The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

[Old Rocks]

Absorption bands of the GHGs are totally without significance. Yes, Si, of course, that's it.

 

[Si modo]

Absorption bands of the GHGs are totally without significance. Yes, Si, of course, that's it.

Where have I ever said that CO2 (or any other molecules with a dipole, induced or otherwise) is not IR active?

Nowhere.

So, are you arguing with the voices in your head or a real person?

 

[Dragon]

I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

The greenhouse effect has been understood for a long time. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere is reasonably predicted to cause warming. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere over the last century by human beings is a documented and incontroversial fact of history. So here we have a reasonable cause of warming, documentation that that reasonable cause is taking place, and documentation of the warming itself.

(Strictly speaking there is no way to prove that anything causes anything. All that we can show is correlation plus a theoretical mechanism of causation that makes sense and fits the data.)

If you are looking for sufficiently precise quantification that all feedback loops (positive and negative) are taken into consideration, when many of those are poorly understood, you are looking for the impossible, and when someone expects the impossible as proof of a proposition they are simply making excuses.

 

[Cuyo]

It's sad to see the APW cultists having their total belief system fucked up by reality.

I'm sorry modo... But what the hell are you talking about?

'AGW cultists' (or as I call them... rather amusingly in another thread... 'The whole world except American Republicans) are witnessing every single one of their predictions coming true.

It's not our fault that others interpreted "This will happen" as "This will happen right away." Now deniers are saying "SEE - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY!" and we're supposed to accept that as proof that it's all a big conspiracy?

I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.

(Wait for someone to present correlation thinking they have proven causation. Just wait for it....)

So what's the motivation for the worldwide body of scientists touting the likelyhood that man's activities are the cause, if it really isn't?

As I said, and you didn't contend, all their predictions are coming true, and at an accelerated rate as industrialization accelerates.

What causes you to dismiss the worldwide body of science which says it's the near-certain cause, and favor the outlying possibility that they're wrong and it's all a coincidence?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no such thing as global warming. That's why the experts have made the subtle shift to climate change.

If anything, we are in an interglacial period between glacial advances. A period that's ending.

 

[Old Rocks]

But when someone else mentions it, and the inevitable results of it, you start your logic schtick again. Sorry old gal, you are part of the problem.

 

[Si modo]

I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

The greenhouse effect has been understood for a long time. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere is reasonably predicted to cause warming. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere over the last century by human beings is a documented and incontroversial fact of history. So here we have a reasonable cause of warming, documentation that that reasonable cause is taking place, and documentation of the warming itself.

(Strictly speaking there is no way to prove that anything causes anything. All that we can show is correlation plus a theoretical mechanism of causation that makes sense and fits the data.)

If you are looking for sufficiently precise quantification that all feedback loops (positive and negative) are taken into consideration, when many of those are poorly understood, you are looking for the impossible, and when someone expects the impossible as proof of a proposition they are simply making excuses.

The existence of the 'greenhouse' effect does nothing at all to support the hypothesis of APW.

Nothing at all.

 

[Si modo]

But when someone else mentions it, and the inevitable results of it, you start your logic schtick again. Sorry old gal, you are part of the problem.

Who are you addressing and what is your antecedent for 'it'?

 

[Katzndogz]

It was the greenhouse effect in the 70s that cause the panic over global cooling.

 

[Si modo]

It was the greenhouse effect in the 70s that cause the panic over global cooling.

Actually, it was the concern over particulate-based pollutants in cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. CO2 and other GHGs absorb UV and re-emit some of it back to the ground or oceans. And we all know that cannot possibly have anything to do with a warming we are experiancing.

So what are you trying to deny this time, Si? For sure PolySci is your science.

 

[Old Rocks]

It was the greenhouse effect in the 70s that cause the panic over global cooling.

Actually, it was the concern over particulate-based pollutants in cooling.

Which most of the scientists of the era stated would be overcome by increasing warmth from the GHGs.

 

[Si modo]

LOL. CO2 and other GHGs absorb UV and re-emit some of it back to the ground or oceans. And we all know that cannot possibly have anything to do with a warming we are experiancing.

So what are you trying to deny this time, Si? For sure PolySci is your science.

I have no idea what your point is.

If you want to claim that I have argued that CO2 is not IR active, then show a post where I have done so.

If you want to claim that I have argued that CO2 has no role in the the 'greenhouse' effect, then show a post where I have done so.

I won't wait for you to provide any of my posts that do so because I know I have never done so.

There are several possible explanations for your apparent belief that I actually have done so:

1. You are hallucinating, either due to chemicals in your system, some organic defect in your brain, and/or your mental illness.

2. You cannot comprehend much of what I say. That seems quite possible because you rarely do even though I use use lay terms with you.

3. You are lying about my views. As you often do - more often than you don't - this possibility has a high probability.





So, what do you NOW think I am "denying" or "trying to deny"?

 

[signelect]

I am a little curious when the comparison is made to millions of year ago and they told me what the temps were. There once was an ice age and it went away and guess what no mane made CO2. Wonder what weather stations they got their reading from.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am a little curious when the comparison is made to millions of year ago and they told me what the temps were. There once was an ice age and it went away and guess what no mane made CO2. Wonder what weather stations they got their reading from.

Ah, the immense knowledge of the willfully ignorant.

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations

 

[Big Fitz]

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

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

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.

What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:

Sanity
Rationality
Intelligence
Not Gullible
Reasonable
Lacking Foolishness

Potato - Potahto.

 

[Si modo]

I'm sorry modo... But what the hell are you talking about?

'AGW cultists' (or as I call them... rather amusingly in another thread... 'The whole world except American Republicans) are witnessing every single one of their predictions coming true.

It's not our fault that others interpreted "This will happen" as "This will happen right away." Now deniers are saying "SEE - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY!" and we're supposed to accept that as proof that it's all a big conspiracy?

I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.

(Wait for someone to present correlation thinking they have proven causation. Just wait for it....)

So what's the motivation for the worldwide body of scientists touting the likelyhood that man's activities are the cause, if it really isn't?

As I said, and you didn't contend, all their predictions are coming true, and at an accelerated rate as industrialization accelerates.

What causes you to dismiss the worldwide body of science which says it's the near-certain cause, and favor the outlying possibility that they're wrong and it's all a coincidence?

When you say "worldwide body of scientists" are you trying to say that all the scientists, or even close to all of them, have the same opinion about the hypothesis of APW? If so, you are egregiously misinformed.

Regardless, scientists are persons and have opinions. When they have science to support the hypothesis and they actually present the science that supports that hypothesis, I will be more than happy to agree with their opinions. Until then, I and many others, will continue to point out to those who come to scientific conclusions which are not based on existing science, that the science does not support the APW hypothesis. That's just how I roll.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

The greenhouse effect has been understood for a long time. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere is reasonably predicted to cause warming. The addition of large amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere over the last century by human beings is a documented and incontroversial fact of history. So here we have a reasonable cause of warming, documentation that that reasonable cause is taking place, and documentation of the warming itself.

(Strictly speaking there is no way to prove that anything causes anything. All that we can show is correlation plus a theoretical mechanism of causation that makes sense and fits the data.)

If you are looking for sufficiently precise quantification that all feedback loops (positive and negative) are taken into consideration, when many of those are poorly understood, you are looking for the impossible, and when someone expects the impossible as proof of a proposition they are simply making excuses.

You are aware of the following facts then Dragon...

1) the warming effect of CO2 is exponentially less for HIGHER concentrations of CO2. It reaches a point where additional amounts of CO2 contribute very little to the watts/m2 heating at the surface. In other words, doubling CO2 won't result in anything near a doubling of warming forcing function. Finding how close we are to "saturating" that curve is not clear..

2) the IR absorption bands for CO2 LARGELY overlap with water vapor. There are only 2 tiny spectral bands that are unique to CO2. Thus in presence of even MODEST water vapor, CO2 contributes very little to absorption of heat from IR. THis masking effect is MORE than enough to frustrate efforts to effectively MODEL the small observed increases in temp.

3) Experiments done in the NIGHTIME DESERT with controls put in for water vapor and cloud conditions show NO nightime temp correlation over 60 years of records with increased man-caused CO2 content. Definately should show undoubtable correlation. SOMETHING is masking the "expected" effect.. The GreenHouse effect is 24 hours a day and night-time is a great time to take shut down the power source and observe..

4) we've only had about 30 years of sophisticated satellite studies of solar irradiance. Prior to that, accurate measurements of spectral and flux stability, solar constants, and the like were all hindered by atmosphere. Thirty years is not NEAR enough to observe shifts in solar cycles that can last 11 years or longer.

Just a few "starting" facts to ponder when asserting that the observed warming is SOLELY due to CO2 and that INCREASED emissions of CO2 will yield a concommitant increase in surface heating..

 

[Cuyo]

I'm talking about some sort of SCIENCE that demonstrates the causation of warming is due to man-made CO2 and some sort of quantification of the significance of man-made CO2 on any warming - even just a ball-park quantification backed by science.

(Wait for someone to present correlation thinking they have proven causation. Just wait for it....)

So what's the motivation for the worldwide body of scientists touting the likelyhood that man's activities are the cause, if it really isn't?

As I said, and you didn't contend, all their predictions are coming true, and at an accelerated rate as industrialization accelerates.

What causes you to dismiss the worldwide body of science which says it's the near-certain cause, and favor the outlying possibility that they're wrong and it's all a coincidence?

When you say "worldwide body of scientists" are you trying to say that all the scientists, or even close to all of them, have the same opinion about the hypothesis of APW? If so, you are egregiously misinformed.

Regardless, scientists are persons and have opinions. When they have science to support the hypothesis I will be more than happy to agree with their opinions. Until then, I and many others, will continue to point out to those who come to scientific conclusions which are not based on existing science, that the science does not support the APW hypothesis. That's just how I roll.

'APW' again, is that a typo or some pejorative with which I'm unfamiliar? (as opposed to AGW)

Yes, near-complete consensus, especially among the most specialized circles (97% of climatologists, with 2% unsure).

I'm tempted to study the actual methodology some more just so I can make a more articulate argument, but the truth is I'm not a scientist. I depend on those with the most expertise.

My observation has been that almost all of the 'opposing viewpoints' have come from the American right, and always consist of either 1. Attacking the persons or organizations involved, rather than the actual scientific methods; 2. Simply stating that it's 'just a theory,' eg rejecting any level of proof as insufficient; and/or 3. Proclaiming that it's part of some biiiiiiiiiiiiiggggg smoking-man type conspiracy.

If you have something more profound to offer that might change my mind, by all means. But most of what I get here is simply second-hand employment of the above methods and lots of ad-hominem.

 

[Cuyo]

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic—manmade—global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

Even Wally Broecker's jest—that deniers could blame God—may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

The American allergy to global warming: Why? | R&D Mag

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

Republicans would die to leave their kids a "dead" world. Circular logic.

What you call an "allergy" most people would call one of the following:

Sanity
Rationality
Intelligence
Not Gullible
Reasonable
Lacking Foolishness

Potato - Potahto.

Fitz- If we're gullible, stupid, irrational, etc, than by extension you're suggesting that somebody is trying to trick us.

For the umpteen millionth time - What is their motivation?