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

[polarbear]

Well I don't pretend to understand a bit of that Polarbear, and in all honesty, just don't have sufficient interest to sit down and learn to understand it.

But I will say, if CO2 is a significant factor in all this, and if the info I posted earlier today on global cooling is the real deal, you and Ian and such better figure this out in a big hurry so we know whether we need to be decreasing or increasing CO2.

Okay I edited it and made it a bit shorter. It is however of vital importance that you do understand and you can too. There is no such thing as "can`t".
The problem is if I explain it using easy to understand analogies then it gets ridiculed minutes later. But I don`t really care because it`s not up to the trolls and spammers to evaluate me, that was done when I wrote my exams. So they can`t get under my skin because all I have to do is look at my semester scores and my final exams.
So picture a beam of light with a wavelength of 15 µm as a white q-ball smacking into a racked set of red snooker balls.
Use the 15 µm as an angle analogy how far off your aim from the center was. Beyond that angle it`s a "scratch" and the q-ball slams full force into the opposite end rail (going out into space...all the light that CO2 can`t absorb )
Had there been no red balls (no CO2), the q-ball would have impacted full force at the rail. But the red balls absorbed the energy and disperse it in different directions. Some of them impact on the rail where you had q`d off ( radiated back some of the energy that they got from the white q-ball).
There is nothing wrong using analogies as long as you don`t stay with them unconditionally, because photons don`t have a mass like snooker balls.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I don't pretend to understand a bit of that Polarbear, and in all honesty, just don't have sufficient interest to sit down and learn to understand it.

But I will say, if CO2 is a significant factor in all this, and if the info I posted earlier today on global cooling is the real deal, you and Ian and such better figure this out in a big hurry so we know whether we need to be decreasing or increasing CO2.

Okay I edited it and made it a bit shorter. It is however of vital importance that you do understand and you can too. There is no such thing as "can`t".
The problem is if I explain it using easy to understand analogies then it gets ridiculed minutes later. But I don`t really care because it`s not up to the trolls and spammers to evaluate me, that was done when I wrote my exams. So they can`t get under my skin because all I have to do is look at my semester scores and my final exams.
So picture a beam of light with a wavelength of 15 µm as a white q-ball smacking into a racked set of red snooker balls.
Use the 15 µm as an angle analogy how far off your aim from the center was. Beyond that angle it`s a "scratch" and the q-ball slams full force into the opposite end rail (going out into space...all the light that CO2 can`t absorb )
Had there been no red balls (no CO2), the q-ball would have impacted full force at the rail. But the red balls absorbed the energy and disperse it in different directions. Some of them impact on the rail where you had q`d off ( radiated back some of the energy that they got from the white q-ball).
There is nothing wrong using analogies as long as you don`t stay with them unconditionally, because photons don`t have a mass like snooker balls.

But why? Why is it important to know that. I've got YOU to explain it should I need the information explained to somebody.

My interest is in what I can and cannot control--what we as a people can and cannot control. I want to know HOW it works only in the sense of what I need to know to control what I can control. In other words, I don't have to understand how a motherboard works in order to appreciate and use a computer. ( (Okay, some things I want to know just because I'm curious.)

In the whole global warming debate, my interests are purely selfish and altruistic. If we're all gonna fry someday regardless of what we do now, then why spoil the enjoyment of now? If we actually do have the power to alter our climate without blowing the hell out of most of us or wiping out most people on Earth, then tell us what we have to do.

But don't tell us to do stuff that isn't going to make much difference to anybody other than to those in government who will enrich and empower themselves in the process while stripping away our individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

And if we are empowered to help people adapt to climate change whether that is for a warmer or cooler climate, why aren't we focusing on that while we still have time to get ready?

 

[gslack]

Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.

No argument from me there. I'm just saying that I don't have to know how to calibrate an IR spectrophotometer or even know what one is in order to know that I don't want to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities in a futile pretense of altering what is most likely a normal climate shift. But I would like to know what's coming so that I can properly prepare for it.

 

[polarbear]

Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.

No argument from me there. I'm just saying that I don't have to know how to calibrate an IR spectrophotometer or even know what one is in order to know that I don't want to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities in a futile pretense of altering what is most likely a normal climate shift. But I would like to know what's coming so that I can properly prepare for it.

Just like you, I don`t worry about things that are beyond human control either. Just like you, I would not pay the witch doctor to end a drought but you are also just like me by wanting to know what really caused the drought, or what is cause and effect in general.
Now it all depends how deep you want to dig and "these things do run deep"...I think that is stated somewhere in the bible.
That leaves you with some choices. You could either let faith decide, or dig as deep as it takes to get to the bottom of the matter.
Mankind chose the latter.
The problem is that during the digging process we dug a maze of tunnels and some people run around in circles in that maze which is an analogy to "circular proof".
IanC for example is not far off the mark. He is almost all the way through the maze but only inches from the finish line he took a wrong turn.
Could be I mis- interpreted his statement what he means by "impede".
There is a good reason why a lot of people who study physics chose to study German. English is an elegant language but too many words can have several meanings which depend on the context.
So unless the entire (long winded) context is there it is difficult to make a precise statement. "impede" would translate to "verhindern" ...and if you start out with the German word "verhindern" then the most accurate translation is "blocking"...and there is no way you could "verhindern" photons from being emitted by an exposed radiation source.
IanC is not stupid and I rather suspect it`s the ambiguity of the words he chose,...so I`ll wait for him to elaborate the "impede".
Meanwhile I`ll elaborate my position again with a shorter context, taking the risk of being taken out of context.
Could be IanC meant to say "impeding" the rate at which energy is lost from the hotter object, in other words how fast it can cool down.
Nobody argues that a second, warm object can slow the rate of radiative cooling of a hotter object, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the IPCC`s insistence that this can be re-phrased as "heating".
But climatologists do rephrase it and have the warm object heat the hotter object to an even hotter temperature.
Yes it is possible to achieve a higher temperature if the hotter object has an INTERNAL heating source and was at equilibrium when the "warm" but cooler object was not in the vicinity.
But in no way can yo raise the temperature of the hotter object if the 2.nd object also "impedes" the EXTERNAL heating source, the sun to a higher degree than you "impeded" the radiative cooling of the object that the sun heated. And with a 120 km thick atmosphere at ~ 380 ppm CO2 the external heating source the sun is seriously "impeded" in the 15 µm IR band. So now you have to find out if the rest of the spectrum can feed enough energy to planet earth to OVER COMPENSATE for the CO2 "impedance" at 15 µm.
Black body math says it can not...because already at the initial equilibrium temperature the bulk of that heat radiates "un-impeded" well below 15 µm right trough CO2, no matter how concentrated.
And the hotter you try to make the earth the farther away (lower than) from 15 µm and less "impeded" by CO2 will earth radiate heat.
Not just that but it will do that not just by a factor of "times the higher temperature" but by a factor of the higher temperature to the forth power.
But if you prefer not to dig so deep, then all you have to do is look at what`s going on in the "goldy lock (temperature) zone" of the sun.
The ISS and all of our satellites are in the same "goldy locks temperature zone". But unlike planet earth, there is no atmosphere shielding the ISS.
Despite the materials that our best technology has to offer as far as albedo effect etc. is concerned the "sunny side" of the ISS sizzles at over + 120 C.

 

[Saigon]

Bears one of the sharpest tools in the shed, IMHO.

No argument from me there. I'm just saying that I don't have to know how to calibrate an IR spectrophotometer or even know what one is in order to know that I don't want to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities in a futile pretense of altering what is most likely a normal climate shift. But I would like to know what's coming so that I can properly prepare for it.

I'm a little curious as to how not preparing for a rise in temperatures gives you more options than preparing for a rise in temperatures does.

I also don't know why adapting to increased temperatures might lead to less liberty than keeping your head in the sand - can you explain that? Is there some particular liberty that is sacrificed by utilising science and technolohy?

I would have thought the best response was that taken by most conservative parties around the world - drive business, create jobs, focus on improving the standard of living, and use private sector solutions.

Why do you oppose that?

 

[IanC]

you keep implying that CO2 heats the surface directly by radiation. it does not. the net flow of energy is from the surface to the atmosphere to space, all in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics. CO2 indirectly heats the surface by impedeing energy loss in a specific IR band, changing the surface equilibrium temperature that is controlled by solar input( temperature independent) and surface output (temperature dependent). is that really so difficult to comprehend? you can change the surface temperature by either raising input or lowering output. CO2 lowers output.

No it`s the IPCC which is implying that by saying,... 50% of the 15 µm IR which the CO2 absorbed is re-emitted down and 50% up. There are numerous publications to that effect and I don`t feel that I need to post the links to any of these.
After all when a substance absorbs light of a specific wavelength that`s how it works in general. You have a source, an absorbing substance and a detector. % absorption is what`s missing at the detector compared to what the source emits. The light that has been absorbed is emitted again by the absorbing substance but in all possible directions. Look it up !
I`ve done a lot of spectroscopy for a living and I don`t have to look up how it works. Do you know the guts of an IR spectrophotometer?
If you have to scan over a wide band then often the source is a Barium filament lamp. In no way does CO2 or any other IR absorbing substance "impede the energy flow" from the lamp.
God, if that was the case there would be no way to calibrate a scanning IR spectrophotometer. For scan calibrations say from a wave number of 2500 down to 600 we often use clear polystyrene as an absorbing substance because it has more than a dozen very sharp and intense absorption peaks that serve as wave number markers to calibrate the monochromator.
In the regions between these peaks you get a 100% transmission with which the instrument is "nulled". In other words that`s where the detector gets 100 % of the source output which was going in that direction, as if there were no absorbing substance at all between the source and the detector.
You make it sound as if the photons that were absorbed were "impeded" from leaving the lamp.
In reality you can detect all of them all being re-emitted from the absorbing substance in all possible directions.
IanC, there is a big difference between reality and the way you have interpreted the stuff that you found on the internet.
If you want to read some books on analytical spectroscopy I could send you some that are sitting on my book shelf.

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

 

[polarbear]

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

Just a minute there IanC. I do know the difference !
I was the one who said that CO2 absorbs 15 µm IR and the re-despirses it in all possible directions. So sayeth also all the equations when they factor in "sr", the "solid angle".
And it is the IPCC that says that a portion of the re-dispersed 15 µm IR heats planet earth...so does Hansen, so does Roy Spencer and so did you only weeks ago.
Now you start "morphing" your statements away from that and have me "not understand the difference"....in true liberal fashion I might add !
Need I dig up again what you said when I put a thermistor in the focal point of a 6 inch reflector telescope and pointed it at a window pane that was at room temperature and at a -20 C cold country side ?
Need I dig up what you said to SSDD when he linked you to some "solar refrigerator" web pages ?
You know damn well what I said and what you have been saying...
So does everybody else who has been on this subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

you keep implying that CO2 heats the surface directly by radiation. it does not. the net flow of energy is from the surface to the atmosphere to space, all in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics. CO2 indirectly heats the surface by impedeing energy loss in a specific IR band, changing the surface equilibrium temperature that is controlled by solar input( temperature independent) and surface output (temperature dependent). is that really so difficult to comprehend? you can change the surface temperature by either raising input or lowering output. CO2 lowers output.

No it`s the IPCC which is implying that by saying,... 50% of the 15 µm IR which the CO2 absorbed is re-emitted down and 50% up. There are numerous publications to that effect and I don`t feel that I need to post the links to any of these.
After all when a substance absorbs light of a specific wavelength that`s how it works in general. You have a source, an absorbing substance and a detector. % absorption is what`s missing at the detector compared to what the source emits. The light that has been absorbed is emitted again by the absorbing substance but in all possible directions. Look it up !
I`ve done a lot of spectroscopy for a living and I don`t have to look up how it works. Do you know the guts of an IR spectrophotometer?
If you have to scan over a wide band then often the source is a Barium filament lamp. In no way does CO2 or any other IR absorbing substance "impede the energy flow" from the lamp.
God, if that was the case there would be no way to calibrate a scanning IR spectrophotometer. For scan calibrations say from a wave number of 2500 down to 600 we often use clear polystyrene as an absorbing substance because it has more than a dozen very sharp and intense absorption peaks that serve as wave number markers to calibrate the monochromator.
In the regions between these peaks you get a 100% transmission with which the instrument is "nulled". In other words that`s where the detector gets 100 % of the source output which was going in that direction, as if there were no absorbing substance at all between the source and the detector.
You make it sound as if the photons that were absorbed were "impeded" from leaving the lamp.
In reality you can detect all of them all being re-emitted from the absorbing substance in all possible directions.
IanC, there is a big difference between reality and the way you have interpreted the stuff that you found on the internet.
If you want to read some books on analytical spectroscopy I could send you some that are sitting on my book shelf.

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

At least Bear is talking about stuff I believe he actually knows and I believe can back up with credible evidence/sources. And I am quite sure that his explanations are really interesting to those scientists among us who enjoy the detail. And I have no problem with it being included in the discussion.

I still don't understand a lot of it because honestly I'm focused on other things and don't WANT to go to the time and mental effort of understanding some of the technical scientific stuff on this particular subject that I don't have to know to understand the broader concept.

And at least Bear doesn't cut and paste big blocks of stuff and computer generated charts and graphs that are non sequitur to the discussion and which those who post it obviously don't understand. And he doesn't keep asking questions that have already been answered many times over and/or imply members said thngs they never said.

I'm not sayng that you do that either, Ian. But some here do.

 

[Foxfyre]

So I am curious what our more serious members here think about that Forbes article I posted yesterday. What do you think are the chances that the theory is right that we are now at a tipping point in which prolonged global cooling is ahead?

 

[Saigon]

So I am curious what our more serious members here think about that Forbes article I posted yesterday. What do you think are the chances that the theory is right that we are now at a tipping point in which prolonged global cooling is ahead?

You may get more replies if you were willing to discuss the replies you did get. Such as those just above this comment in #426.

 

[Saigon]

I am curious what our more serious members here think about that Forbes article I posted yesterday.

Well, it came out of an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

Are they a scientific organisation, or a political one?

Did you consider the story to be balanced and objective, when you read it?

 

[IanC]

No it`s the IPCC which is implying that by saying,... 50% of the 15 µm IR which the CO2 absorbed is re-emitted down and 50% up. There are numerous publications to that effect and I don`t feel that I need to post the links to any of these.
After all when a substance absorbs light of a specific wavelength that`s how it works in general. You have a source, an absorbing substance and a detector. % absorption is what`s missing at the detector compared to what the source emits. The light that has been absorbed is emitted again by the absorbing substance but in all possible directions. Look it up !
I`ve done a lot of spectroscopy for a living and I don`t have to look up how it works. Do you know the guts of an IR spectrophotometer?
If you have to scan over a wide band then often the source is a Barium filament lamp. In no way does CO2 or any other IR absorbing substance "impede the energy flow" from the lamp.
God, if that was the case there would be no way to calibrate a scanning IR spectrophotometer. For scan calibrations say from a wave number of 2500 down to 600 we often use clear polystyrene as an absorbing substance because it has more than a dozen very sharp and intense absorption peaks that serve as wave number markers to calibrate the monochromator.
In the regions between these peaks you get a 100% transmission with which the instrument is "nulled". In other words that`s where the detector gets 100 % of the source output which was going in that direction, as if there were no absorbing substance at all between the source and the detector.
You make it sound as if the photons that were absorbed were "impeded" from leaving the lamp.
In reality you can detect all of them all being re-emitted from the absorbing substance in all possible directions.
IanC, there is a big difference between reality and the way you have interpreted the stuff that you found on the internet.
If you want to read some books on analytical spectroscopy I could send you some that are sitting on my book shelf.

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

At least Bear is talking about stuff I believe he actually knows and I believe can back up with credible evidence/sources. And I am quite sure that his explanations are really interesting to those scientists among us who enjoy the detail. And I have no problem with it being included in the discussion.

I still don't understand a lot of it because honestly I'm focused on other things and don't WANT to go to the time and mental effort of understanding some of the technical scientific stuff on this particular subject that I don't have to know to understand the broader concept.

And at least Bear doesn't cut and paste big blocks of stuff and computer generated charts and graphs that are non sequitur to the discussion and which those who post it obviously don't understand. And he doesn't keep asking questions that have already been answered many times over and/or imply members said thngs they never said.

I'm not sayng that you do that either, Ian. But some here do.

in my experience polarbear is a blowhard who goes off chasing red herrings rather than directly address the issue at hand. I have no problem with that except that he dishonourably supports weak thinking by sycophants like gslack by ignoring their fundemental mistakes while attacking those 'with a different position' by making strawman claims against them or criticizing their 'ambiguous' grammar.

BTW, I am a fullblown skeptic who sees the whole CAGW CO2 theory as insignificant. I just believe that denying the physics mechanism behind it is detrimental to the skeptical cause. as do the majority of big time influential skeptics (yah,yah, appeal to authority, blah,blah).

CO2 is a barrier to free escape of 15 IR radiation from the surface (or in from the Sun, as I pointed out long before polarbear did). some of that dispersed energy returns to the surface where it 'cancels out' some of the surface outgoing radiation but the net movement of energy is always away from the surface to the atmosphere under normal conditions. CO2 does not heat the surface, the sun heats the surface. CO2 changes the equilibrium by reducing the output from the surface. just not by any significant amount.

edit- CO2 does significantly affect the surface temperature, mankind's addition to the CO2 content of the atmosphere does not significantly alter the temperature

 

[IanC]

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

Just a minute there IanC. I do know the difference !
I was the one who said that CO2 absorbs 15 µm IR and the re-despirses it in all possible directions. So sayeth also all the equations when they factor in "sr", the "solid angle".
And it is the IPCC that says that a portion of the re-dispersed 15 µm IR heats planet earth...so does Hansen, so does Roy Spencer and so did you only weeks ago.
Now you start "morphing" your statements away from that and have me "not understand the difference"....in true liberal fashion I might add !
Need I dig up again what you said when I put a thermistor in the focal point of a 6 inch reflector telescope and pointed it at a window pane that was at room temperature and at a -20 C cold country side ?
Need I dig up what you said to SSDD when he linked you to some "solar refrigerator" web pages ?
You know damn well what I said and what you have been saying...
So does everybody else who has been on this subject.

I wish you would go back and read those threads over again, and actually read my comments rather than work from your faulty memory of what you think I said. BTW, I totally pwned you on that subject. please.....dredge it up again.

 

[gslack]

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

At least Bear is talking about stuff I believe he actually knows and I believe can back up with credible evidence/sources. And I am quite sure that his explanations are really interesting to those scientists among us who enjoy the detail. And I have no problem with it being included in the discussion.

I still don't understand a lot of it because honestly I'm focused on other things and don't WANT to go to the time and mental effort of understanding some of the technical scientific stuff on this particular subject that I don't have to know to understand the broader concept.

And at least Bear doesn't cut and paste big blocks of stuff and computer generated charts and graphs that are non sequitur to the discussion and which those who post it obviously don't understand. And he doesn't keep asking questions that have already been answered many times over and/or imply members said thngs they never said.

I'm not sayng that you do that either, Ian. But some here do.

in my experience polarbear is a blowhard who goes off chasing red herrings rather than directly address the issue at hand. I have no problem with that except that he dishonourably supports weak thinking by sycophants like gslack by ignoring their fundemental mistakes while attacking those 'with a different position' by making strawman claims against them or criticizing their 'ambiguous' grammar.

BTW, I am a fullblown skeptic who sees the whole CAGW CO2 theory as insignificant. I just believe that denying the physics mechanism behind it is detrimental to the skeptical cause. as do the majority of big time influential skeptics (yah,yah, appeal to authority, blah,blah).

CO2 is a barrier to free escape of 15 IR radiation from the surface (or in from the Sun, as I pointed out long before polarbear did). some of that dispersed energy returns to the surface where it 'cancels out' some of the surface outgoing radiation but the net movement of energy is always away from the surface to the atmosphere under normal conditions. CO2 does not heat the surface, the sun heats the surface. CO2 changes the equilibrium by reducing the output from the surface. just not by any significant amount.

edit- CO2 does significantly affect the surface temperature, mankind's addition to the CO2 content of the atmosphere does not significantly alter the temperature

Really Ian? By fundamental mistakes you mean questioning your logic right?

Please point out these fundamental mistakes to me.. Oh and make sure you point out the post from a couple years ago,you the ones.. Fermat's last theorem rings a bell...I remember a certain internet fake mathematician who didn't recognize it. And then tried to pretend it was an obscure formula that most didn't know about.

LOL, one of the most famous simple equations around, one that took hundreds of years to be proven by a computer,one not everyone would know about, but every serious mathematics student most certainly would.

You can insult me all you like, but it will hide the fact you got caught several times by me, being full of it.

Polarbear does the math. he shows it here quite often, if not at least explains it. You on the other hand, all you do is post a comment here or there about someone else's work, giving hints of good logic and mathematical base, but always lacking in some fundamental way.

Oh and let's not forget your "numan" qualities..."Red Herring, Red Herring!".. LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

In recent decades, humankind has advanced scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds. And yet I personally believe we still only have a tiny fraction of all there is to know. A civilization from a distant planet able to visit us here would be maybe 100,000 years more advanced in technology and understanding of how things work than we are. Or 50 years more advanced than we are. Who knows?

I was just watching a news story of a 14-year-old boy who was diagnosed as autistic and severely disabled at Age 3. Turns out this kid has an IQ off the charts--far surpassing Einstein. He taught himself and mastered advanced calculus in two weeks and now teaches advanced college math courses.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been regarded to about as close to settled science as it gets for some time now. This kid believes he can show how Einstein was wrong and is currently working on that project.

If he succeeds, how much more wrong about environmental science might far less capable and knowledgable scientists be?

We are all wise to not swallow hook, line, and sinker and deem credible a lot of self-serving 'science' that has a high potential for significant error.

You folks excessively obsessed with CO2 and whether that is or is not warming the planet in a dangerous way are quite likely to miss out on the possibility that we have entered the process toward an inevitable little ice age.

 

[mamooth]

Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.

By the way, your Forbes piece was laughable, as no one seriously thinks the sun is getting colder, and temperatures were still increasing as the sun was waning in the last cycle. It was junk science from a political hack. Even if the sun did get colder, the cooling effects of it would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of a few years of CO2 emissions. There's no ice age imminent, as humans have probably already cancelled the next ice age with our actions. In any case, roasting the earth now to prevent an ice age in 23000 years is a dumb idea.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.

By the way, your Forbes piece was laughable, as no one seriously thinks the sun is getting colder, and temperatures were still increasing as the sun was waning in the last cycle. It was junk science from a political hack. Even if the sun did get colder, the cooling effects of it would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of a few years of CO2 emissions. There's no ice age imminent, as humans have probably already cancelled the next ice age with our actions. In any case, roasting the earth now to prevent an ice age in 23000 years is a dumb idea.

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

 

[IanC]

At least Bear is talking about stuff I believe he actually knows and I believe can back up with credible evidence/sources. And I am quite sure that his explanations are really interesting to those scientists among us who enjoy the detail. And I have no problem with it being included in the discussion.

I still don't understand a lot of it because honestly I'm focused on other things and don't WANT to go to the time and mental effort of understanding some of the technical scientific stuff on this particular subject that I don't have to know to understand the broader concept.

And at least Bear doesn't cut and paste big blocks of stuff and computer generated charts and graphs that are non sequitur to the discussion and which those who post it obviously don't understand. And he doesn't keep asking questions that have already been answered many times over and/or imply members said thngs they never said.

I'm not sayng that you do that either, Ian. But some here do.

in my experience polarbear is a blowhard who goes off chasing red herrings rather than directly address the issue at hand. I have no problem with that except that he dishonourably supports weak thinking by sycophants like gslack by ignoring their fundemental mistakes while attacking those 'with a different position' by making strawman claims against them or criticizing their 'ambiguous' grammar.

BTW, I am a fullblown skeptic who sees the whole CAGW CO2 theory as insignificant. I just believe that denying the physics mechanism behind it is detrimental to the skeptical cause. as do the majority of big time influential skeptics (yah,yah, appeal to authority, blah,blah).

CO2 is a barrier to free escape of 15 IR radiation from the surface (or in from the Sun, as I pointed out long before polarbear did). some of that dispersed energy returns to the surface where it 'cancels out' some of the surface outgoing radiation but the net movement of energy is always away from the surface to the atmosphere under normal conditions. CO2 does not heat the surface, the sun heats the surface. CO2 changes the equilibrium by reducing the output from the surface. just not by any significant amount.

edit- CO2 does significantly affect the surface temperature, mankind's addition to the CO2 content of the atmosphere does not significantly alter the temperature

Really Ian? By fundamental mistakes you mean questioning your logic right?

Please point out these fundamental mistakes to me.. Oh and make sure you point out the post from a couple years ago,you the ones.. Fermat's last theorem rings a bell...I remember a certain internet fake mathematician who didn't recognize it. And then tried to pretend it was an obscure formula that most didn't know about.

LOL, one of the most famous simple equations around, one that took hundreds of years to be proven by a computer,one not everyone would know about, but every serious mathematics student most certainly would.

You can insult me all you like, but it will hide the fact you got caught several times by me, being full of it.

Polarbear does the math. he shows it here quite often, if not at least explains it. You on the other hand, all you do is post a comment here or there about someone else's work, giving hints of good logic and mathematical base, but always lacking in some fundamental way.

Oh and let's not forget your "numan" qualities..."Red Herring, Red Herring!".. LOL

ahhhhh.....you are going back to when you were wirebender's toady. I answered your question by stating it was an old time mathematician with an unanswered question. I believe I suggested Decartes. I then asked you about the pH of water as the temperature increased and you refused to even make a guess. back then you were stating that studies on physical waves in oil were making startling advances in the understanding of photons. I wish I could think of more of your whoppers but typically they make so little sense that they are difficult to remember. I dont really care if you latch yourself onto wirebender or SSDD or polarbear and just uncritically agree with whatever they say. but it doesnt mean that you are intellectual ballpark as they are. even when they are wrong they are still a helluva lot smarter than you.

 

[mamooth]

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

I pointed out the hypocrisy of you only applying your "everything we know could be wrong!" logic solely to global warming, thus demonstrating how invalid the logic was. I directly addressed your point. And instead of you addressing your own point, you now go with a victim act. It's getting old. As is your innocent and independent act, given how obvious your cult affiliation is.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups,

You misspelled "lied about several scientific groups."

If you've got a specific point to make about the science, then talk about the science. Don't keep pulling the "refute my whole cut and paste point by point!" song and dance. That gets the derision it justifiably deserves.

I already told you you need to study this, and to refute all 174 points, as all of your propaganda dumps are covered in it somewhere. You've ignored it so far.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Until you refute all 174 points, please don't bother with your "you must refute my sources in detail, but I can totally ignore your sources" schtick. Either both or neither of us get to play the dump game.

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

Has anyone else noticed how, when you flummox a denialist cultist, they usually respond by fleeing from the issue in favor of some red herring, such as implying someone is a sock? Rather cowardly and dishonest of them. If they could address the issues, they would. They can't, hence the reason for such evasions.