Some challenges for the denier forum here

[Kosh]

2) Show us some record of ocean temperatures (where 90% of solar radiation goes) that does not indicate significant warming over the last 15 years.

Point #2 really makes it sound like the sun and oceans are working together to cause warming, not humans.

You'll have to explain that one to me because I don't see that at all. Essentially ALL thermal energy in the atmosphere comes from the sun, but I was referring to the ocean heat content data developed by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen that indicate deep ocean temperatures and total ocean heat content began rising dramatically at almost precisely the same time surface temperature warming began to slow. The apparent conclusion is that changes in tropical circulation (ENSO, PDO, etc) are pushing warm water into the depths and leaving cooler water at the surface. There is really nothing more here about the sun than would be implicit in ANY statement re global warming.

I would guess you simply wanted to bring up the sun.



I would not bet against you.

In fact, it is safe to say that the sun is by far the dominant determiner of the earths temperature.

No, that is not safe to say. Certainly, the sun is the source of all the energy we are talking about. But the sun has not gone through sufficiently large changes to be responsible for the increases in global temperature over the last 150 years.

Solar Activity Paints Picture Of Peak Activity - Space News - redOrbit

This article has nothing to do with global warming and certainly makes no claim of a relationship

Sorry. No joy.

Typical AGW cultist mentality.

 

[Kosh]

Every second I spend on global warming, I spend here with you Mr Hough.

And there, y'see, is the difference I couldn't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs and you insist on fretting about saving the planet whilst spewing pollution through your computer usage.

Then why are you here talking to me?

WE are not here talking to you, we are mocking you because of AGW religion.

And the fact that CO2 does NOT nor ever has driven climate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A non-hypocritical Global Warming Aficionado would not use a computer. They run on electricity produced by polluting power plants. Nay, we're dealing with (at the very best) a Global Warming Hobbyist.

He will not understand what you mean.

 

[Abraham3]

1) Explain why, if global warming has stopped or never took place, the Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance is still present and unchanged.

2) Show us some record of ocean temperatures (where 90% of solar radiation goes) that does not indicate significant warming over the last 15 years.

3) Show us a GCM that does NOT assume AGW and a climate sensitivity for CO2 near 3C that comes ANYWHERE near observations for the last 150 years.

4) Explain the loss of Arctic ice extent and VOLUME from 1979 till the present without use of global warming

5) Justify your frequent rejection of the Greenhouse Effect

Standing by...

You have made a claim, and have insisted science backs you up. You claim that man made CO2 is causing a rise in temperatures. Provide us the definitive proof, a controlled experiment that proves the rising CO2 causes the rise in temperature and an experiment that can be repeated. That is after all the scientific method. And with that experiment you could shut us all up.

Done repeatedly. And please try to educate yourself as to the meaning of the proof and learn why they (proofs) are NOT used in the natural sciences.

You are attempting to reject the greenhouse effect. That's akin to rejecting the reaction between baking soda and vinegar. It's demonstrable and has been many, many, many times. Go to the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect and have a look at the list of references. I just posted it to you in another thread. This time it's your turn to go have a look. It will require less effort than repeating your demand for proof.

 

[Abraham3]

And the AGW cultists shows why they should not be allowed near a computer.

CO2 does NOT drive climate.

You are a liar and you have been caught many times lying and pushing the AGW church propaganda.

It is one thing to disagree to just disagree it is another to be shown you are wrong then keep posting the same propaganda over and over again.

So either you are a far left AGW church going Obama drone or your a liar.

I bet both.

You and I will never get through to him. I only respond so that the sensible people here get to understand what the truth is. His opinions mean nothing to me.

I encourage you to keep trying to "get through" to me.

 

[Abraham3]

1. I never said CO2 wasn't a "Greenhouse gas" but that is simply a name given to it. Greenhouses also contain oxygen.
2. I used the words like "suspension" so that you and others who read this will understand. When I'm trying to teach, I keep it as simple as possible.
3. Your paragraph about how you could create those things is crap and beside the point. Are you just an idiot or did you not understand what I was trying to tell you? If you do know science at all, you will know that it is one of the basic laws of physics that a gas can hold more molecules in it the higher the temperature.
4. You assertion that a gas won't hold more CO2 at higher temperatures shows a lack of basic knowledge.
5. The rest of your questions are irrelevant because they argue that the temperatures of the earth are rising and that is an irrelevant point. The question is wether humans are causing it and that is quite clearly no.

It's the sun stupid.

1. I never said CO2 wasn't a "Greenhouse gas" but that is simply a name given to it. Greenhouses also contain oxygen.

Being a greenhouse gas is not "just a name given to it". It means that it is transparent to light in the visible range but absorbs light in the infrared band. The sun puts out tons of light in the visible band. It enters the atmosphere and strikes things in the air (clouds and dust), the ground, ice, oceans, what-not. Some of that light is reflected, some is transmitted (through transparent or translucent materials) and some is absorbed.

The absorbed light raises the temperature of the material that absorbed it.

Everything has some heat. Nothing exists at absolute zero. That heat tends to radiate away at a rate proportional to the objects temperature. Rather than radiating as visible light, it radiates as light in the infrared band. We cannot see infrared, but you can certainly feel it. When you stand in front of your burning fireplace or next to your stove, the heat you feel is actually intense infrared light striking you.

Some gases, water vapor, CO2, methane and ozone have the property that although they are transparent to visible light, they are opaque to infrared. The infrared light that everything re-radiates is absorbed by greenhouse gases. Just as the absorption of visible light caused every opaque surface to warm, the absorption of infrared causes those gases to warm. That heat can then move along, either by further re-radiation of infrared or by conduction between the greenhouse gases and the other gases in the atmospheric mix. Some of it will escape to space. Some will end up back in the ground and the oceans. The key point is that those gases prevented it from being re-radiated back into space. Thus it changes the balance - the equilibrium condition where incoming energy and outgoing energy are equal and the temperature is stable. Trapping energy like that causes temperatures to rise.

2. I used the words like "suspension" so that you and others who read this will understand. When I'm trying to teach, I keep it as simple as possible.

Teach? Well, if that was your intent, you missed the mark. Let's look up "suspension" in the dictionary.

Chemistry .
a.the state in which the particles of a substance are mixed with a fluid but are undissolved.

Now gases are fluids, but nothing dissolves in them. When we dissolve salt in water, we produce a SOLUTION. The salt actually breaks down into its component elements and if we could look closely enough, we would see ions (charged atoms) of sodium and chlorine, floating freely about. Not all the salt molecules break apart, but most do. Different substances have different tendencies to break apart. That tendency determines their ionic potential. Water actually breaks itself apart. A pure glass of water contains a small quantity of hydroxyl ions (OH-) and monatomic hydrogen (H+). Anyway, none of this happens in gases. And gases do not develop suspensions, so whatever it was you were trying to explain to us doesn't seem to have gotten across.

3. Your paragraph about how you could create those things is crap and beside the point. Are you just an idiot or did you not understand what I was trying to tell you? If you do know science at all, you will know that it is one of the basic laws of physics that a gas can hold more molecules in it the higher the temperature.
4. You assertion that a gas won't hold more CO2 at higher temperatures shows a lack of basic knowledge.

I'm sorry, but while I am no chemist, nor a physicist, nor a materials scientist, I am more than sufficiently versed in all of them to discuss this topic at this level. I know a number of things about gases that are determined or affected by their temperature. But since I cannot tell what you mean when you speak of a gas "holding more molecules", I must ask you to elucidate us by some other means.

Since you obviously think little of my opinion, may I suggest that you send a note to poster Polar Bear, a fellow AGW denier, who appears to know chemistry quite well. Ask him to help you explain to us whatever point it is you're trying to make.

5. The rest of your questions are irrelevant because they argue that the temperatures of the earth are rising and that is an irrelevant point. The question is wether humans are causing it and that is quite clearly no.

It's the sun stupid.

The evidence that warming from human-source CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we have experienced may be found in any of the five IPCC reports and any of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies to which those reports refer. Those reports also explain why scientists believe changes in the sun are inadequate to have caused the observed warming. The conclusions are difficult to challenge. If you wish to, it would be a good idea to actually show us studies reaching those conclusions and refuting the conclusions of the IPCC and the many scientists whose works went into those conclusions.

 

[Abraham3]

Post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

I'm sorry, but the way you have phrased and repeated this demand doesn't really seem to indicate that you even know what these terms mean.

I have no special access to anyone's data nor their source code. Anything I could lay my hands on, you could as well. Just out of curiosity, what has prevented you from doing so?

Many climatological datasets exist and many programs have been written to process them. The results of that processing is available as well since they are the normal product that is distributed; datasets and code are reserved for people making specific requests, though these days lots of it is available on web servers around the world.

The results of processing those data are available in thousands of peer reviewed studies. Those studies find that AGW is valid. I am not inclined to reinvent the wheel for your puerile entertainment.

I asked you before if you were under the impression that "source code" was an inherent or implicit feature of a "dataset". I didn't see your answer. I have to tell you, that is the impression you give with that demand.

Show me that you know more about climate science and data processing. Which specific dataset and which specific code interest you and why?

 

[Abraham3]

A non-hypocritical Global Warming Aficionado would not use a computer. They run on electricity produced by polluting power plants. Nay, we're dealing with (at the very best) a Global Warming Hobbyist.

He will not understand what you mean.

I bet I understood him better than you.

 

[Kosh]

Post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

I'm sorry, but the way you have phrased and repeated this demand doesn't really seem to indicate that you even know what these terms mean.

I have no special access to anyone's data nor their source code. Anything I could lay my hands on, you could as well. Just out of curiosity, what has prevented you from doing so?

Many climatological datasets exist and many programs have been written to process them. The results of that processing is available as well since they are the normal product that is distributed; datasets and code are reserved for people making specific requests, though these days lots of it is available on web servers around the world.

The results of processing those data are available in thousands of peer reviewed studies. Those studies find that AGW is valid. I am not inclined to reinvent the wheel for your puerile entertainment.

I asked you before if you were under the impression that "source code" was an inherent or implicit feature of a "dataset". I didn't see your answer. I have to tell you, that is the impression you give with that demand.

Show me that you know more about climate science and data processing. Which specific dataset and which specific code interest you and why?

Exactly all you can post is propaganda and out of all those "papers" you can not post one with the datasets and source code to prove your religion.

Like I said you are a liar and so far you have posted nothing to contradict that.

 

[Kosh]

A non-hypocritical Global Warming Aficionado would not use a computer. They run on electricity produced by polluting power plants. Nay, we're dealing with (at the very best) a Global Warming Hobbyist.

He will not understand what you mean.

I bet I understood him better than you.

Nope! The only thing your good at is lying and trolling!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

]1) Explain why, if global warming has stopped or never took place, the Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance is still present and unchanged.

2) Show us some record of ocean temperatures (where 90% of solar radiation goes) that does not indicate significant warming over the last 15 years.

"Cooling Pacific has dampened global warming, research shows"

Cooling Pacific has dampened global warming, research shows | Environment | The Guardian

3) Show us a GCM that does NOT assume AGW and a climate sensitivity for CO2 near 3C that comes ANYWHERE near observations for the last 150 years.

Show us when CO2 ever once drove temperature? All the evidence prove it to be a laggard both on the increase and decrease

4) Explain the loss of Arctic ice extent and VOLUME from 1979 till the present without use of global warming

Chinese soot

5) Justify your frequent rejection of the Greenhouse Effect

show me a lab experiment that demonstrates the temperature effects of a 200ppm increase in CO2

 

[Abraham3]

The cooling in the Pacific is precisely the hypothesis that Balamaseda, Trenberth and Kallen and others came up with. It is associated with the accelerated heating in deeper waters. Thanks for getting on the boat.

The correlation of Chinese soot is novel, but direct observation of the ice does not show it to be gathering there. You might have a better chance arguing that Chinese soot was causing dramatic melting of the Himalayan glaciers. Thousands of miles closer. Oh, wait, you guys yelled and screamed and P R O V E D that the Himalayan glaciers weren't melting. Amazing. I wonder how they resist all that soot.

ps: the sun is not responsible for the warming of the last 150 years. It has simply not sent us enough additional energy.

pps: But I appreciate the effort. You're about the first one to attempt to discuss any of these question. Everyone else just wants to call me names.

 

[Abraham3]

you are a liar

Get fucked.

 

[Abraham3]

The only thing your good at is lying!

Get fucked.

 

[Abraham3]

Creationists: "Creationism is real because the bible says so."
Global Warming cultists: "AGW is real because global warming scientsts say it is."

Wow... you don't see a difference there?

Who developed the computer you're writing on?

Who invented all the technology in the car you drive?

Who developed the Smart, HD, digital TV in your living room?

Who designed the smartphone in your pocket?

Who advanced medicine so phenomenally over the last hundred years?

Who discovered dozens of planets orbiting distant stars?

Who figured out how to so dramatically improve the productivity of America's farms?

Must have been the Bible.

 

[Abraham3]

which makes you a Lair

Get fucked.

 

[Abraham3]

You are a liar

caught many times lying

your a liar.

Get fucked.

Get fucked.

Get fucked.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are a liar

caught many times lying

your a liar.

Get fucked.

Get fucked.

Get fucked.

Meanwhile you post smoke and mirrors when asked for evidence. It is SIMPLE, if CO2 caused the rise there is a simple experiment that scientists can do to prove it. Or at least so I have been told. The fact you can not link to THAT experiment nor provide its results tells me all I need to know.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The cooling in the Pacific is precisely the hypothesis that Balamaseda, Trenberth and Kallen and others came up with. It is associated with the accelerated heating in deeper waters. Thanks for getting on the boat.

The correlation of Chinese soot is novel, but direct observation of the ice does not show it to be gathering there. You might have a better chance arguing that Chinese soot was causing dramatic melting of the Himalayan glaciers. Thousands of miles closer. Oh, wait, you guys yelled and screamed and P R O V E D that the Himalayan glaciers weren't melting. Amazing. I wonder how they resist all that soot.

ps: the sun is not responsible for the warming of the last 150 years. It has simply not sent us enough additional energy.

pps: But I appreciate the effort. You're about the first one to attempt to discuss any of these question. Everyone else just wants to call me names.

Well except your own stats prove that you have a 36 percent possible swing on the KNOWN data for the suns activity. Pretty damn big IF. But again a simple experiment will prove us all wrong, why hasn't anyone done it?

 

[Abraham3]

When you start reading what other people post, perhaps you can get a reaction.

And you might want to get a better understanding on "uncertainty". You saw the graph (I presume). Did it look as if it had a constant, precise value?