What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information

I keep getting an error message on his link.

Does your phone do PDFs?

If I can't get it on my PC, I'm reluctant to try on my phone.

 

[Dante]

How about that Nobel Prize Michael Mann received?

even Wikipedia laughs at you

At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[37][41] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct

Defamation lawsuit[edit]
Attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, and Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[52] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg accused Mann of "deception" and "engaging in data manipulation" and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a "cover-up and whitewash" comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, "except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data." The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as "inappropriate", but a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged that Mann's hockey stick graph was "fraudulent".[53][54]

Mann asked CEI and National Review to remove the allegations and apologize, or he would take action.[52] The CEI published further insults, andNational Review editor Rich Lowry responded in an article headed "Get Lost" with a declaration that, should Mann sue, the discovery process would be used to reveal and publish Mann's emails. Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.[53]

Before the case could go to discovery, CEI and National Review filed a court motion to dismiss it under anti-SLAPP legislation, with the claim that they had merely been using exaggerated language which was acceptable against a public figure. In July 2013 the judge ruled against this motion,[55][56] and when the defendants took this to appeal a new judge also denied their motion to dismiss, in January 2014. The National Reviewchanged its lawyers, and Steyn decided to represent himself in court.[52][57] Journalist Seth Shulman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, welcomed the judge's statement that accusations of fraud "go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable."[58]

The defendants again appealed the decision, and on 11 August 2014 the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press with 26 other organisations filed an amicus brief arguing that the comments at issue were constitutionally protected as opinion.[59][60] Steyn chose to be represented by attorney Daniel J. Kornstein.[61]

 

[Dante]

yep, especially when fraud wins you one like ol Gore did.

Who is AL Gore and why would I care?

 

[Dante]

Goofballs on the web or NASA?

tough choice. I guess I'll go with NASA

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How about that Nobel Prize Michael Mann received?

even Wikipedia laughs at you

At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[37][41] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct

Defamation lawsuit[edit]
Attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, and Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[52] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg accused Mann of "deception" and "engaging in data manipulation" and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a "cover-up and whitewash" comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, "except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data." The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as "inappropriate", but a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged that Mann's hockey stick graph was "fraudulent".[53][54]

Mann asked CEI and National Review to remove the allegations and apologize, or he would take action.[52] The CEI published further insults, andNational Review editor Rich Lowry responded in an article headed "Get Lost" with a declaration that, should Mann sue, the discovery process would be used to reveal and publish Mann's emails. Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.[53]

Before the case could go to discovery, CEI and National Review filed a court motion to dismiss it under anti-SLAPP legislation, with the claim that they had merely been using exaggerated language which was acceptable against a public figure. In July 2013 the judge ruled against this motion,[55][56] and when the defendants took this to appeal a new judge also denied their motion to dismiss, in January 2014. The National Reviewchanged its lawyers, and Steyn decided to represent himself in court.[52][57] Journalist Seth Shulman, at the Union of Concerned Scientists, welcomed the judge's statement that accusations of fraud "go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable."[58]

The defendants again appealed the decision, and on 11 August 2014 the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press with 26 other organisations filed an amicus brief arguing that the comments at issue were constitutionally protected as opinion.[59][60] Steyn chose to be represented by attorney Daniel J. Kornstein.[61]

even Wikipedia laughs at you

Why would Wikipedia laugh at Michael Mann?

 

[Dante]

NASA

 

[IanC]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

 

[IanC]

yep, especially when fraud wins you one like ol Gore did.

Who is AL Gore and why would I care?

Al Gore received an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his film A Inconvenient Truth. He was highly influential ten years ago but know it seems no one wants to acknowledge him anymore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love science. I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.

Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science, and winning accolades for exposing fraud?

Something illogical with your mind

rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science

Like Michael Mann won for 'real' climate science?

 

[SSDD]

The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.

Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

Look at the past few posts you have made Ian...the resemblance between your posts and crick's is remarkable...is that your tactic now? No actual answers to the questions being posed to you...and continued belief in the hypothesis even though it has clearly failed so you attempt public humiliation as if that were valid argument.

CO2 has no effect on temperature...face it...accept it, and move on rather than this incessant belief in the magic...

 

[SSDD]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

Believing the the magic is weaker than your more zealous brethren believe is not skepticism Ian...looking at the fact that the hypothesis has failed...and recognizing that there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data after all the thousands of billions of dollars that have been flushed on the subject and rejecting it outright as flawed and useless is skepticism...you are a believer...not a skeptic and none of those who believe with you that the magic isn't as strong as climate science claims are skeptics either...you are believers who just lack the courage of your convictions.

 

[Crick]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

I think it includes the idea that warming is a threat with which we need to deal.

 

[SSDD]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?

I think it includes the idea that warming is a threat with which we need to deal.

What warming?...these hottest year evah records that are a hundredth of a degree warmer than the previous hottest year evah.....that are entirely the result of data manipulation?....warm is the norm on earth crick...not cool as we are living with now.

 

[Crick]

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

I disagree. If the folks gathered here are any indication, the majority of them believe that CO2 has no effect on temperature and that the observed warming is purely the product of data manipulation by various government agencies. A centrist such as yourself, Ian, is a very rare bird on the side of the table at which you've chosen to sit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.

I disagree. If the folks gathered here are any indication, the majority of them believe that CO2 has no effect on temperature and that the observed warming is purely the product of data manipulation by various government agencies. A centrist such as yourself, Ian, is a very rare bird on the side of the table at which you've chosen to sit.

Until you post the repeatable lab experiments, I'll remain skeptical of the link between temperature and an additional 120ppm of CO2

 

[Crick]

You've told us that before. I don't think anyone minds. Revel in your "skepticism".

 

[jc456]

The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.

Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.

What I'm reading from all of the leftist and others in here is CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air. So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth? Let's put the pedal to the metal here. Explain once and for all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.

Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.

What I'm reading from all of the leftist and others in here is CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air. So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth? Let's put the pedal to the metal here. Explain once and for all.

CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air

Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.

So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth?

Without the Sun adding heat, IR escaping into space would tend to reduce night time temps.

Let's put the pedal to the metal here.

Until you put your brain in gear, you'll make no progress with your pedal.

 

[jc456]

The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.

Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.

What I'm reading from all of the leftist and others in here is CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air. So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth? Let's put the pedal to the metal here. Explain once and for all.

CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air

Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.

So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth?

Without the Sun adding heat, IR escaping into space would tend to reduce night time temps.

Let's put the pedal to the metal here.

Until you put your brain in gear, you'll make no progress with your pedal.

Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.

And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently. so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?

And the pedal is still to the metal.