Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

[bedowin62]

Since Global Warming isnt real I'd expect to see reports where someone dismisses the entire idea instead of that republicans seem to walk the line and post stuff about people who say its not happening as fast, as hard, etc...

But not one that says its not happening and its not partially mans fault. You guys are getting there...I'm routing for you. One day you'll agree with science again like before Obama got into office

also idiot; why does it surprise you not to see reports that dismiss it outright when 98% of the world's economies are completely exempt from any carbon-reducing standards INCLUDING THE TOP CARBON POLLUTERS ON THE PLANET; CHINA AND INDIA?

why wouldnt they want US to have costly restrictions on what is left of our manufacturing base; when they wont have them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since Global Warming isnt real I'd expect to see reports where someone dismisses the entire idea instead of that republicans seem to walk the line and post stuff about people who say its not happening as fast, as hard, etc...

But not one that says its not happening and its not partially mans fault. You guys are getting there...I'm routing for you. One day you'll agree with science again like before Obama got into office

we're pro-science that's why we question the AGWcult hypothesis.

have to love how "pro-science" progressives killed the NASA manned space program and are against fracking and US energy independence

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[ClosedCaption]

Since Global Warming isnt real I'd expect to see reports where someone dismisses the entire idea instead of that republicans seem to walk the line and post stuff about people who say its not happening as fast, as hard, etc...

But not one that says its not happening and its not partially mans fault. You guys are getting there...I'm routing for you. One day you'll agree with science again like before Obama got into office

we're pro-science that's why we question the AGWcult hypothesis.

have to love how "pro-science" progressives killed the NASA manned space program and are against cracking and US energy independence

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Yeah well..NASA goes to space and stuff....Since we're deflecting from the topic

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So you should have no problem showing us a lab experiment that shows a 100ppm increase in CO2 raising temperature from 2-6 degrees right?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Not really. The mean free path of IR radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is about ~25 m. So you'd need a lab set up >> 25 meters in length.

Oh nose! 25 meters! That's impossibly large!! No human can build anything great than 25m in length! Thanks God we have someone as knowledgeable as you to show us the error of our ways!

All this time we're wondering "Where's the Lab work?" And you come and demolish our silly questions by pointing out the physical impossibility of creating a tank greater than 25m in length.

25 meters!

Do you have a 50 meter long lab? I don't. So I'm afraid you can't do the experiment. I'm not even sure it would be possible to recreate the right boundary conditions in a lab. The Earth's atmosphere extends finitely upwards, gradually losing density, until it gets to zero. Somewhere in the upper atmosphere the air becomes thin enough it is transparent to IR radiation, and it is at this altitude that IR is effectively radiated into space. Adding Co2 extends the depth which is optically thick to IR radiation, extending the altitude at which IR is radiated into space. As this altitude increases, the effective T of the radiation goes down - so the total energy loss rate is less. I'm not sure how you'd replicate this in a lab.

We would also need to replicate the thermodynamic conditions of the upper atmosphere, where the absorption cross section is slightly different. Water vapour and CO2 have very similar bands - but the upper atmosphere is dry - so you'd need a completely dry chamber, too.




I don't have an infrared spectrometer, either. But I can read, so I know what the absorption cross section of CO2 looks like.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The temporal resolution of historic GLOBAL proxy studies on temp. Is nowhere good enough to find a 50 year spike like we have observed. They need to be taken with a shot o reason and tequila. Ask Marcott who DID one and was honest enough to admit that the resolution of merging Global proxies was in 100s of years at best.

And?

The argument is not about the warming power of CO2. Most all reputable skeptics will give you about 1DegC for a doubling of concentration. The failure of the GWarming hysterics is the proof of the magic multipliers that they apply to that 1 Deg to theorize a 4 to 8 DegC increase in surface temp. There is no contemporary or historical evidence for the runaway warming that is at the core of the GW doomsday scenarios. To believe that junk, you have to believe we live on a junker planet that will destroy itself because of a 1 or 2 degC forcing applied to it..

It is doubtful that Co2 has increased at this rate at any point in Earth's recent history or even - ever.

Now there is some real science for you. Doubtful, maybe, could be, all words in the scientific method.

Of course it doesn't really matter if it did or didn't. No one is arguing that CO2 is increasing. Could be that the increase is actually good thing if it moderates the temperature swings as apparently has happened for the last 14 years.

Co2 doesn't do anything to "moderate" temperature swings. But hey, I know you righties value your ignorance so don't let me tell you differnet. Its just a matter of opinion, right?

Severe weather is down not up so perhaps we should not be fearing that which we do not know and thanking God for that which we do.

Sea level is up.

 

[Ernie S.]

So you should have no problem showing us a lab experiment that shows a 100ppm increase in CO2 raising temperature from 2-6 degrees right?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Not really. The mean free path of IR radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is about ~25 m. So you'd need a lab set up >> 25 meters in length.

Oh nose! 25 meters! That's impossibly large!! No human can build anything great than 25m in length! Thanks God we have someone as knowledgeable as you to show us the error of our ways!

All this time we're wondering "Where's the Lab work?" And you come and demolish our silly questions by pointing out the physical impossibility of creating a tank greater than 25m in length.

25 meters!

I've designed 10 meter path length White cells that fit in the sample compartment of an FTIR spectrophotometer. 25 meters should be doable with relay optics.
This is a basic 4 path White cell.

20 path cells are very doable before SNR is a big problem. Path length can be varied by adjusting the pitch of the field mirror.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you disputing the fact that O18 is heavier than O16?

The temporal resolution of historic GLOBAL proxy studies on temp. Is nowhere good enough to find a 50 year spike like we have observed. They need to be taken with a shot o reason and tequila. Ask Marcott who DID one and was honest enough to admit that the resolution of merging Global proxies was in 100s of years at best.

And?

The argument is not about the warming power of CO2. Most all reputable skeptics will give you about 1DegC for a doubling of concentration. The failure of the GWarming hysterics is the proof of the magic multipliers that they apply to that 1 Deg to theorize a 4 to 8 DegC increase in surface temp. There is no contemporary or historical evidence for the runaway warming that is at the core of the GW doomsday scenarios. To believe that junk, you have to believe we live on a junker planet that will destroy itself because of a 1 or 2 degC forcing applied to it..

It is doubtful that Co2 has increased at this rate at any point in Earth's recent history or even - ever.

That's a dubious claim since if you are really claiming RATE, it's likely there were EXTREMELY high rates of CO2 increase during ANY of the glacial melts in the Ice Ages. We just don't have a good way to measure SHORT DURATION climate events from 300,000 yrs ago.. And what MATTERS to the GW theory is the CO2 level.. Because that's the "trigger" for the Earth destroying itself with a fuel-air bomb.. And we are no even NEAR the first doubling of conc. since pre-industrial age and probably wont reach that mark for decades.

 

[MACAULAY]

(from 92 years ago)

Report on Global Warming
Washington Post Nov.2,1922

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft,at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by mountains of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK.

How far back do you need to go to make AGW look insignificant?

Just curious.

Do you even know?

Let's say 1000 years for want of a big round number.

K

Oh - but wait - it looks like a hockey stick, doesn't it? Anything that looks like a hockey stick can't be true, everyone knows that - its common sense!

It looks like a hockey stick BECAUSE the temporal resolution of GLOBAL study using all those different proxies essentially has no RESOLUTION to identify 50 year events. If you look at the INDIVIDUAL proxy studies you will find ample evidence of MWPeriod peaks far exceeding our common era 40 yr spike.. MANY of them. Same during the Roman Warm period.. And in SOME of these studies, they just tacked on the modern age readings for the press release version to finish the magic hockey stick trick..

 

[Ernie S.]

Since Global Warming isnt real I'd expect to see reports where someone dismisses the entire idea instead of that republicans seem to walk the line and post stuff about people who say its not happening as fast, as hard, etc...

But not one that says its not happening and its not partially mans fault. You guys are getting there...I'm routing for you. One day you'll agree with science again like before Obama got into office

Only In Climate Science Can You Play With a Broken Hockey Stick

How's that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We just don't have a good way to measure SHORT DURATION climate events from 300,000 yrs ago.. And what MATTERS to the GW theory is the CO2 level..

Well if what matters most is the Co2 LEVEL then see this graph:

Co2 is by far the highest its been in the entire ice core history. All due to man-made emissions. This trend isn't stopping any time soon! It takes about 100,000 years for Co2 levels to rise about 100 ppm from their minimums to their maximums - and at what is already a natural peak in Co2 (see graph above), we've added over 100 ppm in barely more than 100 years. 100,000 years vs. 100 years.

 

[Ernie S.]

Let's say 1000 years for want of a big round number.

K

Oh - but wait - it looks like a hockey stick, doesn't it? Anything that looks like a hockey stick can't be true, everyone knows that - its common sense!

It looks like a hockey stick BECAUSE the temporal resolution of GLOBAL study using all those different proxies essentially has no RESOLUTION to identify 50 year events. If you look at the INDIVIDUAL proxy studies you will find ample evidence of MWPeriod peaks far exceeding our common era 40 yr spike.. MANY of them. Same during the Roman Warm period.. And in SOME of these studies, they just tacked on the modern age readings for the press release version to finish the magic hockey stick trick..

It looks like a hockey stick because Mann et al massaged data to make it LOOK like a hockey stick.

From link above:

Mann, Bradley, and Hughes tried to achieve Overpeck’s objective with a 1998 (MBH98) “peer-reviewed” paper including the “hockey stick” graph. The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, especially the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) – the part the media cover. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (MM) used the standard technique of reproducible results to expose the serious flaws in the research. As Bishop Hill explained,

He (McIntyre) was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes… He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.

Here is the corrected graph:

 

[ClosedCaption]

(from 92 years ago)

Report on Global Warming
Washington Post Nov.2,1922

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft,at Bergen, Norway.

.

Ahh yes, now I'd love to hear the story about how Climate Change science exists only for grant money.

How much was that 1922 grant money? LOL

 

[bedowin62]

(from 92 years ago)

Report on Global Warming
Washington Post Nov.2,1922

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft,at Bergen, Norway.

.

Ahh yes, now I'd love to hear the story about how Climate Change science exists only for grant money.

How much was that 1922 grant money? LOL

there was no such thing as grants in 1922?

or are you just that stupid?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Let's say 1000 years for want of a big round number.

K

Oh - but wait - it looks like a hockey stick, doesn't it? Anything that looks like a hockey stick can't be true, everyone knows that - its common sense!

It looks like a hockey stick BECAUSE the temporal resolution of GLOBAL study using all those different proxies essentially has no RESOLUTION to identify 50 year events. If you look at the INDIVIDUAL proxy studies you will find ample evidence of MWPeriod peaks far exceeding our common era 40 yr spike.. MANY of them. Same during the Roman Warm period.. And in SOME of these studies, they just tacked on the modern age readings for the press release version to finish the magic hockey stick trick..

Only in some localities. M&M basically had to toss out ~90% of the data to get the results you're talking about.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

(from 92 years ago)

Report on Global Warming
Washington Post Nov.2,1922

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft,at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by mountains of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I had no idea the Washington Post used to be a peer reviewed scientific journal.

 

[bedowin62]

it isnt just about grant money leftard; it's the world's biggest wealth redistribution scam

 

[bedowin62]

nothing pleases a left-wing idiot more than to be wrong about everything

 

[MACAULAY]

(from 92 years ago)

Report on Global Warming
Washington Post Nov.2,1922

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft,at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by mountains of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I had no idea the Washington Post used to be a peer reviewed scientific journal.

------------------------------------------------

There are probably no more than a thousand people on the planet with the expertise to opine on global warming (now climate change to cover any contingency).

None of them are likely on this board, but about 960 of which likely have some financial interest in there being a problem of some sort....else they have nothing to fix, and no Federal money with which to fix it. How are regular people ever to believe them. Any lawyer can hire an expert to testify under oath, for a fee, to what he needs said.

 

[flacaltenn]

We just don't have a good way to measure SHORT DURATION climate events from 300,000 yrs ago.. And what MATTERS to the GW theory is the CO2 level..

Well if what matters most is the Co2 LEVEL then see this graph:

Co2 is by far the highest its been in the entire ice core history. All due to man-made emissions. This trend isn't stopping any time soon! It takes about 100,000 years for Co2 levels to rise about 100 ppm from their minimums to their maximums - and at what is already a natural peak in Co2 (see graph above), we've added over 100 ppm in barely more than 100 years. 100,000 years vs. 100 years.

Well sure it is StarSearch -- if your definition of a NORMAL CLIMATE is 2 mile thick glaciers down to Pittsburgh..

We have seen about a 40% increase since pre-industrial. About the same as for the Glacial periods. When it DOUBLES at 560ppm -- the NEXT TIME CO2 will have had the same temperature forcing will be at 1120 ppm.. It's diminishing returns with each doubling because of the logarithmic nature..