TWO more Global Warming issues

[jc456]

M14, are you ever going to locate your balls and tell us your theory of global warming?

Nah. You won't. Authoritarian types -- which most all deniers are -- never back up their claims. They simply declare everyone has to obey, and they get so outraged when free people won't comply with their edicts.

I don't have to ask if M14 or Ernie support sending climate scientists to the gulag for disagreeing with their political party. Their party supports that Stalinist tactic, so they also support it, period. See, watch. I can ask them, and they won't deny it.

Ernie and M14, do you support or condemn the Republicans for attempting to jail Dr. Mann and other climate scientists?

thread hijacking here, so tooth, what is your theory of global warming, seems you're always asking everyone and I don't recall ever seeing yours. Point me to a link you may have already given it and I missed it. But please I'd like to know.

Hey tooth, crickets dude/dudette!!!!

 

[jc456]

You understand you're sort of speaking in tongues now, right?

I think I get the gist of it. You're telling everyone you don't have to support your theory, because you're special.

And you're right. You don't have to support it, and in return, nobody has to take you seriously.

theory of what please?

Hey tooth, crickets on this one as well. what the f?

 

[jc456]

Mann and Hansen think we should be shot without trial as an example to those who might deny their lies.. How Communist of them..

Telling big lies about how you were forced to imprison your enemies to defend yourself is a tactic that's been used by pretty much every tyrant in history. Billy, a proud student of Stalin, has learned that big lie technique well.

Back to the point. Not a single denier on this board has ever criticized the Republicans for their attempts to imprison climate scientists, despite me asking if they would over and over. Not one. Ever. They all endorse the tactic, using the same excuses the Soviet communists did about how EnemiesoftheState are criminals who deserve imprisonment.

In direct contrast, no reason-based person here has ever called for deniers to be imprisoned.

The two sides are totally different. Deniers are authoritarians, while the reason-based side values freedom.

which republicans and who did they try and imprison? come now let's start seeing some documentation hairball.

oh yeah, and no response on this one either, crickets! dude/dudette, i see you remain consistent to never answer a question. hahahahahahahahahahahaha. LoSiNg.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bri, when I point out how only cult kooks declare all the data is faked because all the actual data contradicts their cult, you really shouldn't jump in so quickly to prove my point.

Says the guy who knows his entire argument is based on induction and inference, therefore cannot be proven, and doesn't care.

 

[mamooth]

Dear lord, you're still whining? Your butthurt must be epic.

M14, please justify for us your hypocritical double standard. All predictive science is based on induction and inference, yet we don't see you complaining about tomorrow's weather forecast, or the design for a new rocket.

Conclusion: You're using that buzzphrase as an excuse to lie. You hate climate science because your party told you to, you're too cowardly to go against your party, so you need to invent a big lie to explain your stupid position.

(I always warn the kooks not to join up with my stalkers' club, because that never turns out well for them, but do they listen? Nooooooo.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dear lord, you're still whining?

You mean continuing to note that you cannot support your theory with anything other than induction and inference.
Your post here does nothing to change this.

 

[mamooth]

I mean you're clearly just crying now. Refusing to explain your double standard let everybody know that, as does your fixation on me.

Was there ever a point to this thread, before my stalker-pack turned it into a "Let's all sulk together at mamooth!" thread? Let me look for it.

Oh, there it is. One point is about the economic gains of clean energy. Jobs aside, a big point point is how that the trillions global warming would cost is vastly more than the trillions required for renewable energy. The added bonus is that since fossil fuels are finite, renewable energy will be required no matter what. Hence, more renewable energy is a no-brainer. It would be almost criminally negligent to not get started now, before the fossil fuels run out. Anyone opposing more renewable energy basically wants people to live in caves when the fossil fuel does run out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I mean you're clearly just crying now. Refusing to explain your double standard let everybody know that...

Says he who refuses to understand why a premise supported primarily by induction and inference cannot be sound.

 

[jc456]

Dear lord, you're still whining? Your butthurt must be epic.

M14, please justify for us your hypocritical double standard. All predictive science is based on induction and inference, yet we don't see you complaining about tomorrow's weather forecast, or the design for a new rocket.

Conclusion: You're using that buzzphrase as an excuse to lie. You hate climate science because your party told you to, you're too cowardly to go against your party, so you need to invent a big lie to explain your stupid position.

(I always warn the kooks not to join up with my stalkers' club, because that never turns out well for them, but do they listen? Nooooooo.)

you are the lead stalker I will attest to that.

 

[jc456]

I mean you're clearly just crying now. Refusing to explain your double standard let everybody know that, as does your fixation on me.

Was there ever a point to this thread, before my stalker-pack turned it into a "Let's all sulk together at mamooth!" thread? Let me look for it.

Oh, there it is. One point is about the economic gains of clean energy. Jobs aside, a big point point is how that the trillions global warming would cost is vastly more than the trillions required for renewable energy. The added bonus is that since fossil fuels are finite, renewable energy will be required no matter what. Hence, more renewable energy is a no-brainer. It would be almost criminally negligent to not get started now, before the fossil fuels run out. Anyone opposing more renewable energy basically wants people to live in caves when the fossil fuel does run out.

hahahaahhahaha, don't you have any new lines? oh yeah, nope!!! how's your magic eight ball today?

 

[Crick]

JC, before you complain that these data aren't calibrated in centigrade degrees, let's think about how YOU would do the experiment you're demanding.

You say you want to see how much of a temperature increase is caused by raising CO2 levels in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. You want to do an experiment in which a number will pop out, in units of degrees centigrade or degrees Fahrenheit that is directly applicable to the Earth's atmosphere. That is, we would have some black box set up which we would let run for a few minutes and would then read, directly off some dial, 0.9C or the like. Thus we would know that the increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has caused precisely that much of the warming we've experienced.

Right?

If we had another Earth, or sufficient control of this one, we could do it "in situ". We could set up the Earth with a 280 ppm atmosphere, take some measurements, then jack up the CO2 to 400 ppm and start taking more. We wouldn't let ANYTHING else change. Alternatively, we could get our hands on two Earths (or even more) and set up CONTROL EARTHS: Earths in which we change NOTHING but which would undergo any uncontrolled changes our Earth's were heir to. So... do you know where we could get a couple of extra Earths? Hmm... that's a problem.

So, we have to arrange some sort of setup that we can assemble in the space we actually have available to us which will mimic the processes on Earth that we want to investigate. And what are those processes?

Incoming solar radiation
Outgoing terrestrial radiation
Atmospheric mixes with varying levels of CO2
Clouds of all sorts at a wide range of altitudes
Oceans with currents and mixing and biota and ice and pretty sailboats in the sunset
Storms from gentle zephyrs to raging typhoons, clockwise and anti-clockwise
Volcanic aerosols
Soot aerosols
Polychlorinated fluorocarbons and ozone
Allbedo that varies with temperature
Humidity that varies with temperature
Farts
And a hundred other factors

Again, hmmmm..... that's going to be a little tough to fit into the space we've got. We need to SIMPLIFY. All you're really curious about is the effect of CO2 on the retention of solar energy, right? All those other things certainly have effects on the Earth's temperature, but it seems like a fairly safe assumption that they'll do what they do with or without CO2. Clouds will be clouds, volcanoes will be volcanoes and farts... well, the point is that we don't need them to see what we can see. Now WITHOUT all those things, we will not be able to construct an experiment that will directly tell us how much warming 120 ppm will cause. What can our experiment tell us.

Well, let's back up a little bit on both sides. Temperature is sort of a secondary effect. When I put a pot of water on the stove that I want to boil, I don't put centigrade degrees into it, do I. I put energy into it. The water's temperature is an external expression of how much energy it's got in it. Right? The more energy in the water, the higher its temperature. Now we can get fancy dan here and differentiate between potential and kinetic energy and thermodynamic and electromagnetic and nuclear and chemical and phlogostimaticalaciousnephrillianistic. But, in the real world, the sort of stuff we're dealing with pretty much all boils down to heat. We'll put some energy in (as solar radiation), some will come back out (as terrestrial thermal radiation) and the difference between the two will tell us how much energy the CO2 trapped.

I'd love to carry on with this style, but I have to get underway. This Monday is our 30th anniversary and the wife and I are taking a romantic weekend getaway.

What I've been trying to steer you towards, JC, is that the experiment we've been moving towards here is precisely the experiment that produces the CO2 absorption spectra with which your demand for an experiment has been fairly consistently answered. The data in that graph tells us (perhaps not you, but, by education, that's actually correctable) how much energy will be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere. The calculation gets a little complicated. It involves something called spectral intensity - a measure of how much energy is present in each little vertical sliver of that graph. This allows us to calculate the energy in those divots that CO2 puts into the raw spectrum of IR the warmed Earth is radiating. And with some real numbers: like the spectral intensity of the solar radiation and that of the Earth's surface and the behavior of the atmosphere in all its different layers, we can come up with a fair number. Now, as we noted in the beginning here, there are a heck of a lot of other things going on in a planet this size that have their own effect on the final result. It's not a simple thing to take them all into account, but we can try. However, the crucial step, the one in which we figure out whether or not CO2 will cause temperatures to increase and ABOUT how much; that's been done, JC, over and over and over again.

The greenhouse effect is settled science. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a demonstrable fact. It's time to move on son.

 

[Crick]

BTW, I never mentioned the requirement that a full-sized experiment would have to run in real time: it would take 100 years to find out how much warming we'd experience in 100 years.

 

[jc456]

so you are now saying you have no experiment. Dude, that's what I initially asked. Is there an experiment. You just answered no. So therefore, everything you have is either a prediction model or a mathematical probability, right?

So no scientist has ever taken an enclosure sucked all the air out of it, added in incremental amounts of homemade CO2 and seen what would happen to the temperature of said enclosure. hmmmm, seems a little weird to me that a scientist wouldn't have attempted such a thing, since Bill Nye the science guy did one that failed. Oh and the thousand other experiments that were pronounced in this forum, you now state are bullshit. nice, so you all lied months and months ago? So, you have no evidence correct? Just asking to set the marker today. And I know you will tell me there is no way to prove science, right? Just let me know.

 

[jc456]

JC, before you complain that these data aren't calibrated in centigrade degrees, let's think about how YOU would do the experiment you're demanding.

You say you want to see how much of a temperature increase is caused by raising CO2 levels in our atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. You want to do an experiment in which a number will pop out, in units of degrees centigrade or degrees Fahrenheit that is directly applicable to the Earth's atmosphere. That is, we would have some black box set up which we would let run for a few minutes and would then read, directly off some dial, 0.9C or the like. Thus we would know that the increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has caused precisely that much of the warming we've experienced.

Right?

If we had another Earth, or sufficient control of this one, we could do it "in situ". We could set up the Earth with a 280 ppm atmosphere, take some measurements, then jack up the CO2 to 400 ppm and start taking more. We wouldn't let ANYTHING else change. Alternatively, we could get our hands on two Earths (or even more) and set up CONTROL EARTHS: Earths in which we change NOTHING but which would undergo any uncontrolled changes our Earth's were heir to. So... do you know where we could get a couple of extra Earths? Hmm... that's a problem.

So, we have to arrange some sort of setup that we can assemble in the space we actually have available to us which will mimic the processes on Earth that we want to investigate. And what are those processes?

Incoming solar radiation
Outgoing terrestrial radiation
Atmospheric mixes with varying levels of CO2
Clouds of all sorts at a wide range of altitudes
Oceans with currents and mixing and biota and ice and pretty sailboats in the sunset
Storms from gentle zephyrs to raging typhoons, clockwise and anti-clockwise
Volcanic aerosols
Soot aerosols
Polychlorinated fluorocarbons and ozone
Allbedo that varies with temperature
Humidity that varies with temperature
Farts
And a hundred other factors

Again, hmmmm..... that's going to be a little tough to fit into the space we've got. We need to SIMPLIFY. All you're really curious about is the effect of CO2 on the retention of solar energy, right? All those other things certainly have effects on the Earth's temperature, but it seems like a fairly safe assumption that they'll do what they do with or without CO2. Clouds will be clouds, volcanoes will be volcanoes and farts... well, the point is that we don't need them to see what we can see. Now WITHOUT all those things, we will not be able to construct an experiment that will directly tell us how much warming 120 ppm will cause. What can our experiment tell us.

Well, let's back up a little bit on both sides. Temperature is sort of a secondary effect. When I put a pot of water on the stove that I want to boil, I don't put centigrade degrees into it, do I. I put energy into it. The water's temperature is an external expression of how much energy it's got in it. Right? The more energy in the water, the higher its temperature. Now we can get fancy dan here and differentiate between potential and kinetic energy and thermodynamic and electromagnetic and nuclear and chemical and phlogostimaticalaciousnephrillianistic. But, in the real world, the sort of stuff we're dealing with pretty much all boils down to heat. We'll put some energy in (as solar radiation), some will come back out (as terrestrial thermal radiation) and the difference between the two will tell us how much energy the CO2 trapped.

I'd love to carry on with this style, but I have to get underway. This Monday is our 30th anniversary and the wife and I are taking a romantic weekend getaway.

What I've been trying to steer you towards, JC, is that the experiment we've been moving towards here is precisely the experiment that produces the CO2 absorption spectra with which your demand for an experiment has been fairly consistently answered. The data in that graph tells us (perhaps not you, but, by education, that's actually correctable) how much energy will be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere. The calculation gets a little complicated. It involves something called spectral intensity - a measure of how much energy is present in each little vertical sliver of that graph. This allows us to calculate the energy in those divots that CO2 puts into the raw spectrum of IR the warmed Earth is radiating. And with some real numbers: like the spectral intensity of the solar radiation and that of the Earth's surface and the behavior of the atmosphere in all its different layers, we can come up with a fair number. Now, as we noted in the beginning here, there are a heck of a lot of other things going on in a planet this size that have their own effect on the final result. It's not a simple thing to take them all into account, but we can try. However, the crucial step, the one in which we figure out whether or not CO2 will cause temperatures to increase and ABOUT how much; that's been done, JC, over and over and over again.

The greenhouse effect is settled science. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a demonstrable fact. It's time to move on son.

dude, greenhouse gas is not the answer here. The pot of water is hot because you have a source of heat, If you put a lid on the pot it will get hotter faster because energy cannot escape and forces more energy into the boiling water. turn off the burner and keep the lid on, and it will eventually stop boiling, even though there is no escape for the energy, it will eventually stop boiling and finally cool off. It is not self sufficient heating source. It requires the source heat. The atmosphere is not a closed pot, so your analogy fails right there. You wish to imply that the greenhouse gas CO2 acts like a lid. And all I ask is that you prove it. you can't, you won't and hence we are at an impasse. CO2 is logarithmic an will eventually saturate and as it climbs in the atmosphere it cools off, and it emits its energy equally. The difference between you and me are how we read the logarithmic increase on doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, I say less than 1 degree C. you will claim 3 degrees C. Well, as everything in life, there are two views, which is correct? Well the observed is following the less than 1 degree C @ 0.5 Degree at 400PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. Far from catastrophic as your side boasts.

So at the moment it is what I say it most likely will be. And, as you now state, you have no way of proving it will be 3 degrees C. so until you have some evidence, Mother Nature says your math isn't correct.

You all can also cook the books all you like that states that the temperatures are going up, but even the IPCC agrees with my 0.5 degree C at the time of the report 400PPM.

You might wish to play the scare game, but I doubt that it will win over those who experience continued cool temperatures in a seasonal time that generally has higher values.

I need evidence to agree that catastrophic will happen. you don't have to do anything, I want the scientists to prove it. They all can't agree. I respect Judith Curry and for now, she is leaning to my side now.