On the failure of alarmism!!!

[westwall]

Real simple to answer. The only groups that I have been affiliated with are the PTA, BSA, Mensa, and the GSA. All pinko commie extremists groups according to people like yourself.

Mensa? HHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

You got a genius IQ like I Have a knighthood in the works... LOL

Sure ya do socks sure ya do.

You asked.

And I guess I can assume that you did not finish the third grade. That is the level of scientific comprehension that you display.

My 5 year old daughter exhibits a greater grasp of the physical world than you do olfraud.

 

[gslack]

Ole socks please tell us of your association with MENSA LOL....

 

[Bigfoot]

Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

"Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin and the inherent plausibility of his argument that climate will continue to follow the same basic causal factor, solar activity, make this another heavy blow to the heavy breathing of the global warming alarmists, who insist there is no argument at all.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

"Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin and the inherent plausibility of his argument that climate will continue to follow the same basic causal factor, solar activity, make this another heavy blow to the heavy breathing of the global warming alarmists, who insist there is no argument at all.

Likely part of the overall forcing of temperature on earth, but I doubt it over powers the 2,000 horse power of co2 by mid this century. Maybe a little cooler then it otherwise would be, but you really believe if we get back to co2 levels 30 million years ago that is going to ******* matter? As skooks likes to say IT DOESN"T ******* MATTER!!!








I think I'm going to act like skooks of the warmers side because it works pretty good for you guys. heheheI can't remain serious at all times as you guys have all the fun.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

"Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin and the inherent plausibility of his argument that climate will continue to follow the same basic causal factor, solar activity, make this another heavy blow to the heavy breathing of the global warming alarmists, who insist there is no argument at all.

Really? Present low TSI, and the very strong La Nina we just experianced, yet we are have record heat right now, worldwide. And this year looks to be in the top ten, in spite of the low TSI and La Nina.

Were we not experiancing both right now, the temps would be really interesting.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't forget it's 76 trillion to MAYBE lower the temperature of the world by 1 degree...in a 100 years.

Which is your normal bullshit. The numbers have been done by real scientists that reach a far differant conclusion.

The most detailed report into the financial consequences of global warming was the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, this was compiled in 2006 by Lord Stern for the UK Treasury.

Here are the key findings in respect of costs...

• The present losses due to global warming are $600 billion a year

• If global warming continues at the present rate then it will cost $1.1 trillion a year by 2100

• The rate of warming is accelerating and if the scientist's forecasts for the future are correct then it will cost between $1.2 and $3.0 trillion a year by the end of the century [1]

• In the worst case scenario the cost could be up to $12 trillion a year by 2100

• The cost to stabilise emissions is $600 billion a year

There's an executive summary here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executiv…

The cost of doing nothing

[1] At the time the report was written the forecast was that temperatures could increase between 2°C and 5°C by the end of the century. Improved modelling now suggests that the figure is more likely to be between 2.5°C and 4°C and so the cost would be between $1.5 trillion and $2.4 trillion a year.

Note: The Stern Review does not quote costs in terms of actual currency but in terms of GDP. The global GDP is $61.1 trillion and thus a 1% drop in GDP represents a ~$600 billion cost.

First off how did they arrive at a cost of 600 billion a year to do nothing? There is NOTHING in the paper that describes it. Just computer model (yes, more of those) hand waving. No empirical data is presented.

In other words a farce.

Walleyes, you continue to prove yourself a dumb ass.

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury

 

[wirebender]

One, Dr. Singer, claims global warming does not exist. But he is also to senile to be publically used by the energy corps.

Actually, he says that manmade global warming does not exist, but don't worry, no one expects honesty from you rocks. It is also interesting to note that none of your priests will dare debate Dr. Singer. He goes immedieately to the foundational physics that simply don't support warming hypotheses and your guys simply can't go there.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working on this problem. The consensus cuts across national and political lines. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real and a danger to society.

Actually, there is an overwhelming consensus among political bodies. No such consensus exists among scientists, not even climate scientists.

 

[skookerasbil]

Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

"Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin and the inherent plausibility of his argument that climate will continue to follow the same basic causal factor, solar activity, make this another heavy blow to the heavy breathing of the global warming alarmists, who insist there is no argument at all.

Likely part of the overall forcing of temperature on earth, but I doubt it over powers the 2,000 horse power of co2 by mid this century. Maybe a little cooler then it otherwise would be, but you really believe if we get back to co2 levels 30 million years ago that is going to ******* matter? As skooks likes to say IT DOESN"T ******* MATTER!!!








I think I'm going to act like skooks of the warmers side because it works pretty good for you guys. heheheI can't remain serious at all times as you guys have all the fun.

cool.....we need a smidge of that from the side of the k00ks!!!! Every single post from them is like life or death. Misery squared!!! And boring to the nth degree. OMG.....that k00k Chris is the most boring mofu on the whole board!!!

Bring it s0n............


Wont do a single thing however in the department of winning, however. The "real science" contingent can ignore the political realities all they want..........preferrably with humor..........but in the realm of absolute truth, it doesnt resonate for shit!!

 

[wirebender]

Jesus, What I'm saying is we're within one of those grand minimums right now and that "co2" maybe the positive forcing that is stopping the cooling that we would have if it was just the natural cycles.

Explain the mechanism within the context of the first and second law of physics and the physics that governs electromagnetism. Show your math.

If you can't show the math, then just describe the mechanism within the laws of physics.

 

[wirebender]

Real simple to answer. The only groups that I have been affiliated with are the PTA, BSA, Mensa, and the GSA. All pinko commie extremists groups according to people like yourself.

Old rocks, if you got into mensa, I am glad I let my membership lapse 10 years ago. If you can get in, the neighborhood has gone to shit.

You don't debate and you don't exhibit enough intellectual wattage to warm a pop tart. You are a cut and paste tool who rarely, if ever, is able to discuss the material that you bring here beyond inane one liners.

 

[skookerasbil]

Real simple to answer. The only groups that I have been affiliated with are the PTA, BSA, Mensa, and the GSA. All pinko commie extremists groups according to people like yourself.

Old rocks, if you got into mensa, I am glad I let my membership laps 10 years ago. If you can get in, the neighborhood has gone to shit.

You don't debate and you don't exhibit enough intellectual wattage to warm a pop tart. You are a cut and paste tool who rarely, if ever, is able to discuss the material that you bring here beyond inane one liners.

wire........a lost cause........these k00ks. Got one of 'em posting up information from radical environmentalist websites and presenting it as "real science". We could be here for hundreds of years.........you cant reverse damaged thinking without medication, and I'm serious. I deal with it every day at work in my field. Perseverative thought patterns amongst the population is much more prevelant then people know. I posted up some links in another thread this am..........

And ever notice how the nut jobs log off for awhile when Im on?

 

[wirebender]

wire........a lost cause........these k00ks. Got one of 'em posting up information from radical environmentalist websites and presenting it as "real science".

Not surprising since the IPCC passes off the same sort of crap as real science at every opportunity.

 

[westwall]

Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

"Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin and the inherent plausibility of his argument that climate will continue to follow the same basic causal factor, solar activity, make this another heavy blow to the heavy breathing of the global warming alarmists, who insist there is no argument at all.

Likely part of the overall forcing of temperature on earth, but I doubt it over powers the 2,000 horse power of co2 by mid this century. Maybe a little cooler then it otherwise would be, but you really believe if we get back to co2 levels 30 million years ago that is going to ******* matter? As skooks likes to say IT DOESN"T ******* MATTER!!!








I think I'm going to act like skooks of the warmers side because it works pretty good for you guys. heheheI can't remain serious at all times as you guys have all the fun.

Actually the CO2 is about .000000000000000000000001 horsepower. The sun is around 25,000 horsepower on the same scale.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Jesus, What I'm saying is we're within one of those grand minimums right now and that "co2" maybe the positive forcing that is stopping the cooling that we would have if it was just the natural cycles.

Explain the mechanism within the context of the first and second law of physics and the physics that governs electromagnetism. Show your math.

If you can't show the math, then just describe the mechanism within the laws of physics.

I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain the advance physics of it, but here is a page that should.

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material

"Greenhouse Gases

Carbon dioxide () is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space."

"The ability of certain trace gases to be relatively transparent to incoming visible light from the sun, yet opaque to the energy radiated from the earth is one of the best understood processes in the atmospheric sciences. This phenomenon, the greenhouse effect, is what makes the earth habitable for life."

If this is not so then science is out right fucked. If millions of people can't even trust to learn the science from a major university science deportment how the hell do you expect any better?

Here is what I consider a pretty good write up and has some good reasoning on the science. Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

I believe that many of these are people that are fairly educated in the sciences and if they don't know then our understanding is very limited. It is so limited that it is scary.

 

[Bigfoot]

Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

"Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin and the inherent plausibility of his argument that climate will continue to follow the same basic causal factor, solar activity, make this another heavy blow to the heavy breathing of the global warming alarmists, who insist there is no argument at all.

Likely part of the overall forcing of temperature on earth, but I doubt it over powers the 2,000 horse power of co2 by mid this century.

That's ok Matthew but I think I will take Dr. Sorkhtin's opinion over yours. It seems our planet is beginning to enter a period of cooling according to he and some climatologists from Canada, Australia and the US. Dr. Sorkhtin adds Russia to the consensus. Global waring alarmists are dropping like flies all over the world.

Either way it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as I would enjoy some warmer weather for a change. The past three years we have had unusually long and cold winters and short summers. The past two winters have dumped tons of snow on us, especially this past winter when we reached 120% of average snow pack.

 

[Old Rocks]

One, Dr. Singer, claims global warming does not exist. But he is also to senile to be publically used by the energy corps.

Actually, he says that manmade global warming does not exist, but don't worry, no one expects honesty from you rocks. It is also interesting to note that none of your priests will dare debate Dr. Singer. He goes immedieately to the foundational physics that simply don't support warming hypotheses and your guys simply can't go there.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working on this problem. The consensus cuts across national and political lines. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real and a danger to society.

Actually, there is an overwhelming consensus among political bodies. No such consensus exists among scientists, not even climate scientists.

Now Bent, you can lie all you please, doesn't change the fact of the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Scientific Societies

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

 

[wirebender]

I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain the advance physics of it, but here is a page that should.

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material

"Greenhouse Gases

Carbon dioxide () is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate.

Beginning with an assumption. That doesn't bode well for a link that purports to be engaged in physics. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas as described by alarmists. The only gas that acan absorb, and actually retain energy is water vapor.

Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule.

Eventually? Eventually? Are they kidding? Energy passes through the molecule at, or very near the speed of light. Explain the use of the word eventually by these people when IR passes through a molecule at the speed of light? How long do you think it takes for a packet of energy to pass through at the speed of light? Eventually? I am laughing Matthew and you should be also. Eventually.

Then there is the matter of the energy being absorbed by another "greenhouse gas" molecule. We have already been through that. It doesn't happen. The energy is emitted from the molecule in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another. If you repeat things you know to be untrue, even if it is via cut and paste, you are being used as a tool. Is that what you want?

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space."

First, that absorption emission cycle as described simply isn't happening. Second, how long do you think it might take for a packet of energy to radiate into space through the atmosphere? How about 0.0049 seconds? Want to see the math? It's peer reviewed by the physics department of a university. I could't find any problem in the guy's math or any hint of a misplaced physical law. The guy walks step by step through some relatively complicated calculations and works from the foundations of physics. It is worth a look if you have any interest at all in the truth.


Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

The ability of certain trace gases to be relatively transparent to incoming visible light from the sun, yet opaque to the energy radiated from the earth is one of the best understood processes in the atmospheric sciences. This phenomenon, the greenhouse effect, is what makes the earth habitable for life."

Opaque. Warmist keep using that term and it carries with it certain connotations. Lets look at the word for a moment if you don't mind. Here are some various definitions I found for the word including some from scientific sources.

opaque - not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.

opaque - not transmitting radiation, sound, heat, etc.

opaque - Resistant to the transmission of certain kinds of radiation, usually light. Metals and many minerals are opaque to light, while being transparent to radio waves and neutrinos

opaque - Impenetrable by a form of radiant energy other than visible light

I have to say Matthew that the known properties of CO2 are in no way opaque to visible light or IR. The word opaque is misleading if not down right dishonest. The claim that the property of CO2 to be transparent to visible light and opaque to IR radiated by the earth being one of the "best understood processes in the atmospheric sciences." is a deliberate lie. IR radiates through CO2 at or near the speed of light. The emission spectra of CO2 proves this fact. CO2 is in no way opaque to any form of energy. It absorbs and emits but is not opaque.

Tell me Matthew, did that fact even pass through your brain? Even the warmist kooks acknowledge that CO2 passes right through CO2 even though they wrongly claim that some of it gets emitted down towards the earth in defiance of wave vector calculus. When you look at that sort of stuff, do you think critcally about what it is saying or do you just look for something that might support your point?

The claim of opaqueness isn't even complicated Matthew. It is a deliberate lie and should clue you into the validity of the rest of the claims made.

If this is not so then science is out right fucked. If millions of people can't even trust to learn the science from a major university science deportment how the hell do you expect any better?

You know it isn't so, don't you? You don't need to be a physicist or chemist to grasp the fact that no material that is opaque to any form of radiant energy can have an emission spectra. How could it? If a material is opaque, nothing comes through. The fact that CO2 has an emission spectra is clear evidence that it is not opaque to visible light or infrared.

And how do I expect any better? As I have already suggested, make yourself familiar with the basic laws of physics. The math involved is predominantly algebra or lower and can be fairly easily self taught if you have a will to learn it. I suggest getting a physics for dummies sort of text that doesn't assume that you know anything. They take you through the basics and show you the calculations step by step and give you problems to solve on your own.

Do I really expect that many people actually make the effort to learn any of this to a degree which they can determine for themselves whether they are being taken for a dupe or not? No, not really. Most people in this (scientists included) base their positions on political ideology and not whether the science is sound. Climate science has corrupted the image of science to a greater degree than any other science I can think of in the history of man all for political ideology.

Here is what I consider a pretty good write up and has some good reasoning on the science. Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Again, a great many assumptions, appeals to authority and appeals to complexity. As I said, I don't go to that site because the moderators censor anyone who is effectively defeating the party line.

I believe that many of these are people that are fairly educated in the sciences and if they don't know then our understanding is very limited. It is so limited that it is scary.

Yeah well, education doesn't necessarily mean anything does it. The people who told you that CO2 was opaque to IR and that was the principle upon which the greenhouse effect operates were supposedly educated weren't they? Education is a great tool to use in a debate in which you have a political point to make. An educated person can double talk and appeal to complexity at a much higher level than joe blow.

 

[wirebender]

Now Bent, you can lie all you please, doesn't change the fact of the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW.

Unlike you rocks, I don't lie. I don't need to because the science supports my claims and I can actually show my work. You on the other hand....

And all your "statements of science" are spoken by political heads, not scientific bodies; not that I would expect you to grasp the difference.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jesus, What I'm saying is we're within one of those grand minimums right now and that "co2" maybe the positive forcing that is stopping the cooling that we would have if it was just the natural cycles.

Explain the mechanism within the context of the first and second law of physics and the physics that governs electromagnetism. Show your math.

If you can't show the math, then just describe the mechanism within the laws of physics.

Already been done by the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society made up of Scientific Societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now that has been posted here many times, yet you continue your stupid flap-yap. The fact is you are either incapable of understanding basic science, or you are totally out of touch with reality. A combination of both, more than likely.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Bent, you can lie all you please, doesn't change the fact of the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW.

Unlike you rocks, I don't lie. I don't need to because the science supports my claims and I can actually show my work. You on the other hand....

And all your "statements of science" are spoken by political heads, not scientific bodies; not that I would expect you to grasp the difference.

My, postitive proof of what a stupid ass you truly are. Joseph Fourier was a political head? Tyndall was a political head? How about Svante Arnnhenius? How about the multitude of geologists that have made the observations concerning the retreat of glaciers?

Bent, there is no science that supports your stupidity, period. Not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University. As I have pointed out innumberable times.