June ice the lowest on record

[Chris]

And to date, no Warmer have ever published a research paper demonstrating in a laboratory setting how it is a deminimus increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instantaneous and cataclysmic increases in temperature.

Why would they? No one I know would call 30-40% increases, "deminimus" and no one is saying "instantaneous and cataclysmic" changes will occur. Nice try, but your prejudices just aren't scientifically testable. What is testable is that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. If they absorb in the lab, they'll absorb in the atmosphere. More gases means more energy absorbed. Given that a basic principle of science is Conservation of Energy and that statistically only half of the absorbed radiation would be re-emitted into space, where's the rest going but to heat the earth?

 

[westwall]

And to date, no Warmer have ever published a research paper demonstrating in a laboratory setting how it is a deminimus increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instantaneous and cataclysmic increases in temperature.

Why would they? No one I know would call 30-40% increases, "deminimus" and no one is saying "instantaneous and cataclysmic" changes will occur. Nice try, but your prejudices just aren't scientifically testable. What is testable is that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. If they absorb in the lab, they'll absorb in the atmosphere. More gases means more energy absorbed. Given that a basic principle of science is Conservation of Energy and that statistically only half of the absorbed radiation would be re-emitted into space, where's the rest going but to heat the earth?

Ok konrad,

In reference to your post I highlighted above I give you these blasts from the past. I see many attempts to tell us the climate change will be instantaneous in the geologic sense of the word and "saving the world" certainly implies cataclyismic, or is your language different from mine.

'We have hours' to prevent climate disaster - thestar.com

BBC NEWS | UK | PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles - Green Living, Environment - The Independent

Five years to save world from climate change, says WWF - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So please show us how there is no fear mongering going on. Please.

 

[Oddball]

Unfortunately a single laboratory experiment can't mimic the numerous real-world feedbacks that determine climate sensitivity. That's why climate sensitivity has to be determined empirically from the real world with its real clouds and ice and lapse rate, etc. We know how the variables work together--that's the theoretical physical bit and that can be verified piece by piece in some lab jar. But inserting the real-world values of the variables to make quantitative predictions can't be done in a lab. That's the stage climate dynamics is on today.

So many feedbacks that it's impossible to put them all on any of the silly computer models, which make the ridiculous claim that the climate is being driven anthropogenically.

That's why the "scientists" have to rely upon the sham peer review echo chamber.

 

[Greenbeard]

So many feedbacks that it's impossible to put them all on any of the silly computer models, which make the ridiculous claim that the climate is being driven anthropogenically.

A feedback is by definition a causal outcome. You're misapplying your talking points.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The **** it hasn't

It really hasn't. A lifted air parcel allowed to expand adiabatically is just as isentropic (and follows the same temperature and pressure relationship) today as it was over a century ago. Similarly, the derivation of an atmosphere's temperature profile from the lapse rate hasn't changed.

We can measure accurately out to parts per million and accordingly to climate "Scientists" an increase of just 200PPM will raise temperature a few degrees. That's what Climatologists are now alleging.

Show me that in a lab.

Unfortunately a single laboratory experiment can't mimic the numerous real-world feedbacks that determine climate sensitivity. That's why climate sensitivity has to be determined empirically from the real world with its real clouds and ice and lapse rate, etc. We know how the variables work together--that's the theoretical physical bit and that can be verified piece by piece in some lab jar. But inserting the real-world values of the variables to make quantitative predictions can't be done in a lab. That's the stage climate dynamics is on today.

Unfortunately for some the "debate" doesn't seem to have moved beyond the basic physics yet. Infrared opacity determines the radiating pressure level of the atmosphere. Increase that and you'll bump up that pressure level a bit higher, making the surface warmer. None of this is in doubt. Now the empirical contours of the climate system are being mapped out and attempts to model their future evolution are being made. Yes, that's hard. No, that doesn't make your opinions any more interesting.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't on the one say that the system is far too complicated to be mimicked in a lab (unlike say, the conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang which we can replicate in a lab) and then claim that you have isolated all other variables except for a deminimus increase is an atmospheric trace element as THE cause of warming.

Do you see how foolish and unscientific that is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And to date, no Warmer have ever published a research paper demonstrating in a laboratory setting how it is a deminimus increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instantaneous and cataclysmic increases in temperature.

Why would they? No one I know would call 30-40% increases, "deminimus" and no one is saying "instantaneous and cataclysmic" changes will occur. Nice try, but your prejudices just aren't scientifically testable. What is testable is that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. If they absorb in the lab, they'll absorb in the atmosphere. More gases means more energy absorbed. Given that a basic principle of science is Conservation of Energy and that statistically only half of the absorbed radiation would be re-emitted into space, where's the rest going but to heat the earth?

Do you even understand what Global Warming "Scientists" are alleging?!

The increase in CO2 over the past 100 years, that's an eye blink on geological time, is causing instant changes!

Even your famed Vostok ice cores show an 800 year lag, but our modern CO2 must be different!

 

[saveliberty]

And to date, no Warmer have ever published a research paper demonstrating in a laboratory setting how it is a deminimus increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instantaneous and cataclysmic increases in temperature.

Why would they? No one I know would call 30-40% increases, "deminimus" and no one is saying "instantaneous and cataclysmic" changes will occur. Nice try, but your prejudices just aren't scientifically testable. What is testable is that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. If they absorb in the lab, they'll absorb in the atmosphere. More gases means more energy absorbed. Given that a basic principle of science is Conservation of Energy and that statistically only half of the absorbed radiation would be re-emitted into space, where's the rest going but to heat the earth?

Do you even understand what Global Warming "Scientists" are alleging?!

The increase in CO2 over the past 100 years, that's an eye blink on geological time, is causing instant changes!

Even your famed Vostok ice cores show an 800 year lag, but our modern CO2 must be different!

Not to worry Frank, they'll have that data manipulated so as to fit the model in short order. Then they'll have it peer reviewed.

 

[Greenbeard]

You can't on the one say that the system is far too complicated to be mimicked in a lab (unlike say, the conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang which we can replicate in a lab) and then claim that you have isolated all other variables except for a deminimus increase is an atmospheric trace element as THE cause of warming.

You want the exact climate sensitivity to be reproduced in a laboratory so that you can get empirical numbers that match exactly real-world outcomes. That is what I'm taking issue with. To repeat: we know that infrared opacity affects surface temperatures, and that is something you can show experimentally. The error bars in predictions of how much this will raise temperatures in the real climate system are due to uncertainty in how certain key interactions will play out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can't on the one say that the system is far too complicated to be mimicked in a lab (unlike say, the conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang which we can replicate in a lab) and then claim that you have isolated all other variables except for a deminimus increase is an atmospheric trace element as THE cause of warming.

You want the exact climate sensitivity to be reproduced in a laboratory so that you can get empirical numbers that match exactly real-world outcomes. That is what I'm taking issue with. To repeat: we know that infrared opacity affects surface temperatures, and that is something you can show experimentally. The error bars in predictions of how much this will raise temperatures in the real climate system are due to uncertainty in how certain key interactions will play out.

Yes, it would be nice if you could show that your theory can stand up to scientific testing.

That it cannot tells a lot about your theory.

To repeat: the issue is not "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?"

The issue is essentially: absent all other variables, does a 200PPM increase in CO2 cause measurable increase in temperature and it's safe to say that it does not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers apparently have no problem showing that a 500,000 or 600,000PPM causes an increase, I've seen the experiments, but a 200PPM increase...oh, not so good.

 

[konradv]

You can't on the one say that the system is far too complicated to be mimicked in a lab (unlike say, the conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang which we can replicate in a lab) and then claim that you have isolated all other variables except for a deminimus increase is an atmospheric trace element as THE cause of warming.

You want the exact climate sensitivity to be reproduced in a laboratory so that you can get empirical numbers that match exactly real-world outcomes. That is what I'm taking issue with. To repeat: we know that infrared opacity affects surface temperatures, and that is something you can show experimentally. The error bars in predictions of how much this will raise temperatures in the real climate system are due to uncertainty in how certain key interactions will play out.

Yes, it would be nice if you could show that your theory can stand up to scientific testing.

That it cannot tells a lot about your theory.

To repeat: the issue is not "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?"

The issue is essentially: absent all other variables, does a 200PPM increase in CO2 cause measurable increase in temperature and it's safe to say that it does not.

Got a cite for that? Sounds like a made up "fact".

 

[Oddball]

So many feedbacks that it's impossible to put them all on any of the silly computer models, which make the ridiculous claim that the climate is being driven anthropogenically.

A feedback is by definition a causal outcome. You're misapplying your talking points.

I'm getting no talking points...Just using common sense.

Fact remains that there are too many variables and too many possible reactions to know, with any kind of scientific certainty, whether anything man can do can change the meta-ecology of the entire planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, let us have a look at what man is capable of. We have created a huge dead zone, prior to the leaking oil well, in the Gulf by the overuse of fertalizers. We have created the beginnings of another great extinction period by destroying habitat that was used be animals. We have released earthquake magnitude energies with our nuclear bombs.

And right now, we are changing the climate of this planet with the release of GHGs from our use of fossil fuels.

 

[westwall]

Well, let us have a look at what man is capable of. We have created a huge dead zone, prior to the leaking oil well, in the Gulf by the overuse of fertalizers. We have created the beginnings of another great extinction period by destroying habitat that was used be animals. We have released earthquake magnitude energies with our nuclear bombs.

And right now, we are changing the climate of this planet with the release of GHGs from our use of fossil fuels.

There is no evidence for your last comment there old fraud. Any weather pattern changes that have been observed empiricaly can more easily be explained by natural cycles and other natural processes, than by AGW. That's old Occam raising his head there.

Every single time. Man can most certainly do tremendous damage on a local scale, but the planet is far too large for man to have an effect on the climate with the relatively small (compared to the rest of the planets output) amount of CO2 we introduce into the atmosphere.

 

[Chris]

Well, let us have a look at what man is capable of. We have created a huge dead zone, prior to the leaking oil well, in the Gulf by the overuse of fertalizers. We have created the beginnings of another great extinction period by destroying habitat that was used be animals. We have released earthquake magnitude energies with our nuclear bombs.

And right now, we are changing the climate of this planet with the release of GHGs from our use of fossil fuels.

There is no evidence for your last comment there old fraud. Any weather pattern changes that have been observed empiricaly can more easily be explained by natural cycles and other natural processes, than by AGW. That's old Occam raising his head there.

Every single time. Man can most certainly do tremendous damage on a local scale, but the planet is far too large for man to have an effect on the climate with the relatively small (compared to the rest of the planets output) amount of CO2 we introduce into the atmosphere.

Not true.

We are pumping 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 to the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are warming the earth.

 

[westwall]

Well, let us have a look at what man is capable of. We have created a huge dead zone, prior to the leaking oil well, in the Gulf by the overuse of fertalizers. We have created the beginnings of another great extinction period by destroying habitat that was used be animals. We have released earthquake magnitude energies with our nuclear bombs.

And right now, we are changing the climate of this planet with the release of GHGs from our use of fossil fuels.

There is no evidence for your last comment there old fraud. Any weather pattern changes that have been observed empiricaly can more easily be explained by natural cycles and other natural processes, than by AGW. That's old Occam raising his head there.

Every single time. Man can most certainly do tremendous damage on a local scale, but the planet is far too large for man to have an effect on the climate with the relatively small (compared to the rest of the planets output) amount of CO2 we introduce into the atmosphere.

Not true.

We are pumping 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 to the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are warming the earth.

Prove it. Your own side in the person of Dr. Jones has said there has been no warming for the last 12 years.

 

[edthecynic]

There is no evidence for your last comment there old fraud. Any weather pattern changes that have been observed empiricaly can more easily be explained by natural cycles and other natural processes, than by AGW. That's old Occam raising his head there.

Every single time. Man can most certainly do tremendous damage on a local scale, but the planet is far too large for man to have an effect on the climate with the relatively small (compared to the rest of the planets output) amount of CO2 we introduce into the atmosphere.

Not true.

We are pumping 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 to the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are warming the earth.

Prove it. Your own side in the person of Dr. Jones has said there has been no warming for the last 12 years.

Prove it, LIAR!!!!!