Why Global Warming is total bullshit 101

[Liability]

And its been happening for the last 14,000 years

Well sure but that's because of those evil rich guys in past civilizations with their fancy cars and carbon spewing factories. Damn those evil ancestors, damn them!

Damn SUV's!

Don't you laugh. Each one of them, even Pebbles, was emitting CO2.

 

[Liability]

You'd lose. Big time too. Which is why I'd love to find a way to Short Global Warming futures

Sure, I'm 'extreme right wing' whatdever that means but I take the time to read the "scientific" literature on the subject and, if you pay attention to what they write, you will see that not only is there not one single lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase does anything alleged, but they manipulate, destroy and distort the raw data.

When they trot out the Vostok ice cores as "proof" of AGW, you see that CO2 LAGS the warming by 800-1000 years. It does not LEAD the warming, it LAGS, it is a byproduct of prior warming

Stop letting the AGW Church do your thinking for you

Stop being intimidated by AGW "Scientists"

Without missing a breath they tell us that CO2 is leaving the oceans in a "Feedback Loop" and then they tell us that CO2 is entering the ocean in historic amounts causing the oceans to turn "Acidic" and the two concepts are mutually exclusive. It can't be both.

The Man behind the AGW Curtain is full of crap.

Frank – What it comes down to is (a) accept the general scientific consensus and form your view in accordance with that of every single national science institution of the developed world (virtually all conclude global warming is likely man-made), or (b) believe in a WORLDWIDE conspiracy, where all of those scientists from different countries (every single one) colludes together to trick the world into thinking a false conclusion.

If you say there’s strong evidence disproving global warming, then why would all of these national institutions COMPLETELY ignore this?

Again, I guess I’m just the type of person who doesn’t buy into grand conspiracy theories. Perhaps we just agree to disagree on this.

I'm not saying that there's no Global Warming, I dispute the notion that mankind is causing is with CO2.

The AGW crowd could easily run side by side test where we have Earth atmosphere in one flask and Earth atmosphere plus 100PPM CO2 in another and they never do. Why? If it's so powerful why can't they show us how it does all these evil things in a lab setting?

They tell us the system is far too complex to replicate in a lab that it's subject to too may other variable and if that's the case then how can they say they've identified an increase in a trace element as the culprit?

A short 14,000 years ago, before recent Global Warming, the land where my house sits in NY was under a mile of ice. I prefer warmer.

All the AGW crowd wants to do is shut down Western civilization. They've convinced us to pay for our own economic suicide

But they are willing to negotiate and moderate the price.

So, they can't be all bad.

 

[Liability]

Back in the 1970s, the great majority of reputable scientific institutions were just sure that we were headed for another ice age. Did you believe them as well?

Anyone remember the April 1977 cover of Time Magazine?

Stupid ass, now you are outright lying. The majority of scientists that were involved in climate studies at that time, by a six to one margin, stated that they thought that global warming would be the coming danger.

And in 1975, the National Academies of Science published a paper in which they stated that the current understanding of climate was too meager for real predictions, but if they had to put numbers on it, that the chance of cooling was about 5%, that of warming, about 95%.

RealClimate: The global cooling myth

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate

I might also add, why do you choose to get your science from Time? Ever hear of peer reviewed scientific journals?

"...the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate"

Did you read what you posted?

Is "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate" a byproduct of Global warming?

Don't overlook the importance of the WELL ESTABLISHED paradoxical EFFECT (hypothesis).

 

[konradv]

Even your brain can be made to react in certain rare instances. CO2 upon entering the oceans is broken down into its constituent parts by the solvent nature of water. Then the C (which is truly remarkable in that it bonds with almost anything, it truly is a magical element, probably is the reason ALL LIFE WE KNOW OF IS BASED ON IT) and then causes the oceans to turn "acidic". Of course they will nevel become alkaline as there isn't enough C on the planet to accomplish that little trick. But hey, that's science again and we know the religious fanatics don't do science.

The above makes no sense at all.

 

[wirebender]

The above makes no sense at all.

Of course it makes no sense to you konradv. You lack the scientific knowledge base to be able to understand the chemical processes he is describing. Hell, on the other thread you just named the law of conservation of energy as your justification for believing that CO2 is somehow increasing energy when that claim is in direct opposition to the law of conservation of energy.

None of the science makes any sense to you because you lack the base knowledge to understand it. Your position is a product of your political leanings, not any actual scientific knowledge or understanding of the science. You are wrong on so many levels scientifically that there really is no place to start with you.

 

[konradv]

The above makes no sense at all.

Of course it makes no sense to you konradv. You lack the scientific knowledge base to be able to understand the chemical processes he is describing. Hell, on the other thread you just named the law of conservation of energy as your justification for believing that CO2 is somehow increasing energy when that claim is in direct opposition to the law of conservation of energy.

None of the science makes any sense to you because you lack the base knowledge to understand it. Your position is a product of your political leanings, not any actual scientific knowledge or understanding of the science. You are wrong on so many levels scientifically that there really is no place to start with you.

If Conservaton of Energy isn't important, what happens to photons scattered back towards earth? I'd put my science knowledge against yours anyday. Weatwall's description is one only you would understand, but anyone with any real scientific knowledge realizes it's gobble-de-gook!

 

[zonly1]

The world is warming. From the recession, worldwide, of the glaciers, to the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the melting, by the giga-ton, of the continetal ice sheets, we are observing it on every continent.

CO2, CH4, NOx, and many industrial gases with no natural analogs are being put into the atmosphere at a rate that exceeds even the periods where natural GHGs caused extinction events. Literally, we are changing the composition of our atmosphere. And we have now entered the period of consequences.

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change: Scientific American

More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate models, are now a matter of observation. Part 1 of a three-part series

And you can never show us how a 100PPM increase causes it because the system is far too complex

pavlov's dog = oldrock whatever it's barking ad naus

 

[zonly1]

The above makes no sense at all.

Of course it makes no sense to you konradv. You lack the scientific knowledge base to be able to understand the chemical processes he is describing. Hell, on the other thread you just named the law of conservation of energy as your justification for believing that CO2 is somehow increasing energy when that claim is in direct opposition to the law of conservation of energy.

None of the science makes any sense to you because you lack the base knowledge to understand it. Your position is a product of your political leanings, not any actual scientific knowledge or understanding of the science. You are wrong on so many levels scientifically that there really is no place to start with you.

If Conservaton of Energy isn't important, what happens to photons scattered back towards earth? I'd put my science knowledge against yours anyday. Weatwall's description is one only you would understand, but anyone with any real scientific knowledge realizes it's gobble-de-gook!

wha....does anywhere in your description notice that the density of a column of air isn't linear . just figure i throw my two cents in like you have

 

[wirebender]

If Conservaton of Energy isn't important, what happens to photons scattered back towards earth? I'd put my science knowledge against yours anyday. Weatwall's description is one only you would understand, but anyone with any real scientific knowledge realizes it's gobble-de-gook!

'
I am laughing in your face konradv. You are living in a fantasy world completely disconnected from reality. We have already tested our respective scientific knowledge and you demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you can't even do the most basic math associated with thermodynamics.

Now you are showing us all that you don't know what the law of conservation of energy means. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Do you get that? You have x amount of energy coming into a system and that is it. You can't somehow recycle that energy back into the system and realize an increase. You can't reflect it back and realize an increase. You can do nothing to increase the amount of energy other than boost the power of your energy source.

Here is the earth energy budget upon which climate pseudoscience is based.

Look at the left side of the graphic. See the yellow bar labeled incoming solar radiation? See the 161 down at the bottom of the bar? That means that according to KT 161 watts per square meter of solar radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Now look at the two flesh toned bars over on the right side of the graphic. the first says that the earth is radiating 396 watts per square meter back into the atmosphere. Do you not see a problem there? Absorbing 161 watts per square meter; radiating 396 watts per square meter. Where did the additional 235 watts per square meter come from? It certainly didn't come from the only energy source.

According to climate pseudoscience, it was recycled by the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth to the tune of 333 watts per square meter. According to climate pseudoscience, the surface of the earth is receiving more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it receives from the sun.

Now according to you, CO2 can, at best reflect half of the energy it absorbs back to the surface of the earth. Of course, it can't reflect any back to the surface of the earth as that would be both a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that energy can't flow from a cooler object (the sky) to a warmer object (the earth) but it would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy as it would increase the total amount of energy being absorbed by the earth above that which it is absorbing from its only energy source, the sun.

Put your scientific knowledge against mine indeed. What a laugh. You apparently can't even add and subtract much less begin to wade through the actual math of physics. You want to show me where that extra energy comes from and describe the law of physics that supports and predicts the claim?

And westwall's description is spot on. You would know it if you had taken even the most basic high school chemistry which clearly you did not. Of course it makes no sense to someone who is undeucated because you can't even begin to grasp what a chemical reaciton looks like and what the ramifications of the aftermath of the reaction are. You are operating entirely on faith konradv; no actual scientific knowledge at all.

Haven't you noticed that even luke warmers like ian aren't onboard with the claims of climate pseudoscience? He has fabricated his own personal mechanism by which CO2 can cause an increase in temperature which is just as flawed as the one you believe but for entirely different reasons.

 

[IanC]

Svensmark (sp?) has been investigating solar magnetic effects for the last 10 or 20 years and has been underfunded and ignored. when CERN announced their CLOUD results they couldnt even have the decency to recognize his contributions.

I am not saying that the solar magnetic theory is totally correct or even the overwhelming effect in climate. but it is easily just as correlated to climate as CO2 theory and if funding and public fashion had gotten behind it rather than CO2 we would have a totally different view of global warming now. of course it would be difficult to blame the Sun's behaviour on mankind and therefore most people wouldnt give a shit.

I know that a luke warmer like yourself is probably not interested, but the DIVINER data has further bolstered the work done by N&Z and pretty much conclusively proves that the flawed version of the SB equations ( which I have pointed out repeatedly) used by warmists and luke warmers alike is little more than a very elementary misunderstanding of basic physics.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by warmists or luke warmers and CO2 is no where near the driver's seat with regard to the ATE described and demonstrated by N&Z. If you want to explain the temperature of the earth, you need not look much further than the ideal gas laws and the incoming solar radiation. Atmospheric composition is of little consequence.

missed that one.

personally if I was to back a flaky theory it would be Miskolczi's optical thickness theory. it has that natural beauty that so often goes along with being true. I look forward to N&Z's paper coming out, although I fear it may be troubled by circular reasoning and begging the question.

 

[wirebender]

missed that one.

personally if I was to back a flaky theory it would be Miskolczi's optical thickness theory. it has that natural beauty that so often goes along with being true. I look forward to N&Z's paper coming out, although I fear it may be troubled by circular reasoning and begging the question.

Obviously you haven't been keeping up with the discussion regarding N&Zs findings. The DIVINER data, pretty much proves N&Z's hypothesis and proves absolutely that the version of the SB equations used by climate pseudoscience for the purpose of explaining earth's temperature is flawed beyond redemption whether N&Z's research pans out or not. As to how much stock I might place in your personal choice of theories, I am afraid that I wouldn't put any in your opinion at all. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the physics and are unable to see it. Even though there are no data to support your belief, you cling to it as if it were a life raft and you were a drounding man.

Of course there is little chance that their work won't pan out. It is supported by the laws of physics and its predictions are dead on with the observed data. I know that you warmist types have little respect for predictions that actually mesh with observations, but alas, that is what good science is all about.

Still waiting for you to describe a single experiment that might show that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't mean precisely what it says.

 

[IanC]

If Conservaton of Energy isn't important, what happens to photons scattered back towards earth? I'd put my science knowledge against yours anyday. Weatwall's description is one only you would understand, but anyone with any real scientific knowledge realizes it's gobble-de-gook!

'
I am laughing in your face konradv. You are living in a fantasy world completely disconnected from reality. We have already tested our respective scientific knowledge and you demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you can't even do the most basic math associated with thermodynamics.

Now you are showing us all that you don't know what the law of conservation of energy means. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Do you get that? You have x amount of energy coming into a system and that is it. You can't somehow recycle that energy back into the system and realize an increase. You can't reflect it back and realize an increase. You can do nothing to increase the amount of energy other than boost the power of your energy source.

Here is the earth energy budget upon which climate pseudoscience is based.

Look at the left side of the graphic. See the yellow bar labeled incoming solar radiation? See the 161 down at the bottom of the bar? That means that according to KT 161 watts per square meter of solar radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Now look at the two flesh toned bars over on the right side of the graphic. the first says that the earth is radiating 396 watts per square meter back into the atmosphere. Do you not see a problem there? Absorbing 161 watts per square meter; radiating 396 watts per square meter. Where did the additional 235 watts per square meter come from? It certainly didn't come from the only energy source.

According to climate pseudoscience, it was recycled by the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth to the tune of 333 watts per square meter. According to climate pseudoscience, the surface of the earth is receiving more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it receives from the sun.

Now according to you, CO2 can, at best reflect half of the energy it absorbs back to the surface of the earth. Of course, it can't reflect any back to the surface of the earth as that would be both a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that energy can't flow from a cooler object (the sky) to a warmer object (the earth) but it would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy as it would increase the total amount of energy being absorbed by the earth above that which it is absorbing from its only energy source, the sun.

Put your scientific knowledge against mine indeed. What a laugh. You apparently can't even add and subtract much less begin to wade through the actual math of physics. You want to show me where that extra energy comes from and describe the law of physics that supports and predicts the claim?

there is no doubt that diagraming both the upwards radiation from the earth and the downwards radiation from the atmosphere is misleading. they should only put in the net flow. would you be happier if only showed 63W being radiated upwards rather than (396-333)?

a simple question for you wirebender. if you measure the flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different, do you just count the net flow? you used to claim that the warmer one radiated at full blackbody value while the cooler one didnt radiate at all, which easily leads to massive contradiction.

 

[IanC]

missed that one.

personally if I was to back a flaky theory it would be Miskolczi's optical thickness theory. it has that natural beauty that so often goes along with being true. I look forward to N&Z's paper coming out, although I fear it may be troubled by circular reasoning and begging the question.

Obviously you haven't been keeping up with the discussion regarding N&Zs findings. The DIVINER data, pretty much proves N&Z's hypothesis and proves absolutely that the version of the SB equations used by climate pseudoscience for the purpose of explaining earth's temperature is flawed beyond redemption whether N&Z's research pans out or not. As to how much stock I might place in your personal choice of theories, I am afraid that I wouldn't put any in your opinion at all. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the physics and are unable to see it. Even though there are no data to support your belief, you cling to it as if it were a life raft and you were a drounding man.

Of course there is little chance that their work won't pan out. It is supported by the laws of physics and its predictions are dead on with the observed data. I know that you warmist types have little respect for predictions that actually mesh with observations, but alas, that is what good science is all about.

Still waiting for you to describe a single experiment that might show that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't mean precisely what it says.

I have no problems with the SLoT.

I am still waiting for you to describe where and how the downward IR photons from CO2 disappear.

 

[IanC]

why dont you link us up with the latest on N&Z? I havent really seen much lately. is Tallbloke still covering it?

 

[wirebender]

there is no doubt that diagraming both the upwards radiation from the earth and the downwards radiation from the atmosphere is misleading. they should only put in the net flow. would you be happier if only showed 63W being radiated upwards rather than (396-333)?

The only downward flow of radiation is from the sun. I have given you a simple experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for less than 40 dollars that will prove beyond any resonable doubt that there is no backradiation.....period. When you can so easily prove to yourself that backradion doesn't exist, one must wonder why you still believe. Because roy spencer says so?

a simple question for you wirebender. if you measure the flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different, do you just count the net flow? you used to claim that the warmer one radiated at full blackbody value while the cooler one didnt radiate at all, which easily leads to massive contradiction.

There is no flow of radiation between two blocks that are 10C different. There is no flow of radiation between blocks that are 0.0000000000000000001 C different. There is a one way flow from the warmer block to the cooler. Simple as that. The claim that the 2nd law is only a statistical formula is just one more attempt to get around physical laws in order to promote a piss poor hypothesis when no empirical evidence can be found for support. Refer to the actual SB equation, instead of the corrupted one currently in use by climate science.

 

[wirebender]

I am still waiting for you to describe where and how the downward IR photons from CO2 disappear.

I already have. Claiming that I haven't does nothing more than bring your inherent dishonesty into high relief. You miss the boat when you fail to grasp wave/particle duality.

By the way, even wave particle duality is beginning to lose traction. It only existed because it was thought that particles were necessary to explain the photoelectric effect. Until recently wave theory adequately described all situations except the photoelectric effect. Recent experimentation has adequately explained even the photoelectric effect via wave theory.

Don't be too surprised if at some time in the forseeable future, the very existence of photons comes into serious question. You do realize don't you that photons are little more than an ad hoc construct invented to explain the photoelectric effect.

 

[wirebender]

why dont you link us up with the latest on N&Z? I havent really seen much lately. is Tallbloke still covering it?

Among others. The latest there was regarding the DIVINER data. You know where to find it if you are intersted.

 

[Old Rocks]

DIVINER data

LRO Diviner Lunar Radiometer: Science

 

[konradv]

Of course it makes no sense to you konradv. You lack the scientific knowledge base to be able to understand the chemical processes he is describing. Hell, on the other thread you just named the law of conservation of energy as your justification for believing that CO2 is somehow increasing energy when that claim is in direct opposition to the law of conservation of energy.

None of the science makes any sense to you because you lack the base knowledge to understand it. Your position is a product of your political leanings, not any actual scientific knowledge or understanding of the science. You are wrong on so many levels scientifically that there really is no place to start with you.

If Conservaton of Energy isn't important, what happens to photons scattered back towards earth? I'd put my science knowledge against yours anyday. Weatwall's description is one only you would understand, but anyone with any real scientific knowledge realizes it's gobble-de-gook!

wha....does anywhere in your description notice that the density of a column of air isn't linear . just figure i throw my two cents in like you have

What does that have to do with photons? Seems irrelevant to me, so the valuation of your comment seems about right.

 

[konradv]

I am still waiting for you to describe where and how the downward IR photons from CO2 disappear.

I already have. Claiming that I haven't does nothing more than bring your inherent dishonesty into high relief. You miss the boat when you fail to grasp wave/particle duality.

By the way, even wave particle duality is beginning to lose traction. It only existed because it was thought that particles were necessary to explain the photoelectric effect. Until recently wave theory adequately described all situations except the photoelectric effect. Recent experimentation has adequately explained even the photoelectric effect via wave theory.

Don't be too surprised if at some time in the forseeable future, the very existence of photons comes into serious question. You do realize don't you that photons are little more than an ad hoc construct invented to explain the photoelectric effect.

So what? When I see the moon during the day, photons seem to be doing their job, even though you say it should be impossible!