Ice, again

[Old Rocks]

CO2 is so small a player...barely registers on our best instruments.

it is impossible for CO2 to have any measureable effect.

It is measurable and also impossible to have measurable effects.

Which is it? It might help you to drop your vehement language so you can understand what your are saying for your own sake. Not to mention it makes it hard for profitable discussion when you are mostly focused on assuring us the impossibility and numb-skullery of opposing viewpoints. Drop this and we'd have a discussion centered around presentation of data, links and facts rather than beating a dead horse.

Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.

 

[westwall]

It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.

The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.

The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.

You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.

Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words. And no, the Residence Time of CO2 is 16 years...

http://www.co2web.info/

 

[Old Rocks]

Who cares. CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything. The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.

What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?

How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?

You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.

No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.

Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect? I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor. As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.


"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."



CO2 Science

CO2 Science

CO2 Science? A ******* rightwingnut blog!

Anyone that has done the slightest research understands the lag of CO2 and the Milankovic Cycles. Only total frauds like you try this damnable bullshit for the willfully ignorant.

 

[Old Rocks]

It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.

The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.

The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.

You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.

Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words.

On the contrary, you are the one that claims to be a Phd Geologist. So you tell us why all the rest of the scientists presenting their evidence at the AGU Conventions are wrong. And present real evidence supporting your case. The people at the AGU Conventions are real geologists, presenting real evidence, often from years of research on glaciers and the arctic. All you have shown us is fraudulent flap yap.

 

[westwall]

It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.

The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.

The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.

You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.

Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words.

On the contrary, you are the one that claims to be a Phd Geologist. So you tell us why all the rest of the scientists presenting their evidence at the AGU Conventions are wrong. And present real evidence supporting your case. The people at the AGU Conventions are real geologists, presenting real evidence, often from years of research on glaciers and the arctic. All you have shown us is fraudulent flap yap.

After Abraham has had his say I'll happily demolish you yet again.

 

[westwall]

How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?

You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.

No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.

Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect? I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor. As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.


"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."



CO2 Science

CO2 Science

CO2 Science? A ******* rightwingnut blog!

Anyone that has done the slightest research understands the lag of CO2 and the Milankovic Cycles. Only total frauds like you try this damnable bullshit for the willfully ignorant.

Then prove it numbnuts. Those are real peer reviewed studies, unlike the pal reviewed crap you clowns use from a website run by a comic book editor....though I must say, based on the crap they spew they couldn't have picked a better person to run it

 

[Old Rocks]

A23A

A real scientist presenting real evidence.

 

[gnarlylove]

Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.

Ya know I was unaware of his credentials. From his posts I induced (and wrongly I admit) that at best this was a college undergrad or more likely egotistical high school graduate with a degree in self-deceit. Learning of this gives us all the more reason to look forward to his data and sources. Yet we mostly see attacks often personal in nature (and therefore highly irrelevant) that is used to claim victory without having supported his claims.

I like Westwall as I do any human. He has his talents but am confused why such an advanced degree can produce little data with lotsa unfounded claims. Must be a personal issue. We empathize, westie, we are all in this together. I hope someday you can come to empathize with the the reality that excessive environmental degradation is appalling and nefarious at the rate we see.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect? I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor. As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.


"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."



CO2 Science

CO2 Science

CO2 Science? A ******* rightwingnut blog!

Anyone that has done the slightest research understands the lag of CO2 and the Milankovic Cycles. Only total frauds like you try this damnable bullshit for the willfully ignorant.

Then prove it numbnuts. Those are real peer reviewed studies, unlike the pal reviewed crap you clowns use from a website run by a comic book editor....though I must say, based on the crap they spew they couldn't have picked a better person to run it

Now a short time ago, you requested that we keep our correspondence on a more respectful level. Numbnuts, eh? Well, you are a liar. You have zero evidence for any of your stances. You simply denigrate real scientists and pretend to be something you are not. Phd Geologist? Sure, baby, sure.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.

Ya know I was unaware of his credentials. From his posts I induced (and wrongly I admit) that at best this was a college undergrad or more likely egotistical high school graduate with a degree in self-deceit. Learning of this gives us all the more reason to look forward to his data and sources. Yet we mostly see attacks often personal in nature (and therefore highly irrelevant) that is used to claim victory without having supported his claims.

I like Westwall as I do any human. He has his talents but am confused why such an advanced degree can produce little data with lotsa unfounded claims. Must be a personal issue. We empathize, westie, we are all in this together. I hope someday you can come to empathize with the the reality that excessive environmental degradation is appalling and nefarious at the rate we see.

You are a better person than I. I have 50 years experiance as a Millwright in heavy industry, dealing with idiots whose errors in judgement cost me hours, sometimes days, of hard, dirty, and dangerous work. I see people like Westwall as just another one of these kinds of people. You cannot teach them anything, because they allready know everything. And I am quite willing to use that kind of language on him that can get the attention of the people that I usually deal with.

The other point is that I have had some university classes in Geology. All the 200 classes, and the highest class I have taken is 470/570 Eng.Geo. So if Westwall wants to talk real evidence, I am quite capable of understanding any point he wishes to make. He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words.

On the contrary, you are the one that claims to be a Phd Geologist. So you tell us why all the rest of the scientists presenting their evidence at the AGU Conventions are wrong. And present real evidence supporting your case. The people at the AGU Conventions are real geologists, presenting real evidence, often from years of research on glaciers and the arctic. All you have shown us is fraudulent flap yap.

After Abraham has had his say I'll happily demolish you yet again.

When someone makes a claim like this, you know that he has been losing. The winner, the person that presents real evidence, needs make no claims concerning winning and losing arguements.

 

[gnarlylove]

If Westwall can't see his own patterns, he is in incredible state of denial. I figured that CO2 Science link was awfully fishy. Having once been a firm supporter in the Oregon Petiton, Westwall has since amended his stance. Then we see other sources of info that are foul: rightwing blog. Really and truly it amounts to the backlash of deep pocketed interests to pay for their own studies to show doubt and confusion about climate science. Indeed if you believe what you read on that webpage, you'd be in deep mire of political/financial interests trumping independently verified studies, research, and reasoning--and that's why Westwall relies on it for his information. The pattern is clear: Westwall is refusing to come to grips with his lack of credible science in favor of his financially motivated science.

 

[gnarlylove]

I've gone the route of calling Westwall names in response to his posts but having found this only increases ire, I've taken to the tactic of supporting their interests for the sake of progress. I want them to think I'm on their side so we can finally get somewhere, and in a sense we are on the same side (being human) but you wouldn't think we were from the same planet given his ceaseless refutation of what anyone says (that disagrees in the slightest). I just don't see how living in such overt denial and self-deceit can work, I'd be wanting to murder someone every second. Guess they have better suppression and repression techniques...

 

[westwall]

Sure thing silly people. You keep on keepin' on. The world is passing you by and you claim I'm the delusional one You guys are too much!

 

[SwimExpert]

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring. The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such. The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.

Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof. They argue causation from correlation. They argue ad populum And then they shift the burden. And then argue ad ignorantium. All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.

 

[SSDD]

Sure thing silly people. You keep on keepin' on. The world is passing you by and you claim I'm the delusional one You guys are too much!

rocks and gnarly have themselves a regular little circle jerk cheerleading session going on, don't they. I would imagine that you could track the course of each thread and find a pretty consistent threshold at which they must take a break from getting their asses kicked and spend some time patting each other on the back......or whatever.

 

[SSDD]

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring. The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such. The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.

Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof. They argue causation from correlation. They argue ad populum And then they shift the burden. And then argue ad ignorantium. All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.

Logic and the scientific method aren't really their forte'. They are a faith based group and behave as such.

 

[Abraham3]

It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.

The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.

The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.

You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.

Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words. And no, the Residence Time of CO2 is 16 years...

CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom

CO2Web.info? And you call Trenberth's work cartoons. Give us a fooking break.

"Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P (February 2009). "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (6): 1704–9. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.1704S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106. PMC 2632717. PMID 19179281."

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

 

[Abraham3]

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.

That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim. But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW. The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case. Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify. NOTHING the deniers have presented does.

That's what happens when you pick the wrong side and refuse to face facts.

 

[SSDD]

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.

That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim. But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW. The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case. Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify. NOTHING the deniers have presented does.

That's what happens when you pick the wrong side and refuse to face facts.

It is an even more extraordinary claim today considering the fact that after all these years, and all that money spent, you still lack anything approaching hard evidence to support the claims....models hardly rise to the level of evidence and nature herself ***** slaps your hypothesis daily.