Some challenges for the denier forum here

[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...

 

[Abraham3]

Still standing by.

Were the questions I asked a little too hard? Should I dumb them down a bit. Let's see...

1) Where in god's name do you all get the idea that you are smarter than the world's scientists?

 

[Abraham3]

Five simple questions. No tricks. Up for 36 hours and not ONE SINGLE ATTEMPT to address ANY of them. I'm really impressed. You guys claim I'm pushing a scam. You claim I'm a shill. You claim science refutes my contentions. You claim I'm pushing dangerously bad science.

I claim you people just don't have shit.

 

[PredFan]

You AGW faithful ignore a whole lot of things. I don't give a rats ass about your irrelevant questions. The only two things that matter are:

1. It doesn't matter at all if the planet is warming or not. The real question is whether man is causing it or not, and the answer us clearly no.

2. The greenhouse effect is baloney simply because water vapor has more to do with the heat of a greenhouse than CO2, and CO2 follows high temperatures, not causes them. If you really know anything about science you would know that as the temperature if a gas increases, it can hold more molecules in suspension. The atmosphere has a higher concentration if CO2 because it is warmer. You are putting the cart before the horse.

The rest if your questions are irrelevant.

 

[Abraham3]

You AGW faithful ignore a whole lot of things.

Then I might have expected you to identify some of them but I find nothing along those lines in your post.

I don't give a rats ass about your irrelevant questions.

That's a shame. But, at least they seem to have convinced you to enter the debate at this point.

The only two things that matter are:

Ohhh, I bet lots of other things matter too.

1. It doesn't matter at all if the planet is warming or not. The real question is whether man is causing it or not, and the answer us clearly no.

I think you know I disagree. So do the vast majority of climate scientists. The conclusion of 97% of the PhDs who study this subject for a living is that that primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions. Please explain what cause you have to disagree with them.

2. The greenhouse effect is baloney simply because water vapor has more to do with the heat of a greenhouse than CO2, and CO2 follows high temperatures, not causes them.

Umm.. water vapor heating up the world is, in fact, the same greenhouse effect as CO2 heating up the world. It is the same greenhouse effect as methane's. It is the same greenhouse effect as produced by all the various greenhouse gases. They pass shortwave radiation and absorb long wave. Stuff comes in but it doesn't all get back out.

And CO2 IS most certainly produced by global warming. It gets released from the oceans and the soils as temperatures rise. But that does NOT mean that it isn't a greenhouse gas, capable of warming the atmosphere all on its own. In the past, when the Earth was coming out of glaciations, CO2 began to rise a few hundred years after warming began. Multiple studies now have quite clearly shown that warming from the released CO2 significantly accentuated the rather trivial warming produced by the minute angular and orbital changes the Milankovitch cycles produce. The Earth changes its tip or the shape of its orbit and gets a little more sunlight or a little more sunlight on the northern hemisphere (with its greater land area). That warming releases some CO2 from the ocean and the thawing soils. That CO2 traps solar energy and produces more warming. Pretty soon, you've got a real interglacial.

But just to state this simply: at no time in the prior history of the planet, has CO2 been released into the atmosphere in the amounts we have released it, without thousands of years of prior warming from other causes. It is useless to study the past in this regard; it simply has nothing to compare to the current situation.

If you really know anything about science you would know that as the temperature if a gas increases, it can hold more molecules in suspension. The atmosphere has a higher concentration if CO2 because it is warmer. You are putting the cart before the horse.

I have a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering. That doesn't make me any kind of scientist, but I have had quite a bit of physics with calculus, inorganic chemistry, materials science and separate classes in biological, chemical, meteorological and physical oceanography. So please believe me when I tell you that the statement you just made has some problems.

Gases are not said to hold molecules in suspension. "Suspension" does not mean the same thing as "solution". The oxygen molecules, or nitrogen molecules or CO2 molecules in the air are neither of these things but simply part of a "mixture". And there is nothing exerting any force or restraint on the amount of any gas in this mixture. I can as easily create a cloud of gas that is 100% CO2 as I can make one that contains none. And I can do so at any temperature you or I could possibly attain. Your statement about higher concentration because it is warmer sounds like you are thinking of relative humidity. As air becomes warmer, it is capable of holding more water. Relative humidity is a measure of water vapor in air compared to the maximum possible water vapor held at that temperature. The relative humidity of a fixed quantity of air containing a fixed quantity of water vapor goes DOWN as its temperature goes up. But, again, that's water, not carbon dioxide.

You may also have been attempting to tell us that, unlike solids dissolved in liquids (think sugar in water) where solubility goes up with temperature, the solubility of gases in liquids (think CO2 in a bottle of coke) goes down as temperature goes up. Ice cold coke retains its tang and doesn't bubble too much. Warm coke, on the other hand, has a strong inclination to foam and bubble and give up all its dissolved CO2. As the ocean warms, it will release carbon dioxide that it was formerly able to maintain in solution.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. It is one of the many gases in the mix and could take on any concentration you can imagine. The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are primarily increased (from the year 1750 levels of 280 ppm) because we have burned billions and billions of tons of coal and petroleum. It is true, particularly over the last few decades, that some of these warming effects have released naturally sequestered CO2 (from the ocean and the tundra) into the air. But the vast bulk of it is ours. Isotopic tests can quite easily differentiate CO2 that came from the combustion of fossil fuel from CO2 that came from the transpiration of eukaryotes (animals breathing). When those test are performed, they show that almost every molecule of CO2 ABOVE 280 ppm came from the combustion of fossil fuels. Besides that, very good estimates may be made from simple book-keeping calculating the actual quantity of coal and petroleum we have burned. Those calculation produce the exact same results.

The rest if your questions are irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but they are as relevant as they can be. Those are the questions that determine whether or not AGW is real. Try answering them instead. Some time spent reading might also be a good idea. I love reading. It's good for us. My wife and I saw "Saving Mr Banks" this last weekend. I've seen the Mary Poppins movie many times, but I'd never read any of the Mary Poppins books. My wife and I are correcting that now.

 

[Kosh]

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.

 

[HenryBHough]

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.

 

[alan1]

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...

Point #2 really makes it sound like the sun and oceans are working together to cause warming, not humans. If the sun went out, I bet it would get really cold really fast. In fact, it is safe to say that the sun is by far the dominant determiner of the earths temperature. Solar Activity Paints Picture Of Peak Activity - Space News - redOrbit

 

[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.

To call me a liar when you couldn't even BEGIN to throw doubt on ANYTHING I've just written is proof positive of the astounding magnitude of your assholishness. (Assholity?) (Assishness holishness?) (Assity holishness) (wait... wait... "the astounding magnitude of the hole in your ass"?) No... I guess it's just unsayable.

 

[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.

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

 

[HenryBHough]

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.

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.

 

[Abraham3]

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.

If the sun went out, I bet it would get really cold really fast.

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[PredFan]

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.

 

[PredFan]

You AGW faithful ignore a whole lot of things.

Then I might have expected you to identify some of them but I find nothing along those lines in your post.

I don't give a rats ass about your irrelevant questions.

That's a shame. But, at least they seem to have convinced you to enter the debate at this point.



Ohhh, I bet lots of other things matter too.



I think you know I disagree. So do the vast majority of climate scientists. The conclusion of 97% of the PhDs who study this subject for a living is that that primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions. Please explain what cause you have to disagree with them.



Umm.. water vapor heating up the world is, in fact, the same greenhouse effect as CO2 heating up the world. It is the same greenhouse effect as methane's. It is the same greenhouse effect as produced by all the various greenhouse gases. They pass shortwave radiation and absorb long wave. Stuff comes in but it doesn't all get back out.

And CO2 IS most certainly produced by global warming. It gets released from the oceans and the soils as temperatures rise. But that does NOT mean that it isn't a greenhouse gas, capable of warming the atmosphere all on its own. In the past, when the Earth was coming out of glaciations, CO2 began to rise a few hundred years after warming began. Multiple studies now have quite clearly shown that warming from the released CO2 significantly accentuated the rather trivial warming produced by the minute angular and orbital changes the Milankovitch cycles produce. The Earth changes its tip or the shape of its orbit and gets a little more sunlight or a little more sunlight on the northern hemisphere (with its greater land area). That warming releases some CO2 from the ocean and the thawing soils. That CO2 traps solar energy and produces more warming. Pretty soon, you've got a real interglacial.

But just to state this simply: at no time in the prior history of the planet, has CO2 been released into the atmosphere in the amounts we have released it, without thousands of years of prior warming from other causes. It is useless to study the past in this regard; it simply has nothing to compare to the current situation.

If you really know anything about science you would know that as the temperature if a gas increases, it can hold more molecules in suspension. The atmosphere has a higher concentration if CO2 because it is warmer. You are putting the cart before the horse.

I have a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering. That doesn't make me any kind of scientist, but I have had quite a bit of physics with calculus, inorganic chemistry, materials science and separate classes in biological, chemical, meteorological and physical oceanography. So please believe me when I tell you that the statement you just made has some problems.

Gases are not said to hold molecules in suspension. "Suspension" does not mean the same thing as "solution". The oxygen molecules, or nitrogen molecules or CO2 molecules in the air are neither of these things but simply part of a "mixture". And there is nothing exerting any force or restraint on the amount of any gas in this mixture. I can as easily create a cloud of gas that is 100% CO2 as I can make one that contains none. And I can do so at any temperature you or I could possibly attain. Your statement about higher concentration because it is warmer sounds like you are thinking of relative humidity. As air becomes warmer, it is capable of holding more water. Relative humidity is a measure of water vapor in air compared to the maximum possible water vapor held at that temperature. The relative humidity of a fixed quantity of air containing a fixed quantity of water vapor goes DOWN as its temperature goes up. But, again, that's water, not carbon dioxide.

You may also have been attempting to tell us that, unlike solids dissolved in liquids (think sugar in water) where solubility goes up with temperature, the solubility of gases in liquids (think CO2 in a bottle of coke) goes down as temperature goes up. Ice cold coke retains its tang and doesn't bubble too much. Warm coke, on the other hand, has a strong inclination to foam and bubble and give up all its dissolved CO2. As the ocean warms, it will release carbon dioxide that it was formerly able to maintain in solution.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. It is one of the many gases in the mix and could take on any concentration you can imagine. The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are primarily increased (from the year 1750 levels of 280 ppm) because we have burned billions and billions of tons of coal and petroleum. It is true, particularly over the last few decades, that some of these warming effects have released naturally sequestered CO2 (from the ocean and the tundra) into the air. But the vast bulk of it is ours. Isotopic tests can quite easily differentiate CO2 that came from the combustion of fossil fuel from CO2 that came from the transpiration of eukaryotes (animals breathing). When those test are performed, they show that almost every molecule of CO2 ABOVE 280 ppm came from the combustion of fossil fuels. Besides that, very good estimates may be made from simple book-keeping calculating the actual quantity of coal and petroleum we have burned. Those calculation produce the exact same results.

The rest if your questions are irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but they are as relevant as they can be. Those are the questions that determine whether or not AGW is real. Try answering them instead. Some time spent reading might also be a good idea. I love reading. It's good for us. My wife and I saw "Saving Mr Banks" this last weekend. I've seen the Mary Poppins movie many times, but I'd never read any of the Mary Poppins books. My wife and I are correcting that now.

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.

 

[alan1]

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.

You said that 90% of solar radiation enters the oceans, and now you want me to explain your statement/point? You already explained.

How do you know what the changes by the heat given off from the sun are? Last I looked, all the studies AGW people cite are ignoring the sun.

The article cites changes in the sun, the object that keeps this mudball we call earth warm, ignoring the sun as a factor is kind of foolish.

 

[PredFan]

My friends on the right will have to forgive me a moment, but I have a very important point to make.

Scientists are for sale, they have been for many decades. Being a fan of science myself it has been a difficult thing to swallow. Back a few decades, the tobacco companies had armies of scientists who claimed that there was no link to cancer from smoking. Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have scientists on their side as well. (sorry)

Follow the money people. There is no money in anti-global warming research, there is however a lot of career killing scorn for anyone who ventures into it.

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

 

[Abraham3]

You said that 90% of solar radiation enters the oceans, and now you want me to explain your statement/point? You already explained.

How do you know what the changes by the heat given off from the sun are? Last I looked, all the studies AGW people cite are ignoring the sun.

The article cites changes in the sun, the object that keeps this mudball we call earth warm, ignoring the sun as a factor is kind of foolish.

Climate scientists most assuredly do not ignore the sun.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter08.pdf

I was going to post all this text, but it's just too long. You go to this link, scroll down to page 32 or 33, then read Section 8.4 on Solar Irradiance. Read it all. Then come back here and tell us climate scientists ignore the sun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Kosh]

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.

To call me a liar when you couldn't even BEGIN to throw doubt on ANYTHING I've just written is proof positive of the astounding magnitude of your assholishness. (Assholity?) (Assishness holishness?) (Assity holishness) (wait... wait... "the astounding magnitude of the hole in your ass"?) No... I guess it's just unsayable.

Then post the datasets with source (like I have been asking) that shows proof positive that CO2 drives climate.

So far you have not provided it and thus are pushing propaganda and not science.

To call AGW a science is a Lie, which makes you a Lair.

Put up or shut up time now.

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