to get off your scientific high horse and stop assuming yourself or your "gods" correct in all things simply because they or you say so...

You are boring. State YOUR position. I am tired of you nibbling around the edges of other peoples statements, making out of context criticisms.

I don't expect you to do it but I would enjoy the laugh

 

[gslack]

Gslack- my evidence is all encompassing, from many converging fields. I don't have to throw out anything it is part of the equilibrium. SSDD is interested in pv=nrt. I think that is a majorpart of the equilibrium but it does little to explain effects from small changes in the atmoshere. I have no idea what your theory is because all you ever do is insult people.

I cannot understand how anyone can think changing conditions will not affect the equilibrium. Anyone who has taken any science knows that a change in one place will affect something elsewhere. We know increased CO2 causes a change, what we don't know is exactly what that change will be.

Ian you run from every challenge to your theory so seriously, you are full of it.. And the only reason I ever insulted you was the way you responded to me or anybody else who dares to question your theory.. I remember you insulting me instead of answering a question so many times it is ridiculous. I also remember you playing obtuse when you reach a point you can't debate.

As soon as your theory is questioned and you can't defend it, you turn into a sniveling little weasel or run away. And the worst part is you lack the spine to insult people directly, instead you play dumb and insult their intelligence or try some other weasel method. You think it's not actually not insulting someone if you do it like a cowardly punk?

Personally I'd rather be an intolerant prick, than a weasel or meally mouthed punk.. At least people know where they stand with me. For those unaccustomed to hidden insults or sarcasm, you may seem civil, but people with the proper social skills, will always spot you for the coward and weasel you are..

And as for your simplification, or claim regarding changing the sytem and equilibrium.. No one is saying any such thing, or opposing it. The problem is you are assuming the changes manifest in the way your pet theory claims, yet there has been NO proof of that yet. What I am saying for one thing is that perhaps the theory is flawed and the reality is my contention has as much scientific evidence that yours does if not more.

You agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely changes form? I hope so.. That being the case we can also assume that once that energy is used or changes form, we cannot re-use that energy within the same system to do the same task with out some kind of machine or mechanism to accomplish it.. If we can agree to that point, why do you still adhere to back-radiation?

Back-radiation is not needed in nature. It's a superflous bit of nonsense only needed in one scenario. And that is to prove AGW theory. You tell me what is more likely, that in this one instance, all natural laws are suddenly pliable and malleable to conform to the theory, or is it likely that the theory is flawed?

It's a completely silly pretense Ian, and what's more you know it by now. Why else do you run after a certain point in a debate to prove it? Because logically you cannot prove it beyond a mathematical possibility. It's another one of those things that may be mathematically possible, but somehow doesn't prove likely in the real world. Yet you ignore that and call if fact anyway...

Time to get off your scientific high horse and stop assuming yourself or your "gods" correct in all things simply because they or you say so...

You are boring. State YOUR position. I am tired of you nibbling around the edges of other peoples statements, making out of context criticisms.

I don't expect you to do it but I would enjoy the laugh

I have made my postition very clear on numerous occassions.. asshole, All you have done is scoff at any and every other opinion on the matter. If it doesn't come from you or your hero spencer, than you either dismiss it outright or try and use the smug BS to insult them..

My position is on the side of realistic science. Not the garbage from either the warmer sides.. And yes that means you too.. Luke-warmer, my ass.. Dude you defend trenberth, you defend backradiation, and the only thing you DO disagree with is the way SOME scientists either use or interpret the data.. How many times can they get the data wrong before you can question the theory?

If you cannot prove the theory any better than you have sofar, why not question the theory? If you have to keep going further away from fact to prove the theory, the theory is unsound...

Dude earlier you tried to prove back-conduction by citing virtual photons in order to defend backradiation.. If that wasn't a fine example of somebody reaching and grasping at straws I don't know what is..

If you have to do that much reaching, what's wrong with a healthy look at the theory from a proper perspective? Why assume it fact despite they thmselves do not call it such? Spencer himself in his latest book has backpeddled and stated it can be calculated mathematically, instead of his usual statements of it being fact. Yest you don't even waiver a bit.. In your mind it's a fact..

The plain and simple truth is, there is no physical proof for backradiation, it's not needed for any reason other than to prove this one theory. And you don't have an issue with that?

You know as well as I do, your theory fails under scrutiny, you have seen it here time and again.

The facts tell us a few things. Heat flows flows from hot to cold and not the reverse without work being done to accomplish it. You can call it net heat flow toyour hearts desire but it will not change a thing. Be it net, or absolute the end result is still from hot to cold. Another fact tells us that energy cannot be re-used in the same system to accomplish the same task. Those two facts alone negate your theory. How can the same energy be used toheat the same system twice? it can't period..

When you can recognize and mentally understand what duality means, you can perhaps understand that treating light as only our understanding of a particle, negates the wave-like properties and the principles that accompany it. Can you visualize in your mind the concept? Can you? I don't think so, because all you ever do is treat it as a particle..

ANother concept you fail to grasp is the fact a photon is a quanta of light or EM radiation. That is the smallest packet of.. It has force... That force is a factor, whether you accept it or not.. Especially when the duality aspect is taken into account. A wave/particle, bearing some force, how can a weaker but in all other aspects similar force-bearing wave particle not only oppose the greater one coming in but in fact effect change in that source? It cannot simple...

Now you want more clarity, or would you rather I pull somebody else's explaination off the net? I felt my words would be best to avoid any claims of "slayer science" or any other excuses you like to pull...

 

[gslack]

Why shouldn't the people causing and profiting from the problems that we are paying FEMA to help those who survive recover from not be paying to solve them?

They are ya dumbass...

 

[PMZ]

None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

Erm, then you won't mind detailing those "homeostatic mechanisms, and how they "compensate" for the greenhouse effect, will you?

By the way, skeptics don't deny that CO2 has an influence. Deniers, however, do.

Tropical thunderstorms are the easiest to understand, and I mentioned them obliquely in the OP. They are powered by available energy and once formed, move energy many orders of magnitude faster than radiation. If they form a couple of minutes earlier in the day that completely negates any surplus energy from increased CO2. Tropical waters have a narrow range of maximum temperature regulated by cloud activity.

Any body in space must, will, can't prevent, maintaining energy balance. Radiant energy in equals radiant energy out. If in is greater than out, warming. If out is greater than in, cooling. What has to happen to get the excess out, can get complicated and there may be a significant delay. But it the entire system cannot source or sink energy in perpetuity. It is not possible.

 

[IanC]

What science is available to you that's not to the IPCC?

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

Many of the cited papers in AR4 were specifically prepared to be included in the report. One journal printed an issue after the release of AR4 that had more than 80 percent of its articles cited. Where is the error checking besides rushed 'pal review'?

The IPCC is not as pristine as you think even if you ignore such whoppers as Himalayagate or the false claim that only peer reviewed sources were used.

But what science is available to you and not the IPCC? I'm not sure what you mean by pristine. This is science.

You are naïve if you believe science is cut and dried.

Why do you so easily believe the motivations of sceptical are evil and wrong while also believing concensus scientists have only the purest of motives?

The IPCC reports are not neutral.

 

[flacaltenn]

None of the major skeptics deny that CO2 has an influence. They argue that the climate system has homeostatic mechanisms that compensate rather than exacerbate the predicted impact. The cranks that claim no change are just as incorrect as those who claim 6 degrees of warming.

Erm, then you won't mind detailing those "homeostatic mechanisms, and how they "compensate" for the greenhouse effect, will you?

By the way, skeptics don't deny that CO2 has an influence. Deniers, however, do.

Tropical thunderstorms are the easiest to understand, and I mentioned them obliquely in the OP. They are powered by available energy and once formed, move energy many orders of magnitude faster than radiation. If they form a couple of minutes earlier in the day that completely negates any surplus energy from increased CO2. Tropical waters have a narrow range of maximum temperature regulated by cloud activity.

We're discussing the leading edge of "Climate Change" just this year. The latest "warming is hiding in the deep ocean" is another example of negative compensations. THe old view that surface warming of the ocean would SLOW the natural uptake of atmos CO2 is now in serious doubt. Because the heat "hiding" in the ocean CAN'T affect weather and it CAN'T substantially change the CO2 uptake as QUICKLY as thought. So realizing the effect that a huge heatsink has on the silly surface temp. numbers is actually quite a huge capitulation for runaway positive feedbacks that CATASTROPHIC AGW is built on.

 

[PMZ]

Erm, then you won't mind detailing those "homeostatic mechanisms, and how they "compensate" for the greenhouse effect, will you?

By the way, skeptics don't deny that CO2 has an influence. Deniers, however, do.

Tropical thunderstorms are the easiest to understand, and I mentioned them obliquely in the OP. They are powered by available energy and once formed, move energy many orders of magnitude faster than radiation. If they form a couple of minutes earlier in the day that completely negates any surplus energy from increased CO2. Tropical waters have a narrow range of maximum temperature regulated by cloud activity.

We're discussing the leading edge of "Climate Change" just this year. The latest "warming is hiding in the deep ocean" is another example of negative compensations. THe old view that surface warming of the ocean would SLOW the natural uptake of atmos CO2 is now in serious doubt. Because the heat "hiding" in the ocean CAN'T affect weather and it CAN'T substantially change the CO2 uptake as QUICKLY as thought. So realizing the effect that a huge heatsink has on the silly surface temp. numbers is actually quite a huge capitulation for runaway positive feedbacks that CATASTROPHIC AGW is built on.

Are you really trying to say that ocean temperature has no effect on the weather? That’s bizarre.

 

[westwall]

Tropical thunderstorms are the easiest to understand, and I mentioned them obliquely in the OP. They are powered by available energy and once formed, move energy many orders of magnitude faster than radiation. If they form a couple of minutes earlier in the day that completely negates any surplus energy from increased CO2. Tropical waters have a narrow range of maximum temperature regulated by cloud activity.

We're discussing the leading edge of "Climate Change" just this year. The latest "warming is hiding in the deep ocean" is another example of negative compensations. THe old view that surface warming of the ocean would SLOW the natural uptake of atmos CO2 is now in serious doubt. Because the heat "hiding" in the ocean CAN'T affect weather and it CAN'T substantially change the CO2 uptake as QUICKLY as thought. So realizing the effect that a huge heatsink has on the silly surface temp. numbers is actually quite a huge capitulation for runaway positive feedbacks that CATASTROPHIC AGW is built on.

Are you really trying to say that ocean temperature has no effect on the weather? That’s bizarre.

Read what he wrote again....slower....

 

[PMZ]

''Because the heat "hiding" in the ocean CAN'T affect weather''

 

[PMZ]

I think that there are those here who are confused about the nature of energy. When heat is added to a pot of water the fact that the water is heated and boiled doesn't mean that the energy was used up. It's just transferred to the water and steam. Where it can be recovered again.

The energy in fossil fuels is solar energy. Captured during the Carboniferous Period and available today.

The only energy available is from the conversion of matter to energy here or by the sun.

 

[PMZ]

For those who are into science rather than politics.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

 

[PMZ]

The lead writers for chapters in the IPCC chose which direction and what papers will be included. The AR4 was a travesty in that it discounted the evidence against Mann's hockeystick and used papers that were not even published yet as rebuttals. In at least one case the paper was never published, in others the papers were substantially changed. This is why the Ar4 emails were deleted to evade FOI.

Many of the cited papers in AR4 were specifically prepared to be included in the report. One journal printed an issue after the release of AR4 that had more than 80 percent of its articles cited. Where is the error checking besides rushed 'pal review'?

The IPCC is not as pristine as you think even if you ignore such whoppers as Himalayagate or the false claim that only peer reviewed sources were used.

But what science is available to you and not the IPCC? I'm not sure what you mean by pristine. This is science.

You are naïve if you believe science is cut and dried.

Why do you so easily believe the motivations of sceptical are evil and wrong while also believing concensus scientists have only the purest of motives?

The IPCC reports are not neutral.

They are more neutral than you are. You are committed to prove them wrong with no science to support your preformed opinion. I don't read any conclusions in their positions that aren't well supported by science.

 

[PMZ]

For those who are into science rather than politics.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

From the reference above and the main reason why AGW is scientifically irrefutable.

''The sum of all the forms of energy inside a volume of space can only change by the amount of energy leaving or entering the volume.''

 

[flacaltenn]

We're discussing the leading edge of "Climate Change" just this year. The latest "warming is hiding in the deep ocean" is another example of negative compensations. THe old view that surface warming of the ocean would SLOW the natural uptake of atmos CO2 is now in serious doubt. Because the heat "hiding" in the ocean CAN'T affect weather and it CAN'T substantially change the CO2 uptake as QUICKLY as thought. So realizing the effect that a huge heatsink has on the silly surface temp. numbers is actually quite a huge capitulation for runaway positive feedbacks that CATASTROPHIC AGW is built on.

Are you really trying to say that ocean temperature has no effect on the weather? That’s bizarre.

Read what he wrote again....slower....

This thread is what it must be like for the teacher who pulls constant detention duty aint it??

To the dear troll ---
What drives WEATHER is SURFACE temp --- not 0.1deg changes at 700m down...