Ice, again

[SSDD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/s...ruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?hp
"Now, a group of scientists is presenting new findings suggesting that over the centuries, temperature is the main factor controlling the growth and retreat of the largest glacier emerging from the ice cap. If they are right, then Quelccaya’s recent melting could indeed be viewed as a symbol of the planetary warming linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases."

Do you acknowledge that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of planet earth?

 

[Abraham3]

Yes. Do you have any evidence to support your claims concerning CO2, the Greenhouse Effect and global warming?

 

[Abraham3]

So once again....what is the climate sensitivity to CO2,and what is the margin of error

Asked and answered repeatedly just in the last 24 hours. Can you not read?

2C - 4.5C

A margin of error greater than 100%....Once more, I am laughing out loud in your stupid face. How can you possibly take such drivel seriously?

and of what use is any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis if you aren't damned sure of that number

what use is ANYTHING you have brought to this forum?

It serves to bring your stupidity and gullibility clearly out into the open. Your responses are invariably the talking points your priests gave you and you have clearly not given them much thought. The fact that the margin of error for the claimed sensitivity is greater than 100% and yet you believe it makes that obvious.

What do you believe to be the transient climate sensitivity, why do you believe so and what is your margin of error?

 

[ScienceRocks]

1.5c

 

[SSDD]

What do you believe to be the transient climate sensitivity, why do you believe so and what is your margin of error?

Transient sensitivity to CO2? Zero with a zero percent margin of error. The atmosphere isn't sensitive to CO2 beyond its contribution to atmospheric pressure.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. Do you have any evidence to support your claims concerning CO2, the Greenhouse Effect and global warming?

Just the laws of physics and observation here, and across the solar system.....if the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't work on other planets with atmospheres, there is all the evidence you need that it is an ad hoc construct for planet earth. The laws of physics operate the same on every planet and if the greenhouse hypothesis is in accord with the laws of physics, it should predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....it doesn't, therefore it is flawed. Again, the temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the base of the troposphere on earth even though Uranus is 30X further away from the sun than earth and Uranus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium...the greenhouse hypothesis can't explain that even though it is reality...the greenhouse hypothesis fails because it is fatally flawed.

 

[Abraham3]

That is NOT evidence supporting your contention. You claimed that CO2 was not warming the Earth. You have claimed that the Earth is not actually warming. You need to provide evidence that the temperature of the Earth has remained stable for the last 150 years.

I'll be waiting for you right here.

 

[Abraham3]

Read this: The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited

I know you won't but you won't be able to say I didn't try. It even covers your lapse rate nonsense.

 

[IanC]

hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?

here is one that really bothered me. published in Nature, no less.

Nutrition and Diabetes - A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity

it blamed the obesity crisis on CO2. it is just the crazy sort of idea that appeals to you, right? me too actually but this one failed the smell test pretty quickly. why dont you go read it, and critique the major flaws for yourself. and then we could discuss it.

I am a little disappointed that you never took up the challenge to read this paper Matthew. it is a classic case of juxtaposing reasonable data but extrapolating linear correlations between extremes, and then making faulty conclusions from imaginary filled-in data points.

the human body has multiple homeostatic systems for transporting O2 and CO2, and controlling pH. designed to work under varying conditions, with buffers and redundacies, so that short, medium and long term insults to stasis are dealt with.

so how did they model CO2 build up in tissues? they studied worms that have passive respiration through holes in their epidermis. how did they model pH increase? they took data from the space program that was 30-100 times ambient air values and drew a straight line back to normal. and then used made-up intermediate data points to suggest
a possible outcome, with little of the uncertainty mentioned in the abstract, which then gets noticed by the media and written up as 'CO2 and global warming is making us fat'.

a large part of climate science is taking a huge pile of refutable data and evidence, sifting through for the pieces that support your pre-formed conclusions, and then making garish predictions of doom out of the worst-case-scenarios.

Rosanne D’Arrigo astonished the NAS panel with a slide entitled Cherry picking, in which she attempted to defend reconstructions from
criticism of biased proxy selection. D’Arrigo observed: you have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie

 

[Abraham3]

The folks that conducted that investigation had multiple lines of evidence, all pointing in the same direction. And their conclusion was simply that it was a hypothesis worth further investigation. Do you disagree?

And this has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[IanC]

The folks that conducted that investigation had multiple lines of evidence, all pointing in the same direction. And their conclusion was simply that it was a hypothesis worth further investigation. Do you disagree?

And this has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

I have a history with Matthew. He has a love for science but he is far too easily swayed by a few press clippings and an enthusiastic abstract. in the past few months he has gone offtrack and joined the majority here who judge the idea by the person speaking it rather than the soundness of what is being said.

I try to stay out of the actual politics but I am interested in the personalities of climate science. it is the same with this board. I have no problems with people who disagree with me but I find it odious when insults, strawman versions of my comments, and imagined evil intent of my motives are the standard response rather than a clash of ideas.

I am sorry if you think I am off topic. not many threads do keep on target. you were talking about climate sensitivity with SSDD. it is an interesting subject but I have a pretty strong suspicion that you arent the least bit interested in what I have to say about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/s...ruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?hp
"Now, a group of scientists is presenting new findings suggesting that over the centuries, temperature is the main factor controlling the growth and retreat of the largest glacier emerging from the ice cap. If they are right, then Quelccaya’s recent melting could indeed be viewed as a symbol of the planetary warming linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases."

Do you acknowledge that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of planet earth?

Do you acknowledge that H2O has a residence time of less than 10 days in the atmosphere?

 

[Old Rocks]

What do you believe to be the transient climate sensitivity, why do you believe so and what is your margin of error?

Transient sensitivity to CO2? Zero with a zero percent margin of error. The atmosphere isn't sensitive to CO2 beyond its contribution to atmospheric pressure.

More unsupported flap-yap from an idiot.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course we realize that SSDD thinks that he is smarter than all the people in the American Institute of Physics combined, so all he has to do is post his opiinion, and it is a fiat from God.

 

[Old Rocks]

hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?

here is one that really bothered me. published in Nature, no less.

Nutrition and Diabetes - A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity

it blamed the obesity crisis on CO2. it is just the crazy sort of idea that appeals to you, right? me too actually but this one failed the smell test pretty quickly. why dont you go read it, and critique the major flaws for yourself. and then we could discuss it.

I am a little disappointed that you never took up the challenge to read this paper Matthew. it is a classic case of juxtaposing reasonable data but extrapolating linear correlations between extremes, and then making faulty conclusions from imaginary filled-in data points.

the human body has multiple homeostatic systems for transporting O2 and CO2, and controlling pH. designed to work under varying conditions, with buffers and redundacies, so that short, medium and long term insults to stasis are dealt with.

so how did they model CO2 build up in tissues? they studied worms that have passive respiration through holes in their epidermis. how did they model pH increase? they took data from the space program that was 30-100 times ambient air values and drew a straight line back to normal. and then used made-up intermediate data points to suggest
a possible outcome, with little of the uncertainty mentioned in the abstract, which then gets noticed by the media and written up as 'CO2 and global warming is making us fat'.

a large part of climate science is taking a huge pile of refutable data and evidence, sifting through for the pieces that support your pre-formed conclusions, and then making garish predictions of doom out of the worst-case-scenarios.

Rosanne D’Arrigo astonished the NAS panel with a slide entitled Cherry picking, in which she attempted to defend reconstructions from
criticism of biased proxy selection. D’Arrigo observed: you have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie

While the hypothesis may be interesting, it has nothing at all to do with AGW.

Ian, bringing up that kind of article does not help to prove or disprove anything. You want real science on this issue, go the the lectures at the AGU Conventions, or articles from GSA's Journal, Geology. Both deal with mostly on the ground issues concerning AGW. Same with the lectures at the Americam Meteorlogical Association.

 

[SSDD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/s...ruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?hp
"Now, a group of scientists is presenting new findings suggesting that over the centuries, temperature is the main factor controlling the growth and retreat of the largest glacier emerging from the ice cap. If they are right, then Quelccaya’s recent melting could indeed be viewed as a symbol of the planetary warming linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases."

Do you acknowledge that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere of planet earth?

Do you acknowledge that H2O has a residence time of less than 10 days in the atmosphere?

I suppose you believe that CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of a thousand years??

 

[Abraham3]

Semantic bullshit - and the point has been explained to you before. That makes this post a willful lie.

 

[SSDD]

Semantic bullshit - and the point has been explained to you before. That makes this post a willful lie.

You would have to understand a thing to explain it...you don't. The claims that you alarmists make regarding the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere are pure propaganda.

 

[Abraham3]

Again, there's an enormous number of folks with PhD's in atmospheric science that would disagree with you. Why don't you argue with them? Because that would expose your ignorance or because it would expose your lie?

 

[skookerasbil]

If the science is settled, why are the climate change truthers ALWAYS changing their predictions?

 

[Abraham3]

Here's the latest GISTemp data. Does it look as if the world is freezing?