Two Theories

[Crick]

The theory to which the vast majority of climate scientists (and because of them, I) hold is that 120 ppm of CO2, added by human activity, is the primary cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. That's correct.

I would have thought you'd have caught that point a great long while ago Frank. We haven't been hiding the point.

 

[Crick]

By the way, ozone blocks UV. Do you know how much ozone in the atmosphere it takes to block all the UV coming through?

4-8 ppm.

So your long-running attempt to characterize the amount of added CO2 in the atmosphere as insignificant is, logically, crap.

 

[mamooth]

I rest my case.

Here's that AR5 table of aggregate influences. Yet you say scientists don't look at aggregate influences. The evidence would indicate you've been badly misled.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The theory to which the vast majority of climate scientists (and because of them, I) hold is that 120 ppm of CO2, added by human activity, is the primary cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. That's correct.

I would have thought you'd have caught that point a great long while ago Frank. We haven't been hiding the point.

...and it's still a THEORY.

That people who make their living saying, "We don't need science, we have Consensus" believe it does not move it off of "Theory"

Moreover when Cultish treatment of scientists who don't share your Faith gives away that AGW is very unlike science

 

[elektra]

The claim is cosmic radiation causes the C02 in the atmosphere to vibrate thus giving off heat.

Say what?

Please, do go on about your "cosmic radiation causes global warming" theory. I'm sure everyone would love to hear more. Could you link us to someone else stating this theory?

Sure, too easy. Now that I explained what the Science states, maybe you could tell us what you thought it was, with a link. So, please do tell, we are all breathlessly awaiting your simplest of explanations.


How does increasing the carbon dioxide level cause global warming

In more detail:
The greenhouse effect has kept the earth warm for millions of years. The natural carbon cycle of the earth keeps a steady amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some of the sun's infrared radiation is reflected back into space, and some is trapped by greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, in the earth's atmosphere. This is good, because this keeps the earth's temperature at one we can live in, and not too cold.

Because the radiation is trapped, it is absorbed by the double bonds of carbon dioxide molecules, which transfer the radiation to kinetic energy as the bonds stretch and vibrate. The energy is then re-emitted at heat energy, which causes the atmosphere to warm up. If extra carbon dioxide appears, this warming will happen more, and the atmosphere will heat up too much.

Since the start of the Industrial revolution, 200 years ago, atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen exponentially, and we have witnessed a corresponding exponential rise in temperatures over time; the PPM of CO2 nearly doubling, and the average high temperatures increasing by 0.5~3*C depending on location. This has strongly suggested that the increase in CO2 levels is directly responsible for the rise in temperature levels.

Cosmic radiation would be the extremely high energy particles and photons coming from outside our solar system.

Elektra, however, seems to think cosmic radiation is the same as infrared radiation.

That's not the worst blunder I've seen here, but it's up there.

Nice blunder mamooth, Cosmic when speaking of radiation means stuff that comes from outside of the the earth, like from space. At least that is how the industry most involved in Radiation uses the term, that is the Nuclear Industry in which I work. But here you have it, another person spouting off about radiation who knows little of what they speak.

mamooth challenged my post and required a link, I answered the challenge with a link.

I challenged mamooth's post, mamooth failed to provide what mamooth requires of others, a link.

By mamooth's own standards, rules, whatever, mamooth fails. Mamooth refuses to provide links in mamooth's post, mamooth simply ignores? Why is that? Why would mamooth behave differently then what mamooth demands of others?

In this case its clear, mamooth does not have a basic understanding of what AGW, mamooth does not understand even with the help of wikipedia and links and google.

Seriously, I had to explain the Greenhouse effect and provide a link to mamooth yet mamooth poses as someone responding with intelligence?

mamooth believes scientists are using the term "cosmic" to define a specific radiation?

and all one has to do, as mamooth states, is simply read a wiki page, very weak mamooth

 

[elektra]

The IPCC has a great deal more than computer models. You ought to actually read some of AR5. Know your enemy. And it's certainly more evidence than an excerpt from a movie that doesn't deserve to be abused by you (and that WAS an abuse).

The IPCC also has "delete" keys. For the stuff they don't like.

 

[mamooth]

Nice blunder mamooth, Cosmic when speaking of radiation means stuff that comes from outside of the the earth, like from space.

As has been shown here over and over, cosmic radiation refers to high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. Protest all you want, but you don't get to redefine basic science terms just because you really want to.

Moreover, your idiot theory about "cosmic radiation makes CO2 molecules vibrate" still makes no sense at all, even if we use your special PC revised definition. Energy from the sun or stars doesn't warm CO2; energy from the earth does, and even you can't torture the definitions enough to call outgoing infrared radiation from the earth "cosmic radiation".

But here you have it, another person spouting off about radiation who knows little of what they speak.

You know jack shit about radiation in all forms, whether cosmic, solar, terrestrial or nuclear. Your link didn't even remotely support your whackaloon claims. And given my experience, you really picked the wrong guy to try to bullshit.

 

[Metzor]

Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.

Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.

The Theory states, well, no one is really sure what it states except any story on the Weather Channel is directly attributed to ManMade Global Climate Warming Disruption Change. I've inferred that the AGWCult Theory is: Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and the increase in temperature will disrupt the climate.

Easy enough to test the first part in a lab, but mysteriously, no such test exists even after spending billion of dollars in researching ManMade Global Cooling Climate Warming Disruption Change! How is that possible?

Michio, where are you? Where are the AGW tests?

Good post. We need to remember that the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change movement has it's origins in decades of bogus predictions by environmentalists. All it's ever been and all it will ever be is guilt ridden junk science.

 

[bripat9643]

The theory to which the vast majority of climate scientists (and because of them, I) hold is that 120 ppm of CO2, added by human activity, is the primary cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. That's correct.

I would have thought you'd have caught that point a great long while ago Frank. We haven't been hiding the point.

That's the theory you consistently fail to support.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I rest my case.

Here's that AR5 table of aggregate influences. Yet you say scientists don't look at aggregate influences. The evidence would indicate you've been badly misled.

LOL

The big bright shiny hot yellow round looking thing we often see in the daytime sky doesn't seem to be much of a factor for all that "forcing" in manboob's chart.

 

[elektra]

Nice blunder mamooth, Cosmic when speaking of radiation means stuff that comes from outside of the the earth, like from space.

As has been shown here over and over, cosmic radiation refers to high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. Protest all you want, but you don't get to redefine basic science terms just because you really want to.

Moreover, your idiot theory about "cosmic radiation makes CO2 molecules vibrate" still makes no sense at all, even if we use your special PC revised definition. Energy from the sun or stars doesn't warm CO2; energy from the earth does, and even you can't torture the definitions enough to call outgoing infrared radiation from the earth "cosmic radiation".

But here you have it, another person spouting off about radiation who knows little of what they speak.

You know jack shit about radiation in all forms, whether cosmic, solar, terrestrial or nuclear. Your link didn't even remotely support your whackaloon claims. And given my experience, you really picked the wrong guy to try to bullshit.

It is not my theory, idiot. And that is exactly as it is, Cosmic radiation which refers to everything outside the earth.

Nuclear radiation, never heard of that. You mean Neutron, Gamma, Beta, or Alpha radiation.

How about background radiation, if mamooth had half a clue what mamooth speaks about the reply would actually have terms used in industry as well as science.

I posted the link that defines the Greenhouse effect. mamooth does not even know the science being discussed, not even when hit with a link to the theory in which mamooth is in a discussion about.

Go back to google and come back with your definition of "nuclear radiation". You will find correctly stated, your speaking of Neutron, Gamma, Alpha or Beta.

mamooth, you show zero knowledge, mamooth /googles/reads/cut/paste, posts stuff from folks a lot smarter than mamooth, mamooth is so focused on all the bullshit that mamooth can not recognize the exact theories of the "greenhouse" effect if mamooth does not find it himself with google.

mamooth, go buy yourself a nice chunk of dry ice, that is pure CO2. You most likely need a link to understand that, though, huh.

where is your link mamooth, I gave you mine, where is yours. Why do you demand of others that which mamooth refuses to do, where is your link to your idea of what you believe. I bet mamooth will not link and if so it will not be to anything but a google found gem mamooth agrees with.

 

[mamooth]

First, calm down. You're getting hysterical, not to mention kind of stalky and creepy.

Second, you ought to just say you made a mistake when you told us cosmic radiation causes global warming. Mistakes aren't that big of a deal, and it's not the end of the world for you.

Remember, it's not the mistake that gets you, it's the cover up and denial. Don't keep digging deeper into the stupid hole and destroying what little credibility you have left.

 

[SSDD]

By the way, ozone blocks UV. Do you know how much ozone in the atmosphere it takes to block all the UV coming through?

Another fundamental error from the side that claims to have a monopoly on science. I suppose you think the beach keeps the waves from washing over the entire land as well. Like the beach, ozone is a result, not a cause. Chemically, in the upper atmosphere, ozone is formed when UV radiation breaks apart O2 molecules. The O molecules then bond to O2 molecules and form O3. It is the dissipation of energy used in breaking O2 molecules that, in reality, protects us from UV. Of course, O3 blocks some small amount of UV as well, but since it is a very unstable molecule (half life in the atmosphere measured in minutes) it requires much less energy to be broken. The ozone layer is the result of O2 saving us from harmful UV.

Another interesting thing about the ozone layer... Since sunlight reacting with O2 results in the formation of O3, where would you expect there to be an ozone shortage? Three guesses. At the poles during their respective winters is where there would be the least ozone since there is the least direct sunlight there.

In fact, when the party that first proved the ozone "hole" went to the south pole to research, they fully expected to find a hole, precisely because that would be where the least sunlight was hitting the atmosphere. As they passed through England on their way to the north pole to observe the hole form there during its winter, they mentioned what they found to the press and the rest is hysterical handwaving history.

Rather than report that the team found the hole they expected to find for the completely natural reason it was there the press reported "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE"...and algore took advantage and outlawed freon in favor of a "substitute" that one of his largest campaign contributors just happened to manufacture. From there, research money became available and the hoax lives on.

 

[elektra]

First, calm down. You're getting hysterical, not to mention kind of stalky and creepy.

Second, you ought to just say you made a mistake when you told us cosmic radiation causes global warming. Mistakes aren't that big of a deal, and it's not the end of the world for you.

Remember, it's not the mistake that gets you, it's the cover up and denial. Don't keep digging deeper into the stupid hole and destroying what little credibility you have left.

So you are a troll and no more, mamooth can not even quote the post, mamooth simply holds a frail hope and flames away.

That is all I need to see, at least in this post you kept it to just flaming my character.

Mamooth, instead of making stuff up here in this post, how about quoting what you speak of? Why not put everything in context and include all that foolish stuff you were posting about the types of radiation, Nuclear Radiation was brilliant of mamooth.

Speaking of Credibility.

 

[mamooth]

(half life in the atmosphere measured in minutes)

So according to SSDD, the ozone completely vanishes every night on the dark side of the earth, since there's no sunlight to keep replenishing it.

Back in reality, the half-life of ozone varies wildly depending on concentrations and whatever other substances are around. When dissolved in water, it decays in minutes. Down in the troposphere at low concentrations, the half-life is more like 20 days. Up in the stratosphere away from all the other gases that react with ozone, the half-life is around 5 years. At least it was in the pre-CFC days.

In fact, when the party that first proved the ozone "hole" went to the south pole to research, they fully expected to find a hole, precisely because that would be where the least sunlight was hitting the atmosphere.

Measurements of Antarctic ozone go back to the 1957. There was no ozone hole in 1957. Oops. So much for your story.

Not that you'll let actual data interfere with your beliefs. Your cult demands that you also declare ozone depletion is a myth, hence you are required to find some new creative way to declare the data was obviously faked.

 

[mamooth]

So you are a troll and no more, mamooth can not even quote the post, mamooth simply holds a frail hope and flames away.

Is English your first language?

That's not an insult. I'm just looking for a possible reason as to why you're getting everything so wrong.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

manboob is not JUST a troll.

But it IS largely a troll.

And it says lots of silly baseless shit.

manboob is known by the vapidity of its posts.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So you are a troll and no more, mamooth can not even quote the post, mamooth simply holds a frail hope and flames away.

Is English your first language?

That's not an insult. I'm just looking for a possible reason as to why you're getting everything so wrong.

What is your excuse?

 

[Kosh]

All the these threads and yet not one that contains datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

 

[HelenaHandbag]

All the these threads and yet not one that contains datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Warmers do not care.

The hoax just provides another opportunity for them to grow government.