# Evidence supporting AGW



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

*Detection vs Attribution *

Detection and attribution of climate signals, as well as its common-sense meaning, has a more precise definition within the climate change literature, as expressed by the IPCC.[17]

Detection of a signal requires demonstrating that an observed change is statistically significantly different from that which can be explained by natural internal variability.

Attribution requires demonstrating that a signal is:

unlikely to be due entirely to internal variability;
consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing
not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.

Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier to show than attribution. *Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible.* Therefore, attribution, as described above, can only be done within some margin of error. For example, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report says "it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750," where "extremely likely" indicates a probability greater than 95%.[1]


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

*"Fingerprint" Studies*

Finally, there is extensive statistical evidence from so-called "fingerprint" studies. Each factor that affects climate produces a unique pattern of climate response, much as each person has a unique fingerprint. Fingerprint studies exploit these unique signatures, and allow detailed comparisons of modelled and observed climate change patterns. Scientists rely on such studies to attribute observed changes in climate to a particular cause or set of causes. In the real world, the climate changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution are due to a complex mixture of human and natural causes. The importance of each individual influence in this mixture changes over time. Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints. Therefore, climate models are used to study how individual factors affect climate. For example, a single factor (like greenhouse gases) or a set of factors can be varied, and the response of the modelled climate system to these individual or combined changes can thus be studied.[9]

For example, when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years (see graph, opposite). The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.[9]

Another fingerprint of human effects on climate has been identified by looking at a slice through the layers of the atmosphere, and studying the pattern of temperature changes from the surface up through the stratosphere (see the section on solar activity). The earliest fingerprint work focused on changes in surface and atmospheric temperature. Scientists then applied fingerprint methods to a whole range of climate variables, identifying human-caused climate signals in the heat content of the oceans, the height of the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, which has shifted upward by hundreds of feet in recent decades), the geographical patterns of precipitation, drought, surface pressure, and the runoff from major river basins.[9]

Studies published after the appearance of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 have also found human fingerprints in the increased levels of atmospheric moisture (both close to the surface and over the full extent of the atmosphere), in the decline of Arctic sea ice extent, and in the patterns of changes in Arctic and Antarctic surface temperatures.[9]

The message from this entire body of work is that the climate system is telling a consistent story of increasingly dominant human influence - the changes in temperature, ice extent, moisture, and circulation patterns fit together in a physically consistent way, like pieces in a complex puzzle.[9]

Increasingly, this type of fingerprint work is shifting its emphasis. As noted, clear and compelling scientific evidence supports the case for a pronounced human influence on global climate. Much of the recent attention is now on climate changes at continental and regional scales, and on variables that can have large impacts on societies. For example, scientists have established causal links between human activities and the changes in snowpack, maximum and minimum (diurnal) temperature, and the seasonal timing of runoff over mountainous regions of the western United States. Human activity is likely to have made a substantial contribution to ocean surface temperature changes in hurricane formation regions. Researchers are also looking beyond the physical climate system, and are beginning to tie changes in the distribution and seasonal behaviour of plant and animal species to human-caused changes in temperature and precipitation.[9]

For over a decade, one aspect of the climate change story seemed to show a significant difference between models and observations. In the tropics, all models predicted that with a rise in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would be expected to warm more rapidly than the surface. Observations from weather balloons, satellites, and surface thermometers seemed to show the opposite behaviour (more rapid warming of the surface than the troposphere). This issue was a stumbling block in understanding the causes of climate change. It is now largely resolved. Research showed that there were large uncertainties in the satellite and weather balloon data. When uncertainties in models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational data sets (with better treatment of known problems) are in agreement with climate model results.[9]

This does not mean, however, that all remaining differences between models and observations have been resolved. The observed changes in some climate variables, such as Arctic sea ice, some aspects of precipitation, and patterns of surface pressure, appear to be proceeding much more rapidly than models have projected. The reasons for these differences are not well understood. Nevertheless, the bottom-line conclusion from climate fingerprinting is that most of the observed changes studied to date are consistent with each other, and are also consistent with our scientific understanding of how the climate system would be expected to respond to the increase in heat-trapping gases resulting from human activities.[9]


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2014)

Climate model, climate model, climate model, climate model.  Ever notice how you science deniers always confuse climate models with actual data?  

Have you further noticed that when the actual data refutes your models you falsify the data to support your models?

And you claim to understand science


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Detection vs Attribution *
> 
> Detection and attribution of climate signals, as well as its common-sense meaning, has a more precise definition within the climate change literature, as expressed by the IPCC.[17]
> 
> ...



So.....you have no proof.  tsk, tsk, and yet you believe in mumbo jumbo when the data doesn't support the liars.  Now that is denying.

That is an epic fail!


----------



## Kosh (Jun 27, 2014)

The AGW cult continues to prove that the true deniers are them as they deny real science.


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

This set of graphs shows the estimated contribution of various natural and human factors to changes in global mean temperature between 1889-2006.[41] Estimated contributions are based on multivariate analysis rather than model simulations.[42] The graphs show that human influence on climate has eclipsed the magnitude of natural temperature changes over the past 120 years.[43] Natural influences on temperature-El Niño, solar variability, and volcanic aerosols-have varied approximately plus and minus 0.2 °C (0.4 °F), (averaging to about zero), while human influences have contributed roughly 0.8 °C (1 °F) of warming since 1889.[43]






Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis).[46] According to Hansen et al. (2012),[46] the distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of global warming, meaning that unusually hot summers have become more common. This is analogous to the rolling of a dice: cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side.[46]

*Detection and attribution studies*

In 1996, in a paper in Nature titled "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", Benjamin D. Santer et al. wrote: "The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability."
A 2002 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research says "Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half of the century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximately one third of the warming."[58][59]
A 2005 review of detection and attribution studies by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group[60] found that "natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 yr can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases. Thus, the recent research supports and strengthens the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that 'most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.'"
Barnett and colleagues (2005) say that the observed warming of the oceans "cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models," concluding that "it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences"[61]
Two papers in the journal Science in August 2005[62][63] resolve the problem, evident at the time of the TAR, of tropospheric temperature trends (see also the section on "fingerprint" studies) . The UAH version of the record contained errors, and there is evidence of spurious cooling trends in the radiosonde record, particularly in the tropics. See satellite temperature measurements for details; and the 2006 US CCSP report.[64]
Multiple independent reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years confirm that the late 20th century is probably the warmest period in that time (see the preceding section -details on attribution).


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

westwall said:


> Climate model, climate model, climate model, climate model.  Ever notice how you science deniers always confuse climate models with actual data?



Climate model, climate model, climate model.  Ever notice how science deniers pull out this mantra every time they hear the term and think they can reject all model work without providing the slightest hint of evidence that anything is wrong with the models under question?   Besides, if you'll actually take the time to read the articles, you'll find a great deal of real measurements being discussed.  



westwall said:


> Have you further noticed that when the actual data refutes your models you falsify the data to support your models?



No, we haven't.  Because it has not.  You really ought to read the article before making asinine pronouncements like this.



westwall said:


> And you claim to understand science



I obviously understand it a damn sight better than you.


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

*Reviews of scientific opinion*

An essay in Science surveyed 928 abstracts related to climate change, and concluded that most journal reports accepted the consensus.[65] This is discussed further in scientific opinion on climate change.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that among a pool of roughly 1,000 researchers who work directly on climate issues and publish the most frequently on the subject, 97% agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening.[66]

A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences.[67] The 489 survey respondents-representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards - work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.[67] The study found that 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century.[67] Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring."[67] Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[67]

As described above, a small minority of scientists do disagree with the consensus: see list of scientists opposing global warming consensus. For example Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen[68] say that there is insufficient proof for anthropogenic attribution. Generally this position requires new physical mechanisms to explain the observed warming.[69]
******************************************
Said mechanisms still sorely lacking.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> This set of graphs shows the estimated contribution of various natural and human factors to changes in global mean temperature between 1889-2006.[41] Estimated contributions are based on multivariate analysis rather than model simulations.[42] The graphs show that human influence on climate has eclipsed the magnitude of natural temperature changes over the past 120 years.[43] Natural influences on temperature-El Niño, solar variability, and volcanic aerosols-have varied approximately plus and minus 0.2 °C (0.4 °F), (averaging to about zero), while human influences have contributed roughly 0.8 °C (1 °F) of warming since 1889.[43]
> 
> 
> 
> ...








They're doing multivariate analysis of COMPUTER MODELS!  Once again you confound facts with models.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 27, 2014)

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has  cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the   United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with  solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2014)

I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?








Oh, I suspect none of them.  They'll just move on to the next con job.  That's what they do.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2014)

Many of them seem to have bet all their emotional chips on this one...the level of shrillness, and desperation has gone way beyond any of the past envirowacko causes of the past half a century or so.


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

This was the post immediately above the exclamation, "climate model, climate model, climate model"



Crick said:


> *Detection and attribution studies*
> 
> In 1996, in a paper in Nature titled "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", Benjamin D. Santer et al. wrote: "*The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 * [*measurements*] are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability."
> A 2002 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research says "Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half of the century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximately one third of the warming."[58][59]
> ...


----------



## Kosh (Jun 27, 2014)

Before the Little Ice Age, research studies have shown that there were two major warming periods; the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Holocene Optimum when it was 1.5  to nearly 3 degrees C warmer than it is today. The Vikings colonized Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum when they could actually grow crops on Greenland. By the 1400s Greenland had become so cold that these colonies had to be abandoned


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Many of them seem to have bet all their emotional chips on this one...the level of shrillness, and desperation has gone way beyond any of the past envirowacko causes of the past half a century or so.



The level of shrillness?  The only thing I've put up here so far is extracts from Wikipedia articles.  You're the ones with all the personal insults.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Many of them seem to have bet all their emotional chips on this one...the level of shrillness, and desperation has gone way beyond any of the past envirowacko causes of the past half a century or so.
> ...


Once again the conversation goes right over your head. Your response does bolster my point though. ...thanks.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2014)

Deniers, enjoy your descent into senility and substance abuse, which we can all see is well underway.

And while you're drooling on to your bibs, the science will be leaving you ever farther behind. We can't even see you in the rear view mirror any longer.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 28, 2014)

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The total denier input into this thread consists of nothing but insults and unsupported opinion.  My input has consisted entirely of discussions of peer reviewed scientific studies.  Where do you see "shrillness and desperation" in my posts?

Asshole.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And yet not one link to any datasets with source code that proves your religion.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And yet not one link to any datasets with source code that proves your religion.



I have already provided you with links to numerous climate datasets and source code to numerous GCMs.  This statement of yours is a 

*BALD-FACED LIE*​


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

Where's the lab work?

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, tell them you have computer models and CONSENSUS and call them DENIERS!!!! -- paraphrasing Dershowitz


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Here you go Koosh

and Frank, do go fuck yourself.




Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate. Notice that zero scientific evidence exists to support the AGW religion.
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Current CO2 levels are unprecedented in many hundreds of thousands of years - certainly in all of human history.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Change in TSI has been wholly inadequate as a cause for the observed warming.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

The planet's ice is disappearing.  And with it, our albedo is getting less and less - we will absorb more and more and more solar energy.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

According to the United States National Research Council,

[T]here is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * *Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.*[49]


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Claims that current temperatures were commonplace during the Holocene are simply not supported by the evidence.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

*Antarctica cooling*
Main article: Antarctica cooling controversy





Antarctic Skin (the roughly top millimeter of land, sea, snow, or ice) Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors; note that they do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends.

There has been a public dispute regarding the apparent contradiction in the observed behavior of Antarctica, as opposed to the global rise in temperatures measured elsewhere in the world. This became part of the public debate in the global warming controversy, particularly between advocacy groups of both sides in the public arena, as well as the popular media.

*In contrast to the popular press, there is no evidence of a corresponding controversy in the scientific community.* Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed. A study released in 2009, combined historical weather station data with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend. One of the paper's authors stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth&#8217;s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases." According to 2011 paper by Ding, et al., "The Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in the past 30 years."


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)




----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

While the correlation between atmospheric increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 -- The higher the rs value the greater the correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11 and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity  reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation, explained below.






Research done primarily at the  Danish National Space Center has show there is a very high correlation between incoming solar radiation and cloud formation. Cosmic radiation originates from exploding super novae. When the cosmic radiation enter the earth's atmosphere, they excite water vapor molecules, causing them to clump together (condense) into tiny water droplets which form low elevation clouds. These clouds then reflect the solar radiation back into space instead of warming the earth. This causes the earth to cool.  When the  sun becomes more active more solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity dramatically increase the solar winds which push back cosmic radiation thereby preventing the cosmic radiation from reaching the earth's atmosphere and creating more clouds. Since there is less cloud formation, more solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and the earth warms. It is estimated that this phenomenon can account for 85 percent of the warming that occurred in the twentieth century.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Somebody come get all excited about that 60% increase in Arctic ice extents!  Please!


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

Still the AGW religion does not hold up when you use real science.

No matter how much the AGW cult tries to post and prove their religion using fake data and made up charts based on the AGW religious scribes.

The true deniers of science are the AGW cult and this thread (as well as all their posts) prove that!


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

Although global warming models show that both polar regions should warming with CO2-caused global warming, the various stations maintained in Antarctica show Antarctica to be cooling over the past two decades. One research paper in 2008 allegedly showing Antarctica to be warming is being   accepted with skepticism by the scientific community, even by those who still maintain that global warming is caused by human activity. The main criticism centers on the use of highly questionable equations to fill in temperature data between the widely scattered weather stations in Antarctica. It appears to many to be a repeat of the infamous  hockey stick curve fiasco  of the early 2000s.   
The only place Antarctica has shown true warming is along Western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. This is where pictures of massive ice chucks breaking off of Antarctica come from that are shown on the news every couple of years. Research published in 2007-2008 found that this warming is NOT do to global warming, but to volcanic activity under the ocean and ice flows.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period. The polar bears did just fine during those warmer periods.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore's video Inconvenient Truth both separate earth's long term global CO2 and temperature to give the appearance that there is a high correlation between CO2 and Temperature over the past 450,000 to 650,000 years. By doing so, it leads to the conclusion that CO2 changes have historically caused temperature changes. What is not obvious, however, until the graphs are superimposed is that temperature changes always precedes CO2 changes, indicating that temperature causes CO2 to change. As the earth warms, the oceans gradually warm. Warm water holds less carbon dioxide, so the carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean diffuses into the atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years for this to happen. That is why there is a lag of 600 to 1200 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide responds to earth's warming.  The reverse is true when earth cools. Gradually the oceans cool, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves back into the ocean.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Retreats Rapidly*

After a greater-than-average snow extent in February, snow extent over the Northern Hemisphere shrank rapidly in March, April and May. The Rutgers University Global Snow Lab measured the lowest April snow extent in Eurasia in the 48-year data record.  In May, snow rapidly retreated in the central Canadian Provinces in North America, and Central Asia (Kazakhstan and northwestern China), where extensive areas had above-average snow cover in February.

Snow cover in central Europe and the desert southwest of the United States were persistently below average throughout the winter and spring of 2013 to 2014. In the United States, this underscores the severe drought in the far southwest and Sierra Nevada. The rapid late spring loss in the Northern Hemisphere continues a decade-long trend toward very low snow cover early in the Arctic sea ice melt season. This resulted in warmer air over darker snow-free areas, which leads to warm air advection over the sea ice

in regions where the snow cover is anomalously low, and dry conditions in the northern boreal forests. These conditions cause increased wildfire activity and soot deposition on the sea ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet surface. High concentrations of soot on the Greenland snow pack and sea ice can contribute to ice retreat and melt.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> *Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Retreats Rapidly*
> 
> ...



Sorry since this is not "Global" it can not be used as evidence based on the posting from the AGW religious nuts like yourself.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Although global warming models show that both polar regions should warming with CO2-caused global warming, the various stations maintained in Antarctica show Antarctica to be cooling over the past two decades. One research paper in 2008 allegedly showing Antarctica to be warming is being   accepted with skepticism by the scientific community, even by those who still maintain that global warming is caused by human activity. The main criticism centers on the use of highly questionable equations to fill in temperature data between the widely scattered weather stations in Antarctica. It appears to many to be a repeat of the infamous  hockey stick curve fiasco  of the early 2000s.
> The only place Antarctica has shown true warming is along Western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. This is where pictures of massive ice chucks breaking off of Antarctica come from that are shown on the news every couple of years. Research published in 2007-2008 found that this warming is NOT do to global warming, but to volcanic activity under the ocean and ice flows.



I'd like to know where you got this graphic and the source of the badly spelled information contained in your text.  As noted in Wikipedia's "Global Warming Controversy", in the "Antarctic Cooling" section, the mass media widely reported that Antarctica had been found to be cooling.  Among scientists actually studying the Antarctic, no such opinion existed. 

ACCOUNTS IN THE POPULAR PRESS

Davidson, Keay (4 February 2002). "Media goofed on Antarctic data / Global warming interpretation irks scientists". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Peter N. Spotts (18 January 2002). "Guess what? Antarctica's getting colder, not warmer". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Chang, Kenneth (3 May 2002). "Ozone Hole Is Now Seen as a Cause for Antarctic Cooling". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

 "America Reacts To Speech Debunking Media Global Warming Alarmism". U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 28 September 2006. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Bijal P. Trivedi (25 January 2002). "Antarctica Gives Mixed Signals on Warming". National Geographic. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Derbyshire, David (14 January 2002). "Antarctic cools in warmer world". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 13 April 2013.

"Scientific winds blow hot and cold in Antarctica". CNN. 25 January 2002. Archived from the original on 9 June 2012. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Chang, Kenneth (2 April 2002). "The Melting (Freezing) of Antarctica; Deciphering Contradictory Climate Patterns Is Largely a Matter of Ice". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

*Wikipedia / Global Warming Controversy / Antarctica Cooling*

In contrast to the popular press, *there is no evidence of a corresponding controversy in the scientific community. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming.* The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed.

 A study released in 2009, combined historical weather station data with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and *these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend*. One of the paper's authors stated *"We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth&#8217;s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."* According to 2011 paper by Ding, et al., *"The Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in the past 30 years."*

This controversy *began with the misinterpretation of the results of a 2002 paper by Doran et al*., which found that "Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn." Later the *controversy was popularized by Michael Crichton*'s 2004 fiction novel State of Fear, who advocated skepticism in global warming. This novel has a docudrama plot based upon the idea that there is a deliberately alarmist conspiracy behind global warming activism. One of the characters argues that "data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs... but the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker." As a basis for this plot twist, *Crichton cited the peer reviewed scientific article by Doran*, et al. *Peter Doran, the lead author of the paper cited by Crichton, stated that "... our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'... Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent."*

Chapman WL, Walsh JE (2007). "A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures". Journal of Climate 20 (16): 4096&#8211;4117. Bibcode:2007JCli...20.4096C. doi:10.1175/JCLI4236.1.

Kenneth Chang (21 January 2009). "Warming in Antarctica Looks Certain". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 24 January 2009. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

Ding, Qinghua; Eric J. Steig, David S. Battisti & Marcel Küttel (10 April 2011). "Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming". Nature Geoscience 4 (6): 398&#8211;403. Bibcode:2011NatGe...4..398D. doi:10.1038/ngeo1129. Retrieved 12 January 2012.

Doran PT, Priscu JC, Lyons WB et al. (January 2002). "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response". Nature 415 (6871): 517&#8211;20. doi:10.1038/nature710. PMID 11793010. Archived from the original on 11 December 2004.

Doran et al. (13 January 2002). "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response". University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved 13 April 2013. PDF version: advance online publication Letters to Science (archived original)

Crichton, Michael (2004). State of Fear. HarperCollins, New York. p. 109. ISBN 0-06-621413-0. First Edition

Michael Crichton (25 January 2005). "The Case for Skepticism in Global Warming". Michael Crichton The official site. Retrieved 13 April 2013. Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (restored from archived copy)

Michael Crichton (28 September 2005). "Statement of Michael Crichton, M.D. &#8211; The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making". U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Retrieved 13 April 2013. Testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C.

Peter Doran (27 July 2006). "Cold, Hard Facts". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 August 2013.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Although global warming models show that both polar regions should warming with CO2-caused global warming, the various stations maintained in Antarctica show Antarctica to be cooling over the past two decades. One research paper in 2008 allegedly showing Antarctica to be warming is being   accepted with skepticism by the scientific community, even by those who still maintain that global warming is caused by human activity. The main criticism centers on the use of highly questionable equations to fill in temperature data between the widely scattered weather stations in Antarctica. It appears to many to be a repeat of the infamous  hockey stick curve fiasco  of the early 2000s.
> ...



So I get spam from far left/AGW scripture.

More proof that the AGW cult does not care about real and actual science. It is about pushing their religious beliefs on others via government and far left media.

Go figure:

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area






Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area | Watts Up With That?


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period. The polar bears did just fine during those warmer periods.



The URL at the bottom of your graphic does not work.  What is the source of those data?

As I have repeatedly told you, the data presented in that graph are NOT global.  They are temperature data from the Vostok station in Antarctica.  The author's of that graph, in labeling it "Earth's Temperature", have lied.  Global paleo-temperature data for the Holocene look like this:


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> So I get spam from far left/AGW scripture.
> 
> More proof that the AGW cult does not care about real and actual science. It is about pushing their religious beliefs on others via government and far left media.



So you fail to address any of the shortcomings pointed out in your material.  For one, I asked you what the source of that data might be and you have not answered.



Kosh said:


> Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area



Followed by an attempt to change the subject.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore's video Inconvenient Truth both separate earth's long term global CO2 and temperature to give the appearance that there is a high correlation between CO2 and Temperature over the past 450,000 to 650,000 years. By doing so, it leads to the conclusion that CO2 changes have historically caused temperature changes. What is not obvious, however, until the graphs are superimposed is that temperature changes always precedes CO2 changes, indicating that temperature causes CO2 to change.


 
Your argument is logically specious (crap).  The fact that increasing temperatures will bring CO2 out of solution HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared and will cause the Earth to warm.  I repeat: HAS NO BEARING.



Kosh said:


> As the earth warms, the oceans gradually warm. Warm water holds less carbon dioxide, so the carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean diffuses into the atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years for this to happen. That is why there is a lag of 600 to 1200 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide responds to earth's warming.  The reverse is true when earth cools. Gradually the oceans cool, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves back into the ocean.



That is correct.  So, as the Earth warms from the greenhouse warming caused by the CO2 we've released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, more CO2 will come from the ocean - as well as methane from thawing tundra and perhaps from methane clathrates on the ocean bottom.  These are all positive feedback mechanisms that will accelerate the Earth's warming.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> ...



*WRONG*

My data is LABELED "Northern Hemisphere".  That's what they call "honesty".  Your Vostok core data were labeled :"Earth's Temperature".  That's what they call "a lie".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?



It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


>



http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

*The &#8220;Hotspot&#8221; as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming*
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.

*It does not.*

Attribution of anthropogenic origins of the current climatic changes can be tested from many different directions. On of the most clear examples for those with some familiarity with the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere is the issue of stratospheric cooling. If the sun were to suddenly increase its output by 2%, we would rightfully expect the atmosphere as well as the surface to warm up in response. This can be examined, for instance, by looking at the response in a GCM like GISS ModelE:






2% increase in solar forcing (via RealClimate)

Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere.






Doubling of CO2 (via RealClimate)

In the doubled CO2 scenario, there is a pronounced cooling of higher altitudes [the violet stripe across the top of the graph], i.e. the stratosphere, and this feature is entirely absent in the +2% solar scenario.






This stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of increased greenhouse (as opposed to solar) warming. For a more in depth discussion of why the stratosphere cools under enhanced greenhouse warming, see discussions at Skeptical Science and The Science of Doom. In other words, the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a "hot spot" in one and its absence in the other, it's the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), historical forcings were simulated in the Parallel Climate Model, and and the zonal mean temperature responses to each were broken out in separate panels. There was some increase in solar irradiance during the period, which shows up as a modest amount of warming throughout the atmosphere, with some amplification in the upper troposphere (the sort of greenish-yellow and yellow patterns respectively in panel a). As we all know, there was a significant change in GHG forcing during that time, which manifests as surface warming, amplified upper troposphere warming, and stratospheric cooling  (panel c), and the net effect of all forcings was shown (panel f).






Fig 9.1: Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km. (IPCC AR4 WG1)

So far so good. Right? Well, this is actually where things went off the rails.

Climate &#8220;skeptics&#8221; apparently became convinced that the &#8220;hot spot&#8221; in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.

As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong, claiming: 

the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere &#8220;hot-spot&#8221; has not been observed...
This unequivocally incorrect claim was also made in the NIPCC "skeptic" report (Section 3.4), which was signed off on by such supposedly "serious" contrarians as Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer. 

The mistaken belief in &#8220;skeptic&#8221; circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric &#8220;hot spot&#8221;- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

And yet zero scientific evidence has been provided to prove the AGW religion.

Not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, but the AGW faithful keep trying.

However all they do is show that real science in this area is dead.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh, the grownups are trying to talk. Let me wipe your nose, and here's juicebox. Now run along.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Kosh, the grownups are trying to talk. Let me wipe your nose, and here's juicebox. Now run along.



Says the AGW cult member that denies science every chance they get.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

How many times are you going to lie about datasets and model code?  Don't you think that's a little blatant?  Your buddies are likely going "Ooooh, I thought he was an okay guy but I guess I got that wrong".


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

*Independent Evidence Confirms Global Warming in Instrument Record*

Independent Evidence Confirms Global Warming in Instrument Record | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

_A new compilation of temperature records etched into ice cores, old corals, and lake sediment layers reveals a pattern of global warming from 1880 to 1995 comparable to the global warming trend recorded by thermometers. This finding, reported by a team of researchers from NOAA&#8217;s National Climatic Data Center, the University of South Carolina, the University of Colorado, and the University of Bern in Switzerland, resolves some of the uncertainty associated with thermometer records, which can be affected by land use changes, shifts in station locations, variations in instrumentation, and more._  Remainder of article at link


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

*GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE INDICATORS*

NOAA / NCDC

Global Climate Change Indicators | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

*How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?*
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.





_Global annual average temperature measured over land and oceans. Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the 1901-2000 average temperature. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million._


Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

*US Surface Temperature is Also Rising*





_Annual surface temperatures for the contiguous U.S. compared to the 20th Century (1901-2000) average. Calculated from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN version 2). More information: _

Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

*Sea Level is Rising*





_Annual averages of global sea level. Red: sea-level since 1870; Blue: tide gauge data; Black: based on satellite observations. The inset shows global mean sea level rise since 1993 - a period over which sea level rise has accelerated. More information: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise (USGCRP) and Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis_

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

*Global Upper-Ocean Heat Content is Rising*





_Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009_

While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



"Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere."


LOL!

Really?!

But you expect the deep Pacific Ocean to eat the Warming? 

LOL

You're so gullible!


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover  is Retreating





_Average of monthly snow cover extent anomalies over Northern Hemisphere lands (including Greenland) since Nov 1966. Right: Seasonal snow cover extent over Northern Hemisphere lands since winter 1966-67. Calculated from NOAA snow maps. From BAMS State of the Climate in 2009 report_

Northern Hemisphere average annual snow cover has declined in recent decades. This pattern is consistent with warmer global temperatures. Some of the largest declines have been observed in the spring and summer months.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

You'd expect at least one laboratory experiment showing the effects of a Doubling of CO2, right?


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

*Total Glacier Volume is Shrinking*






_Cumulative decline (in cubic miles) in glacier ice worldwide. More information: Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S._

Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water s


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

*GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE INDICATORS*

*How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?*
A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.

*Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate*





_Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change._

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.

*800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations*





_Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. The 2008 observed value is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and projections are based upon future emission scenarios. More information on the data can be found in the Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. report._

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.

*Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased*





_Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978_

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Total Glacier Volume is Shrinking*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Funny thing...they are finding all sorts of remains of forests and ancient human debris as these glaciers shrink showing that it is nothing new and certainly nothing to worry about...unless you are a gibbering hysteric of course.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, *we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm*. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere."
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Really?!



Yes, really.



CrusaderFrank said:


> But you expect the deep Pacific Ocean to eat the Warming?
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're so gullible!



Note the boldened text in your quote from the article.  The surface gets warmed by greenhouse effect heating.  Alterations in tropical wind patterns which rather dramatically affected ENSO cycle timing, subducted the warmed surface waters created by the dramatic rise in temperatures between 1980 and 2000.

Three different studies have now found precisely this effect.  Why do you think believing  this makes me gullible?  It sounds more as if you have absolutely nothing to say on this topic.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Funny thing...they are finding all sorts of remains of forests and ancient human debris as these glaciers shrink showing that it is nothing new and certainly nothing to worry about...unless you are a gibbering hysteric of course.



Please give us some detail here.  What do you think is indicated by these finds?

And did you really want to suggest that you're a "gibbering hysteric"?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thing...they are finding all sorts of remains of forests and ancient human debris as these glaciers shrink showing that it is nothing new and certainly nothing to worry about...unless you are a gibbering hysteric of course.
> ...



What I know, based on these finds is that not so very long ago, those glaciers didn't exist...They probably were little more than ice fields during the Roman warm period.  Then the ice came and life got tough for humans....cold is always worse than warm.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Yes we know the Vostock Ice Cores are DENIERS!!! because they show your God lagging temperature on the increase and decrease


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2014)

westwall said:


> Climate model, climate model, climate model, climate model.  Ever notice how you science deniers always confuse climate models with actual data?
> 
> Have you further noticed that when the actual data refutes your models you falsify the data to support your models?
> 
> ...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Detection vs Attribution *
> ...



You are confused.  That statement clearly says that clearly states the methodoligy by which it was proven.  

Perhaps you don't understand how things are proven. For that matter, learn.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, *we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm*. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere."
> ...



Yes calling a 600,000 year data set a DENIER!!!! because it fails your stupid models is a sure sign of mental stability on your part


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



There was CONSENSUS!!! that the Earth was a Flat plane held up on the back of a Giant Turtle, and that's probably more likely to be correct than your AGW Theory


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yes we know the Vostock Ice Cores are DENIERS!!! because they show your God lagging temperature on the increase and decrease



Wake up Frank.  Stop drinking.  Stop smoking dope.  Stop whacking yourself in the head with a rubber mallet.  Stop doing whatever it is you're doing that's making you SO DUMB.

Your graph labeled Vostok ice core data as global data.  "Earth's Temperature".  That was bullshit Frank.  Surely you can grasp the point there.  Can't you Frank.  Try real, real hard.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There was CONSENSUS!!! that the Earth was a Flat plane held up on the back of a Giant Turtle, and that's probably more likely to be correct than your AGW Theory



God you're stupid.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So.....you have no proof.  tsk, tsk, and yet you believe in mumbo jumbo when the data doesn't support the liars.  Now that is denying.
> 
> That is an epic fail!



God, you're more stupid than Frank!


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has  cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the   United Nations has quietly admitted this.* This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory,* which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with  solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.



I'll start by addressing this statement; "*" This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly.*

There is no such theory.  This is your personal theory that come up with, apparently because you need an oversimplied theory that you can get your head arround.  



So you do not have any training or knowledge of statistics.  You  also don't appear to understand how the basic factors of TSI, CO2, and PDO have influenced the globsl mean temperature since the 1880.

I'll explain.  The chart is the global mean land ocean temperature.






What is notable can be divided up into a few time spans, 1880 to 1910, 1910 to 1940, 1940 to 1980, and 1980 to the present.

The time periods spaning 1880 to 1950 actually combine into one feature that was dominated by the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation ). The PDO is, as it says, an oscillation.  Andmthe period from 1880 through was dominated by this oscillation as it moved heat to and from the deep ocean, causing land-ocean temperatures to inrease and decrease.

Begining in about 1950, carbon emissions of CO2 began having an equal footing with the PDO.  Through the period through 1980, the falling temperatures caused by the PDO moving heat into the ocean, was offset by increasing heat trapped by rising CO2 in the atmosphere.  

From 1980 to about 2000, CO2 became the predominate driving and causing the steep increase in temperature seen today?

Over that entire time span solar energy has been the source of the additional heat.  And much of the finer and smaller changes were by solar variation.

Throughout the entire time span, TSI, CO2 and PDO created the greater features but then change was not in a smooth line.  This remaining variation is noise, small and random fluctuations.  When all the variability in temperature caused by the three larger drivers has been accounted for, the remaining noise leaves a small percentage of randomly unpredictable variance.  The temperature then expected to vary by some small degee from whatr the PDO, CO2, and TSI account for.

On the graph, the noise boundaries, how high and how low it can be expected, is shown by light green error bars.    Starting in about 2002, the five year runnig mean shows "flatteing".  This flattening is not unexpected.  Then temperature still remains within the bound of expected noise


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Take your meds and go to bed.  Obviously that globe on your shoulders is heating up and causing you to be incoherent.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?
> ...



Let's start a bet.  We can put the money in trust for, say, 29 years.  That will work nicely.  Everyone puts in $100 a month for next 20 years.  Then, when the twenty years are up, the winners divide it up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 29, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And yet zero scientific evidence has been provided to prove the AGW religion.
> 
> Not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, but the AGW faithful keep trying.
> 
> However all they do is show that real science in this area is dead.



Do tell, what will you do with this data and model?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Total Glacier Volume is Shrinking*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have one that goes back another 15,000 years?


----------



## westwall (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> *GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE INDICATORS*
> 
> *How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?*
> A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences.* For example, when climate models *are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover.* These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.*
> ...








  Highlighted for the blind.....  Once again confounding computer fiction with facts.

And of course the first assumption is wrong.  they have no real idea how GHG's work.  They just know what gasses *are* GHG's, they have no idea of the mechanism.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet zero scientific evidence has been provided to prove the AGW religion.
> ...



Why don't you post the dataset and source code that proves CO2 drives climate and see..


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet zero scientific evidence has been provided to prove the AGW religion.
> ...



And as I think we all know, Kosh's complaint here is a lie.  He has been given a large set of data files and a large set of GCM source code files.  Since then, he has repeatedly continued to make this asinine and now utterly false charge.

The truth is Kosh doesn't have the faintest idea what to do with those things.  If you'd care to correct me on this Kosh, please feel free to let us know what you plan to do with them.  Perhaps one of your buddies will be good enough to tell you how to compile and link a program and how to run a global scale GCM on your home laptop for a 30 year run or so and how to compare the output to.... well now I'm giving it all away.  I want to leave _something_ for you to figure out on your own.  Have at it Kosh.

For the fourth time:

Climate datasets

General Circulation models code


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yes we know the Vostock Ice Cores are DENIERS!!! because they show your God lagging temperature on the increase and decrease
> ...


Its a data set over a 600,000 year period that shows CO2 lagging temperature changes. Moreover it shows temperatures COLLAPSING after a doubling of CO2, which runs totally contrary to everything your Cult holds sacred.

Are you really so insane as to tell us that a 600,000 year data set got the temperatures wrong? What do you offer in response, Mann's Fossilized tree rings?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What are we betting?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that when the AGWcult models incorporate the warming in the deep pacific ocean over a 600,000 year period it clearly shows mighty CO2 driving and forcing temperature...am I right?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2014)

Evidence that the climate is changing...observational and incontrovertible.

Evidence that man is responsible for altering the global climate to any measurable degree....zero.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing?  See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures.  Please explain this to us.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It was a plug to invest in Al Gores carbon program so you too can be carbon neutral.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...








AGWCult making the necessary adjustments to a DENIER Thermometer that refused to acknowledge the Truth and Righteousness of Manmade Climate Change Disruption


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

westwall said:


> And of course the first assumption is wrong.  they have no real idea how GHG's work.  They just know what gasses *are* GHG's, they have no idea of the mechanism.




Uhh, that's not at all true. Molecules absorb radiation depending on what frequencies excite certain energy levels within the molecule.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And of course the first assumption is wrong.  they have no real idea how GHG's work.  They just know what gasses *are* GHG's, they have no idea of the mechanism.
> ...



So the radiation stays stuck in the Sticky Glue CO2 molecule?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Its re-emitted isotropically.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 30, 2014)

NOAA had to quietly correct their myth by admitting that it was hotter in 1936 than in 2012, which they had said was the hottest year on record.

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As Hottest Month On Record | The Daily Caller 

Oh the poor cultists!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



But only towards Earth, right?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> NOAA had to quietly correct their myth by admitting that it was hotter in 1936 than in 2012, which they had said was the hottest year on record.
> 
> NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As Hottest Month On Record | The Daily Caller
> 
> Oh the poor cultists!




LOL! I thought the conspiracy was the NOAA was cooling the past and warming the present! The link you show has them doing the exact opposite!!!

LOL!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



How much is absorbed to re-emit?  If there is 120PPM of CO2, how much absorption is there? and, is the absorption the same everywhere?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing?  See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures.  Please explain this to us.



Because CO2 isn't the only factor driving climate.

And if you fail this hard at the basics, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It depends more on the depth of the optically thick layer in the atmosphere. As we extend this layer, the cooling rate at the interface between thick and thin decreases, so the temperature underneath that layer increases to compensate.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Particulates in the air.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Which one of us said it's physically impossible to test the correlation between CO2 and warming because you had to build a container bigger than 25m?

I know it wasn't me

Isotropically means "uniform in all directions" right?  That means that for a molecule in Earth atmosphere, more than 50% of the directions must not be toward Earth.

So the majority of the emission are radiated places other than Earth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing?  See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures.  Please explain this to us.
> ...



So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And you know this how?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




There is no lab big enough to fit the planet Earth. Not yet at least.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing?  See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures.  Please explain this to us.
> ...



Since you can't explain it, then I'd say you failed the basics.  The basics is you have no friggin idea.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Then how do you know that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate?  I don't want models from folks who got them wrong.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Man made articulates were just the pre-dominant cause (regulations would decrease the amount of man-made particulates in the air). There was also more volcanic eruption + a decrease in solar activity.  We know this because its the only way the models work.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



1) By applying the laws of physics. 

2) By observing the greenhouse effect on other planets.

3) Observation of its effect on past climate.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



It's a crapshoot then?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Then why are the models all wrong?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



So you have no evidence?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



LOL

Did the attorney for the Jailed Nigerian Finance Minister tell you that?

We can replicate black holes and the conditions of the Universe a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, we can handle and modify the world's most virulent pathogens in a lab, but good Lord adding 120PPM of CO2 to a fish tank is sew hard!!  It's sew hard! We need a Container the size of the Solar System, because even if we only have a container the size of the Earth we have to have the Sun in there as well.  Sew Hard!

You and your Twin G.T. provide hours of entertainment


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


? No. Did you actually understand the words I just wrote to you or are you just pretending to?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They aren't.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What are you disputing exactly?

When global atmospheric sulphate emission levelled off, the cooling ceased. Plus we know measurements of solar activity.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2



So vague as to be meaningless. You'll need to describe this "lab setting", exactly defining every piece of equipment and environmental variable.

I suggest you look at the HITRAN database to get some answers. HITRAN is maintained by those well-known pinkos at the Air Force to precisely catalog the spectral absorption of all gases found in the atmosphere. They are constantly updating and refining those measurements. Dig into a bit, and you can find the papers describing the lab setups to get the numbers. If anyone wants more than that, go get it yourselves, ya big lazy lugs.

HITRAN

Now, if you'd like to tell the Air Force that they're doing it all wrong, and that CO2 really doesn't absorb infrared, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. Give it a shot.

The history of the science is interesting. The first experimenters screwed it up. They send infrared radiation into a tube, and found adding more CO2 didn't change anything, because the CO2 absorption band was already saturated over that short distance, and thus they concluded CO2 wasn't important. Deniers here usually make the same screwup. They miss the fact that when CO2 absorbs heat, it re-radiates more IR in all directions, meaning each little layer of the atmosphere keeps absorbing and re-remitting. A tube can't simulate that 3-dimensional situation, being the tube is close to approximating a 1-dimensional setup. It wasn't until the 1950's and the first computers that scientists correctly figured out what was going on with CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
> ...



Did you not understand the question?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Did you not understand the question?



I'd ask you the same. You don't seem to know what you're babbling about; you now just reflexively autospew it without thinking about it. It's almost as if it were a religious mantra you use so you can avoid thinking. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So in a lab setting, how much of the "Warming" is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2
> ...



Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.

CO2 does not drive climate.

No scientific proof has been provided to prove that.

Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not understand the question?
> ...



No you like to argue just to argue like any two year old kid would like to do.

Typical AGW cult mentality.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 30, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.



Since that exact thing, was just provided to to you again by ifitz, you're just being your usual pathological liar self again. It's getting boring. We know you're a pissy crybaby and pathological liar. There's no need for you to keep demonstrating it.

If you want to discuss the science, do so. Otherwise, you shouldn't be here. All you're doing is deliberately disrupting discussions that the grownups are trying to have. Is that all your cult is capable of now?


----------



## Kosh (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.
> ...



No it was not!

Talk about lies!

But then again the AGW cult that is all they have for their religion.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing?  See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures.  Please explain this to us.



I used to think it was from aerosols from the explosives of World War II.  However, I looked up the explosive equivalent for Mt Pinatubo and compared that to the total of all explosives detonated in the war.  I can't remember what the numbers were though I posted it here (I think as Abraham3) and I might be able to find it.  Anyway, given that Pinatubo's aerosol cooling didn't last much more than 3 years, there was just no way that the explosives from the war could have lasted for 30.  What I think happened is the same thing that's happening now.  The 3 decades before the war showed global temperatures rising rapidly - very similar to what they did from 1980 to 2000.  The big cooling period may have been just another hiatus, where the rapidly rising temperatures caused a change in tropical wind patterns and a kink in the normal ENSO cycle.  

Just a thought.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 30, 2014)

WWII destruction would have emitted much more black carbon than sulfur dioxide, so would have pushed temperatures higher.

The 1943-1965 slight cooling was primarily driven by the increasing burning of sulfur-heavy coal, resulting in an ongoing sulfur dioxide aerosol injection into the atmosphere.

The big eruption of Mt. Agung in Indonesia in 1963 also had a cooling effect. There's a significant dip at that time. The warming trends begins a couple years after it.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.



It is not dogma.  It is widely accepted theory.



Kosh said:


> CO2 does not drive climate.



This viewpoint puts you at odds with very close to every scientist on the planet.  How is it that doesn't bother you?  And why should anyone believe you?  You have not made a case at all that I'm aware of.



Kosh said:


> No scientific proof has been provided to prove that.



CO2's absorption of infrared radiation has been clearly demonstrated in the lab.  The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments, by observation and by fundamental theoretical physics. From Wikipedia's article on the greenhouse effect:

_If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about &#8722;18 °C. The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect._

If you want to reject CO2 warming the planet via the greenhouse effect, you're going to have to find something else to provide that 33C of warming.  Do you have something?



Kosh said:


> Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.



Everyone here is now fully aware that you have been given these datasets and GCM source codes, is fully aware that you continue to pretend you have not and is fully aware that you haven't the faintest idea what to do with the source code or the data.  I really think you ought to drop this particular line.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not understand the question?
> ...


What temperature increase, if any, is caused by a 120ppm increase in CO2.

Now you post something completely irrelevant and insult me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> WWII destruction would have emitted much more black carbon than sulfur dioxide, so would have pushed temperatures higher.
> 
> The 1943-1965 slight cooling was primarily driven by the increasing burning of sulfur-heavy coal, resulting in an ongoing sulfur dioxide aerosol injection into the atmosphere.
> 
> The big eruption of Mt. Agung in Indonesia in 1963 also had a cooling effect. There's a significant dip at that time. The warming trends begins a couple years after it.


Or maybe CO2 does not drive climate as shown by 600,000 year record at Vostock


----------



## Kosh (Jun 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.
> ...



The burden of proof is not on me it is on the AGW cult to prove their religion.

Please post one link with datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Have yet to see one.

So where is your proof?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 does not drive climate.
> ...



I always thought time of day, time of year and latitude had a greater impact on average temperature than CO2. Was I mistaken?


----------



## westwall (Jun 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...







Clearly.  CO2 by man is magical in every respect.  There is NOTHING that it seemingly can't do!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 30, 2014)

Deniers, remember the science?

Of course you don't. You've never been introduced.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Yes you were, quite.

There are a number of sources these days where one can find the Earth's average temperature plotted against date, with ranges from 5 years to 5,000 years and beyond.  On a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate Time of Day?  On a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate Time of Year?  And on a plot of Earth's temperature over a multi-year span, where, how and why would you indicate latitude?

I don't know what you were trying to say there but I want to be honest here.  Greenhouse warming from added CO2 is not an overwhelming forcing factor (and I've never said it was).  It has frequently been overcome by other factors or combination of factors.  Notably, aerosol cooling from volcanic eruptions will make the slope of the temperature trend negative quicker than you can say Bob's your uncle.  A shift in the ENSO cycle has been able to hide it all for many years now.    But those aerosols will settle out in a few years.  The sun's cycle turns every five-and-a-half years.  A kick-ass El Nino is coming that's gonna kick our ass.  But that CO2 is going to be there for decades and since our emissions are still growing, that situation isn't going to be getting better anytime soon.   It's the rabbit and the hare.  The CO2 will keep nudging us up and up and up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*why would you indicate Time of Day?*

Why? It's often 20 degrees warmer during the day here in Chicago. 

*why would you indicate Time of Year?*

Why? It's often warmer in June than in January.

*why would you indicate latitude?*

Why? Latitudes nearer the equator are warmer than those further from the equator.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is a much larger factor than the difference between 398 ppm and 400 ppm.

And what is the force behind those 3 things?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



the models are all wrong!  Go read the IPCC AR5 report.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I and others are disputing the fact that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.  You have no proof.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you can post a link with datasets and source code that would prove this.
> ...



hahahahahahahahahahaha, you're rich.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Tell me on which page it says the models are wrong. I can't find it.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So, perhaps you could explain how 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled when CO2 was increasing?  See there are data sets, we all see the actual temperatures.  Please explain this to us.
> ...



Well at least you admit you don't know.  I commend you for that.  What it does indicate is that increased levels of CO2 didn't warm the planet.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Uhh, Ok. What the hell does that have to do with aerosol cooling in the 50's and 60's?

Are you disputing that the effective temperature of emitted radiation goes down with increasing altitude? Are you disputing that CO2 has three IR absorption bands? Are you disputing that Earth would be many degrees cooler without the greenhouse effect? What exactly is your issue with the evidence?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Once again the AGW cult pull out the tired old religious dogma.
> ...



Sorry Crick, no evidence to support CO2 driving climate.  zero, none, nadda.  You seemingly keep wanting to use models as proof, and that isn't so.  Sorry Charlie! or Cricky!

You have no evidence that can show that CO2 can increase temperature, doesn't exist. Find that one and then the discussion will change.  Until then, I and all others who have been asking will continue to keep asking especially everytime you post this nonsense.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I'm disputing what I already told you.  If in the 40s through the 70s CO2 increased, then by your theory the world would have been warming, it wasn't it was cooling.  So I use that timeframe as argument that CO2 does not drive climate and that to continue that nonsense for today is proven false based on the readings from back then.  Is it really that hard for you to comprehend this? Seems like you are wayyyyyyy too wrapped up in your religion.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





Except that in the 40s through 70s the effect of aerosols exceeded that of Co2. The aerosols levelled off in the 70's while the Co2 continued to increase.

You seem to have some serious trouble understanding elementary logical concepts.  Perhaps you should contact your local community college about remedial courses.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Sure, sure, there is always something that is so to keep you from just admitting what I already know, and that is CO2 is not a sun and cannot increase temperatures.  You are just wrong.  And I've heard now the oceans ate the heat, so there is always an excuse.  tsk, tsk disingenuious.  And yet still no proof that CO2 can be sun like.

Oh one more thing, isn't funny that it was thirty years long, and then thirty years of warm and to start in 1998 another cycle, some more aerosols right, nope as I said the oceans ate the heat.  hahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaha.......................It's called cycles why not educate yourself a bit.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



We list the evidence which clearly shows that CO2 DOES affect climate and you simply repeat your mantra.  So, take your nonsense and shove it up your ass.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You mean what you already _believe_. You aren't basing your statements on knowledge. You will respond to any evidence presented against your belief by claiming the evidence is rigged.




> You are just wrong.  And I've heard now the oceans ate the heat, so there is always an excuse.



What you mean to say there is always a cause. 



> tsk, tsk disingenuious.  And yet still no proof that CO2 can be sun like.



AGW theory doesn't rely on CO2 being "sun like". 



> Oh one more thing, isn't funny that it was thirty years long, and then thirty years of warm and to start in 1998 another cycle, some more aerosols right, nope as I said the oceans ate the heat.  hahahaahahahaahahahahaahahaha.......................It's called cycles why not educate yourself a bit.



"Its called cycles". Wow. That's profound. I would suggest you rush to publish your revelation immediately. The scientific community has never even heard of "cycles", you're sure to when the Nobel prize with your genius!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



A computer model is not EVIDENCE

When you avoid the lab, we have to wonder what you're hiding


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, remember the science?
> 
> Of course you don't. You've never been introduced.








"Remember the Tree Rings! LOL"


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



huh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


>



Did you not understand the question?

We asked you for a lab experiment showing How much warming is due to a 120PPM increase in CO2 and you answered "Sushi!!"


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

I copied the URL from the wrong level of Google's image search.  The image in the post below it is the reference.

Does it look like a computer model to you?

Do you think producing it didn't require a lab?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Look at the chart and answer the following question (Multiple Choice)

How much of a temperature increased is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2

A. Donuts
B. I saved 15% by switching to Geico
C. Chart does not provide the information requested


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> I copied the URL from the wrong level of Google's image search.  The image in the post below it is the reference.
> 
> Does it look like a computer model to you?
> 
> Do you think producing it didn't require a lab?



Looks like you didn't answer the question


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Look at the chart and answer the following question (Multiple Choice)
> 
> How much of an increase temperature increased is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2
> 
> ...



No.  Admit that this is not a computer model and that it was produced in a lab.  CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and is responsible for almost every bit of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the chart and answer the following question (Multiple Choice)
> ...



CO2 absorbs infrared, hmmkay

CO2 responsible for almost every bit of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years, not supported by the chart

You mean the same area of the spectrum also covered by H2O?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> I copied the URL from the wrong level of Google's image search.  The image in the post below it is the reference.
> 
> Does it look like a computer model to you?
> 
> Do you think producing it didn't require a lab?



Let me ask different questions, if the absorbed infrared waves are released how much is released toward the surface and what is released back into space?

Is it hotter than what was absorbed? So if it absorbed 100 degrees, wouldn't it release at 100 degrees?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I copied the URL from the wrong level of Google's image search.  The image in the post below it is the reference.
> ...




The emission is isotropic. The radiation diffuses outwards until the remaining atmosphere is no longer optically thick.

The temperature of emission from optically thick media depends on the temperature of the gas. It is cooler higher in the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



is it hotter than it came in?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



D'oh!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

The above chart shows:

A. Both CO2 and H2O absorb infrared radiation
B. You can save 15% from switching to geico
C. Western Civilization must be destroyed
D. A 120PPM increase in CO2 has no measurable effct on temperature, er I mean a 120PPM increase in CO2 will melt the ice caps!
E. DENIER!!!!! DEATH TO THE DENIERS!!!!  AGW AKBAR!!!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The emitted radiation is colder because it is emitted higher in the atmosphere where the gas is colder.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



then how is it you claim CO2 drives temperatures warmer?  How does it do that if it is colder higher in the atmosphere?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Colder radiation carries energy away from the atmosphere at a slower rate.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



So how can the earth be warmer than what the sun's heat provides?

Cause at night when the sun is gone, the temperatures go down and only clouds hold in the heat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



These answers are PRICELESS!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you make the optically thick layer higher in altitude  -the radiation leaves the system at a slower rate - but the incoming solar radiation is the same. The temperature of the system has to rise to the point that the radiation escapes the optically thick layer at the same rate it enters it.





> Cause at night when the sun is gone, the temperatures go down and only clouds hold in the heat.



If that were true it would be near absolute zero at night time with no clouds.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So I was sitting here reading all of this yesterday and it finally hit me, what these folks are trying to say is CO2 is hotter than the sun.  In other words, the sun heats up the surface and then CO2 adds heat, which now makes it hotter than the sun.  How is that possible? How can the CO2 make the waves hotter than they came in?  And now this gent is telling me it's cooling it.  now I'm thoroughly confused at what they think. I'm telling ya.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

Wow.  Tell us - and please be honest - what was the last science-oriented class you passed?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Well in Chicago it is 84 degrees during the day and 59 at night unless there are clouds.  So how is that possible?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Correct. 

It's physically impossible. They point to Venus and say there's an example of "run away Greenhouse" but forget to mention atmospheric pressure.

It's amazing that will unquestioningly believe ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING they are told.

It's a Cult and a scary, End of Days Death Obsessed one at that


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Wow.  Tell us - and please be honest - what was the last science-oriented class you passed?



I'm still waiting on your experiment.  See I don't need to take further science classes, I just need you to prove 120 PPM of CO2 can drive temperature.  You've failed. so you should perhaps go back to school.

Also how something that absorbs heat can be hotter than what it absorbed.  I'd really like to see that experiment.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The greenhouse effect. Without it it would be near absolute zero, especially on a moonless night. Just look at the surface of Mercury. Its like -150 centigrade at night.

Clouds actually reflect radiation back into space.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Wow.  Tell us - and please be honest - what was the last science-oriented class you passed?



Hey fucker, are you running away from your CO2 non-experiment chart so soon?


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the chart and answer the following question (Multiple Choice)
> ...








Ummmm, because that is not a fact, and your whole religion is based on science fiction....kind of like scientology....


----------



## elektra (Jul 1, 2014)

people know nothing of radiation hence its so easy to throw up a theory about CO2 and let the idiots argue who is right


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









So, we KNOW that ocean temperature increases are what drive atmospheric temperatures.  We also know that UV radiation can penetrate meters deep into the oceans to warm them.  We also KNOW that long wave IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS into the oceans.

So....how exactly is the "backradiation" going to raise temps when it can't penetrate deep enough into the oceans to actually warm them?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

elektra said:


> people know nothing of radiation hence its so easily to throw up a theory about CO2 and let the idiots argue who is right



We actually know quite a bit about radiation. Its one of the most intensely studies phenomena in all of nature.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Right, see I understand that energy is stored, what I can't wrap my hands around is how something gets hotter than what it absorbed.


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








If that were true then the atmosphere would be warmer...only it isn't...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Um, DENIER!!!!

Amiright?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > people know nothing of radiation hence its so easily to throw up a theory about CO2 and let the idiots argue who is right
> ...



So how does it make the surface hotter than the sun made it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



You need to have FAITH in the CO2 molecule


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



By lowering the rate at which energy escapes the system.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



how does that make it hotter?  If it was let's say 85 degrees, just because the heat can't leave, it can't get any hotter, it's still 85 degrees.  So that doesn't fit.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you keep adding energy to a system and don't remove it, it will continue to get hotter.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



So put up a lead shield around the Earth?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No. Just raise the altitude of the optically thick layer.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you add heat to a system and don't remove it - it gets hotter.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



However, if the higher atmosphere is thick and you all say it's getting thicker, than less energy can get in.  So it would produce the opposite reaction you're implying.  Because the more CO2 then the more cold is dispursed to space since there is more of it.  Again it would provide the opposite reaction you claim.

One other thing, why is it hotter at 3pm than at 10am?  Please your explanation is confusing me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



25 meters, right?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*
if you want to cool something you have to remove energy from it faster than its being added.

* When you lower the rate at which energy is escaping a system while keeping the input energy the same - it _warms._


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



...and that's how the deep Pacific Ocean became so warm


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



But that is assuming it gets in.  That's why it is cooler in the morning than in the evening, the energy is reflected back because of the angles.  I'm still waiting for the experiment that shows that CO2 Holds the heat as you claim.  Isn't that a fairly simple experiment?  Put 120PPM in a tank and heat the tank, take a second tank with atmospheric CO2 in it, heat it and then let them cool and see if they cool at a different rate.  Seems simple eh?


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








Where is that happening?  It's not in the oceans, it's not in the atmosphere.  Where or where is it hiding.  You still haven't explained how long wave radiation is going to warm anything when it can't penetrate deep enough to do anything....


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




please stop trying. get some real friends. maybe have a baby.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



WOW! This is a perfect example of the AGW cult mentality.

They do not even understand what our atmosphere does.

Then again this AGW drone has never heard of atmospheric compression.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Boring!


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 1, 2014)

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k[/ame]


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 1, 2014)

This guy founded the weather channel.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...




Wow. You know a word. Good for you. Want a cookie?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't actually understand any of what I've just told you, do you?


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








  YOU clearly don't!  How about the long wave IR problem I pointed out to you!  And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere.   That should be quite the hoot!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



See how the AGW cult has infected the world with their religion.

More proof that the far left influence in the AGW religion is more dangerous than any terrorist organization in the world.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I believe you don't understand what you posted.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Sure, you stated that it takes a long time for the CO2 to release the energy, so that would mean that once saturated with energy it starts to release the energy, so in my experiment I suggest you prove that.  I thought it fairly simple for all of these edumicated scientists out there to do, fill a tank with 120PPM of CO2 and leave the other tank with just the natural air with CO2 already in it.  Heat em up and let em cool down, the one with the extra 120PPM should take longer to get cool right?  So let's see if that is indeed the case.  See I don't believe it.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Sure, you stated that it takes a long time for the CO2 to release the energy, so that would mean that once saturated with energy it starts to release the energy,



No. He said nothing like that.

If you have to constantly make up crazy stories about what someone supposedly said, it's clearly because you're not capable of addressing what they actually say.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 1, 2014)

westwall said:


> And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere.   That should be quite the hoot!



Poor addled Westwall, so completely ignorant of the basics of the science.

We could explain to him about his mistake, but it's much more fun to first see him flail about in a rage for a while.



			
				Kosh said:
			
		

> Then again this AGW drone has never heard of atmospheric compression



And who even knows what poor addled Kosh is babbling about here. I hope -- nay, I pray! -- that he will make our day by spelling it out in detail.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



 When integrating from infinity you hit optical depth one sooner if the density is higher. Fucking DUH. You're a total hack.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Thanks for confirming my suspicion.


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere.   That should be quite the hoot!
> ...









We're waiting.  How do you "raise" elements of the atmosphere.  C'mon admiral.  Show us how "smart" you are!  You might have trouble googling it though.....I have a feeling....


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM for raising an element of the atmosphere?  How do you make the Troposphere rise?

I love your optical depth hail mary, I really do.  Last time I looked into optical depth there were some variables like opacity, density, the extinction coefficient and of course the optical path involved.  Only one of which is a variable that could even POSSIBLY be affected by CO2.

Nice try but trying to baffle us with bullshit just shows how silly you are.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2014)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



We aren't making a troposphere rise. You have no idea what the fuck is going on.



> I love your optical depth hail mary, I really do.  Last time I looked into optical depth



Really? The last time you looked into it? OK. lolz


> there were some variables like opacity, density, the extinction coefficient and of course the optical path involved.



The extinction coefficient is a FUNCTION of opacity and density you blubbering moron. 




> Only one of which is a variable that could even POSSIBLY be affected by CO2.



Did you just say that? Really? OMG you're even dumber than I thought.


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Really?  Other then density what can CO2 effect?  As far as the other, I always thought the extinction coefficient was the  molar absorption coefficient of whatever chemical you are trying to find the concentration level of using measurements of light absorption.  Was I wrong?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 2, 2014)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




You mean other than the _only factor in the equation_ other than the constant opacity in surface area per gram? NOTHING. OK? NOTHING.




IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME YOU COULD BE THIS BIG OF A MUTTONHEAD


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








Funny, I have no problem believing you are this big of a mutton head.  You are blabbering dude.  Blabbering.  Nothing you have said today makes any sense at all as it pertains to the discussion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

Oohpah tried to convince us that the only way to test CO2 magical warming properties was to build a container the size of the solar system -- and then he called me stupid


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The difference is that with Scientology, Tom Cruise will act silly and jump on a couch because he's in love; the AGWCult wants to stomp the life out of the US Economy and kill tens of million in the process


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2014)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Well here is your writing:

"if you want to cool something you have to remove energy from it faster than its being added.

When you lower the rate at which energy is escaping a system while keeping the input energy the same - it warms."

I'm spot on.  Thanks for playing and have a nice day.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Bernie Madoff's accountant worked out the AGW Energy Budget


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



There you go!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

Me: Post your Experiment

Crick


Me: That's not an Experiment, that's "Are you Experienced"

Crick: DENIER!!


----------



## elektra (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And do tell us how you "raise" elements of the atmosphere.   That should be quite the hoot!
> ...



Other than posting links to press releases you ignorantly believe is, "science". I see all you do is attempt to flame other's posts.

funny, or telling, that your posts are all "moot", mamoot.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 2, 2014)

Elektra, think twice about becoming one of my obsessive stalkers. It rarely turns out well for those who choose that path. They tend to end up self-destructing in a highly amusing fashion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Elektra, think twice about becoming one of my obsessive stalkers. It rarely turns out well for those who choose that path. They tend to end up self-destructing in a highly amusing fashion.


Yeah like who?

Polar made one math error in hundreds of posts. He has shrunken heads of all the Warmers hanging off his belt


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What is not a fact?  Are you going to try to reject the greenhouse effect once more?


----------



## westwall (Jul 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









Never.  Just pointing out the fact that you mutton heads don't know how it works, or if CO2 has any effect on it at all.  In fact all empirical evidence states that CO2 rises as a function of temperature...not the other way around.

Why don't you figure out to explain that littler conundrum then you can come back and play with the big boys.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> And who even knows what poor addled Kosh is babbling about here. I hope -- nay, I pray! -- that he will make our day by spelling it out in detail.



You really don't know what he is talking about?  Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Elektra, think twice about becoming one of my obsessive stalkers. It rarely turns out well for those who choose that path. They tend to end up self-destructing in a highly amusing fashion.



Are you claiming to be a duper hero now?  Do you wear a cape?  What other duper power do you have besides being able to lie at the speed of thought and being as dumb as dirt?


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

Do you claim to not be batting ZERO in basic science?


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You really don't know what he is talking about?  Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?



Here's a fine example of your perfect misapprehension of fundamental science: you and the ideal gas laws.  You think a column of air will have a temperature gradient due to its pressure gradient.  What a fine and discerning grasp of 8th grade science you possess.  Unfortunately, in the 9th grade, apparently after you chose to drop out, they presented the idea of HEAT TRANSFER.

Think about how long has that column of air - the one in the Earth's atmosphere - been sitting there?  Do you really believe it still holds a temperature gradient from its static pressure?

OR

Let me guess: you believe that pressure spontaneously and continuously _generates_ heat energy and that the higher pressure at the base of that column will generate more heat energy than will the lower pressure at its apex and that generation continues apace since the planet formed to this very day.  Is that it?

As with almost every science topic you choose to address, your beliefs are so far from reality and so twisted by insane and incomprehensible nonsense, one knows not where to begin when attempting to correct you.  Or what we might possibly owe you to motivate such beneficence.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't know what he is talking about?  Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?
> ...



Here, try to educate yourself out of that abyss of ignorance you wallow in.

http://wwwuser.oats.inaf.it/astrobiology/planhab/docs/vladilo13apj767.pdf

This one describes repeatable experiments that show that your assumptions are quite wrong although I doubt that repeatable experimental data means much to a drone like you.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't know what he is talking about?  Do you think a column of air has an equal pressure from the top to the bottom or do you think that the pressure at the bottom of the column has no effect on temperature and that the ideal gas laws are just so much bunk?
> ...



....which explains how the Deep Pacific Ocean ate all the Global Warming


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Here, try to educate yourself out of that abyss of ignorance you wallow in.
> 
> http://wwwuser.oats.inaf.it/astrobiology/planhab/docs/vladilo13apj767.pdf



Has zilch to do with your kooky claims. This is the best part

"We interpret these results in terms of the pressure dependence of the greenhouse effect"

Doh! Your reference directly supports the greenhouse effect. That's got to sting. Also, you might want to try reading your links in the future.



> This one describes repeatable experiments that show that your assumptions are quite wrong although I doubt that repeatable experimental data means much to a drone like you.
> 
> http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf



So, an amateur scientist uses some wonky thermistors to declare the second law of thermodynamics is all wrong, and that pressure really does constantly generate heat. I hope he's going to submit his results to a journal for peer review, so he can get that Nobel Prize he so richly deserves.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here, try to educate yourself out of that abyss of ignorance you wallow in.
> ...









Professional scientists know about the Ideal Gas Laws, and have for a very long time.  How is it that a supposed "Nuclear Watch Officer" hasn't heard of them....admiral?  Here's the wiki link as that seems to be the limit of your research skills.



Common form[edit]

The most frequently introduced form is
PV=nRT\,
where:

P is the pressure of the gas

V is the volume of the gas

n is the amount of substance of gas (also known as number of moles)

R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant, equal to the product of the Boltzmann constant and the Avogadro constant.

T is the *temperature* of the gas

In SI units, P is measured in pascals, V is measured in cubic metres,* n is measured in moles, and T in kelvins (273.15 kelvins = 0.00 degrees Celsius). *R has the value 8.314 J·K&#8722;1·mol&#8722;1 or 0.08206 L·atm·mol&#8722;1·K&#8722;1or &#8776;2 calories if using pressure in standard atmospheres (atm) instead of pascals, and volume in liters instead of cubic metres.




Ideal gas law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



While this one uses the word "pressure" and even the term "pressure-dependent" repeatedly, no where does it make the slightest suggestion in support of your nonsense.



SSDD said:


> This one describes repeatable experiments that show that your assumptions are quite wrong although I doubt that repeatable experimental data means much to a drone like you.
> 
> http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf



And, in this one, you missed one crucial term: "insulated tubes".  Surely you were aware that the intended function of insulation is to prevent of heat transfer.  Right?  Right?

My god are you stupid.  I never really thought much of that Dunning Kreuger thing, but you are the absolute paragon of the idea.  And you actually believe the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere will MAINTAIN a temperature gradient.  Wow.... you are so gone.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2014)

westwall said:


> Professional scientists know about the Ideal Gas Laws, and have for a very long time.  How is it that a supposed "Nuclear Watch Officer" hasn't heard of them....admiral?  Here's the wiki link as that seems to be the limit of your research skills.



Are you agreeing with SSDD that a gas under pressure keeps generating heat forever? Please give a simple "yes" or "no", instead of doing that weasel two-step thing that you're so famous for.

If you are agreeing, that's just your usual thing where you get every bit of the science totally wrong.

And if you're not agreeing, that's just your usual thing of raging at me out of impotent frustration.

So, let us know whether you agree with SSDD's kook thermodynamics, as without that info, I don't know the correct reason to laugh at you.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

I would very much like to hear Westwall's opinion of SSDD's interpretation of the Ideal Gas Law and, while we're at it, radiative heat transfer.

FCT started trying to correct SSDD on radiation just the other day and I may have erred by sticking my nose in far enough to say I was glad to see the discussion taking place.  We should find out what happened.

...

So far, neither FCT nor SSDD has returned to that conversation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> I would very much like to hear Westwall's opinion of SSDD's interpretation of the Ideal Gas Law and, while we're at it, radiative heat transfer.
> 
> FCT started trying to correct SSDD on radiation just the other day and I may have erred by sticking my nose in far enough to say I was glad to see the discussion taking place.  We should find out what happened.
> 
> ...



Relax Francis. SSDD's thermodynamics confusion in no way vindicates AGW fearmongering.

It in no way excuses "green energy" boondogles.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

But it is precisely that confused understanding with which he claims to overturn AGW.  Those who think he knows what he's talking about could be seriously misled.  Thermodynamics is not a well understood topic among the general population.

ps: I don't indulge in fear mongering.  I indulge in mainstream science.  If that makes you afraid, then you very likely should be afraid.

pps: who is Francis?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> But it is precisely that confused understanding with which he claims to overturn AGW.  Those who think he knows what he's talking about could be seriously misled.  Thermodynamics is not a well understood topic among the general population.
> 
> ps: I don't indulge in fear mongering.  I indulge in mainstream science.  If that makes you afraid, then you very likely should be afraid.
> 
> pps: who is Francis?



*But it is precisely that confused understanding with which he claims to overturn AGW.*

Luckily we're not depending on his confused understanding.

*I indulge in mainstream science.*

That is awesome. Using your mainstream science, explain the temperature hike that fits the graph of all that increased energy content in the ocean.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 13, 2014)

Even the UN knows that AGW is a bunch of hooey.

_Meanwhile, his own IPCC has commissioned four models to predict the impact of global warming in this century. The verdict: There's nothing to worry about.

Matt Ridley, writing in the Financial Post, said the models were run to determine "what might happen to the world economy, society and technology in the 21st century and what each would mean for the climate, given a certain assumption about the atmosphere's 'sensitivity' to carbon dioxide."

Ridley, a science and economics writer as well as a member of the British Parliament, added: "Three of the models show a moderate, slow and mild warming, the hottest of which leaves the planet just two degrees Centigrade warmer than today in 2081-2100. The coolest comes out just 0.8 degrees warmer."

Ridley notes that "two degrees is the threshold at which warming starts to turn dangerous, according to the scientific consensus. That is to say, in three of the four scenarios considered by the IPCC, by the time my children's children are elderly, the earth will still not have experienced any harmful warming, let alone catastrophe."

The fourth scenario produces a stifling 3.5 degrees of warming in the 2081-2100 period. But is it worth upsetting ourselves? Ridley assures us it's not. That figure, he says, is "very, very implausible."

Why? Because the researchers fed the model with a lot of garbage  "highly unlikely assumptions," says Ridley  such as a world burning 10 times more coal, a population boom that the U.N. doesn't expect and current growth rates can't produce, and a lack of innovation...._

Even The U.N.'s Climate Group Says There's No Need To Worry - Investors.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 13, 2014)

Have we identified the mechanism by which 120PPM of CO2 both warmed and acidified the Deep Pacific Ocean?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 13, 2014)

And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Matt Ridley



Is a denier fraud who is completely clueless about the science, and who has been caught brazenly lying many times. Not quite as often as Kosh and Frank, but close. Alas, to deniers, fraud and dishonesty are considered resume builders.

Your article provided no evidence to back up Ridley's entirely fabricated claims. But you BELIEVED anyways, since your religion commands you to believe. While you'll embrace anything that reaffirms your cult beliefs, don't expect those outside your cult to fall for such nonsense.

You can, of course, demonstrate Ridley isn't making shit up, again. Just show us the evidence that backs his claims. Do some science. 

(HAHAHAHAHA. I just asked a denier to do science, meaning they all just soiled themselves.)


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

Ridley is trained as a zoologist.  When given control of a bank, his decisions led to the first run on a British bank in 150 years.  He does not argue against AGW, but simply against doing anything about it.  Since this is precisely what the AGW deniers want, the distinction is moot.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.



Honestly, I don't believe you know enough about science to be able to understand it.

What was your favorite physic lab?


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2014)

You might try first asking him to SPELL  S-C-I-E-N-C-E... you know...  just to get him warmed up


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> You might try first asking him to SPELL  S-C-I-E-N-C-E... you know...  just to get him warmed up



Have we identified the mechanism by which 120PPM of CO2 both warmed and acidified the Deep Pacific Ocean?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 13, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
> ...



More proof that the AGW cult is about a religious following than anything to do with actual science.

Still have no proof for your religious beliefs?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> You might try first asking him to SPELL  S-C-I-E-N-C-E... you know...  just to get him warmed up



Wow! More proof that the AGW does hate actual science..

The true anti-science movement resides in the AGW cult!

Yes the AGW cult can not handle being shown that they do not believe in science.


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You might try first asking him to SPELL  S-C-I-E-N-C-E... you know...  just to get him warmed up
> ...



Yes.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You are incapable of not lying, aren't you?


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

You seem to be incapable of telling the truth, but I know that is simply your choice.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 14, 2014)

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Have we identified the mechanism by which 120PPM of CO2 both warmed and acidified the Deep Pacific Ocean?



Not one post response to mine!!!! So for me that is big fat NOPE!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



hahaahahaahahahahaahahahahhahahahahahaha....................................Losing!

100% of the non-believers have consensus, no proof,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

I answered the man's question completely and correctly.  What's your gripe?


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The greenhouse effect is the mechanism by which CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere absorb infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space.  The mechanism by which increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the acidity of the oceans is simply basic chemistry.  Atmospheric gases dissolve in liquids in proportion to their partial pressures.  As the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the level of CO2 in solution in the ocean also increases.  Compounds in solution break into their ionic components and the dissolved CO2 takes up hydrogen from disassociated water molecules to form H2CO3, carbonic acid.  This lowers the ocean's pH.

Got it?

BTW, the overwhelming consensus among climate science experts is that warming is taking place and that the dominant cause is greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 2, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?



The answer that is right in front of you face.


Keep looking.  You might not recognize because you don't know what you are looking at.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.



Oh my, another dumb fuck lying through his teeth. Must demonstrate to all his abysmal willfull ignorance. Here is what the American Institute of Physics, the largerst scientific society in the world has to say about that;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From Fourier to Tyndall, Arrhenius to Hansen, it has been all about science. It is you willfully ignorant fools that deny science in the name of politics.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
> ...



Interesting choice of answers. 

I don't think he actually knows what science is. It is kind of difficult to recognized proof when you don't know what it is.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 2, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.



You should consider starting of slowly with some basic math and physics. Then you can work up to the big stuff.

It's alot like learning to read.  First you start with See Spot Run and Go Dog Go.  Then you work your way up to the grown up books.

You don't just jump into the deep end an expect to swim.

Oh, One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish is a good counting book for you.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 2, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?



Do you see it yet?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
> ...


Where's the experiment that shows what the temperature is supposed to be with 280 PPM of CO2?  You have that?  Didn't think so........*WinNing*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 4, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
> ...



why don't you just post it


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
> ...



And what is the temperature rise of 10 PPM of CO2, or 40, 120?  Didn't think you had it.  

*WinnIng*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How much of a reduction in CO2 is required to drop temperatures .5 degrees?
> ...



BTW, I only see k00ks who have nothing...............................and *LosinG*


----------



## Kosh (Aug 4, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet still not one post showing that AGW is actual science let alone any proof that it exists other than in an old outdated religious cult.
> ...



So in other words you do not have any real science to post other than AGW dogma. We already knew that. 

So far no real science being posted by the AGW cult, just their religious dogma.


----------



## Crick (Aug 4, 2014)

Kosh said:


> So far no real science being posted by the AGW cult, just their religious dogma.



Why don't you review the first, second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  See if you can find some "real science" in there somewhere.  When you're done, come back and tell us what you found.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2014)

jc456 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes we do, you stupid ass. They are called interglacials, and there have been a number of them. Damn, you actually work at being stupid.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








That's not what the ice core data shows.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2014)

340 to 360, eh. Damn, Walleyes, maybe you had better give a source for that graph. Because here are some sources that say you have posted shit.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/vostok-ice-core.jpg

http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/downloads/Petit_et_al_1999_copy.pdf


----------



## jc456 (Aug 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



hmmmm.. is that an experiment?  Maybe I'm stupid, but not sure then what it makes you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 340 to 360, eh. Damn, Walleyes, maybe you had better give a source for that graph. Because here are some sources that say you have posted shit.
> 
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
> 
> ...



The first 2 charts by themselves are pointless.

The third, once again, shows that CO2 increase DO NOT DRIVE CLIMATE!!!

Look at the 1,800m mark CO2 spikes and temperatures promptly collapse.

AGWCult Theory = FAIL


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No doubt about it, your posts provide ample evidence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Why does temperature plummet after CO2 spikes.


----------



## Crick (Aug 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Detection vs Attribution *
> 
> Detection and attribution of climate signals, as well as its common-sense meaning, has a more precise definition within the climate change literature, as expressed by the IPCC.[17]
> 
> ...



This was the lead post in this thread.  None of the deniers at which it was aimed seemed to have understood its point.


----------



## Crick (Aug 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> *"Fingerprint" Studies*
> 
> Finally, there is extensive statistical evidence from so-called "fingerprint" studies. Each factor that affects climate produces a unique pattern of climate response, much as each person has a unique fingerprint. Fingerprint studies exploit these unique signatures, and allow detailed comparisons of modelled and observed climate change patterns. Scientists rely on such studies to attribute observed changes in climate to a particular cause or set of causes. In the real world, the climate changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution are due to a complex mixture of human and natural causes. The importance of each individual influence in this mixture changes over time. Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints. Therefore, climate models are used to study how individual factors affect climate. For example, a single factor (like greenhouse gases) or a set of factors can be varied, and the response of the modelled climate system to these individual or combined changes can thus be studied.[9]
> 
> ...



Some real science.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *"Fingerprint" Studies*
> ...



So, you can't answer the question.  So you have no idea what CO2 does with the climate.  So infact you have nothing of value to add.  Why woudn't the CO2 be mostly human since there billions of us here living and breathing.  The issue is you can't prove anything.  You have a philosophy which in itself is very flawed since they admit it.  Again, what you fail to realize is that there is no evidence to support any of your claims.  And right, I do not believe the science!!!!!  You know why?  Because the science doesn't even recognize itself since proof is unavailable.

Had someone merely documented what 120 PPM of CO2 does with  temperature, simple little fnnnnnnn experiment.  Wow!!!!!!!!  So you don't even know what the correct temperature of earth should be.  How then do you know it's too warm?

Gigantor to the window please!!!!!!!


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So, you can't answer the question.  So you have no idea what CO2 does with the climate.



You never intended that the question be answered and never had the slightest interest in a response.  I have lots of ideas about the effect of CO2 on our climate.  They are all backed by mountains of experimental and observational evidence and I share them with (in fact I source them from) the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.  The greenhouse effect has been "settled science" for nigh on 200 years.  That humans have been the source for every bit of the CO2 in our atmosphere above 280 ppm is incontestable.



jc456 said:


> So infact you have nothing of value to add.



I have added extensive links to peer reviewed research and publications supporting the mainstream position: that AGW is a valid description of the climate's response to human GHG emissions. To my knowledge neither of you two have ever provided a link to a SINGLE peer reviewed paper supporting your position.  I realize the primary reason for that shortcoming is fundamental: there are likely NO peer reviewed papers in publication which support the "position" you two take.



jc456 said:


> Why woudn't the CO2 be mostly human since there billions of us here living and breathing.



Another demonstration of your ignorance: your extreme ignorance.



jc456 said:


> The issue is you can't prove anything.



The issue is that the two of you are so stupid you've chosen to oppose the position of mainstream science despite having no supporting evidence and no understanding of how even basic science is supposed to work.  THAT is the issue.

By direct, isotopic testing, 120 ppm of the CO2 in our atmosphere was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.  I'm sorry if that exotic, high-falutin' point is just way over your pathetic little heads, but them's the facts.  The added CO2 IS from humans and NOT from us breathing, you abysmally pathetics twits.



jc456 said:


> You have a philosophy which in itself is very flawed since they admit it.



I and others have told you and others, on numerous occasions, that the study of the natural sciences does not involve PROOF and that you mark yourselves as scientifically ignorant by your persistent demands for it.  My philosophy has a name.  It's called The Scientific Method.  I understand you believe it to be flawed.  Unfortunately you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about and are as wrong as wrong can be.  If you want to reject the scientific method, you'd better grab a good stick and head naked into the woods cause that's more than a flat out rejection of the scientific method will leave you.



jc456 said:


> Again, what you fail to realize is that there is no evidence to support any of your claims.



I'd accuse you of ignorance were I not completely certain this is a willful lie.  Why don't you visit the first, second, third, fourth and fifth assessment reports of the IPCC at www.ipccc.ch and explain to us why all those thousands of pages of material, of graphs, of links and references to thousands of peer reviewed studies - why you believe none of that to be "evidence"?



jc456 said:


> And right, I do not believe the science!!!!!  You know why?  Because the science doesn't even recognize itself since proof is unavailable.



No one doubts your ignorance gentlemen.  There's really no need for further demonstrations.



jc456 said:


> Had someone merely documented what 120 PPM of CO2 does with  temperature, simple little fnnnnnnn experiment.



Mythbusters did it.  Your children have done it at school.  The experiment was first performed in the mid 1800s.  It's been posted here repeatedly.  You just choose to lie about it.  I guess you think you've got enough invested into your position that it's worth the destruction of your own reputation and personal honor to lie to us all over and over and over again when NO ONE - not even anyone on your side of the argument - thinks you're telling the truth.  EVERYONE here knows you're lying.  But you seem to be okay with that. 



jc456 said:


> Wow!!!!!!!!  So you don't even know what the correct temperature of earth should be.  How then do you know it's too warm?



The desired temperature for the Earth is one within the range within which human culture developed, within which human infrastructure was build, within which humans located themselves vis-a-vis the coasts, crops, water supplies, desirable climates and the like.  And any changes would be best to take place at the glacial pace of natural change vice the unprecedented pace of current change.



jc456 said:


> Gigantor to the window please!!!!!!!



I'm sorry, Gigantor is really cute and he looks so earnest.  But a reliance on cartoons to make your points is not going to help your tattered reputations.  It only identifies the chronological points where your respective intellectual developments came to a screeching halt.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 7, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> The first 2 charts by themselves are pointless.
> 
> The third, once again, shows that CO2 increase DO NOT DRIVE CLIMATE!!!
> ...



Well, not really.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2014)

What collapses is any contention that Frank can add 2 + 2 and come up with 4.

Frank, have you ever noticed that mainstream science has never denied that warming temperatures have increased atmospheric CO2 levels on many occasions?  No one is denying that.  What is denied is your claim that somehow that's the only process that can take place; that greenhouse warming just doesn't exist in Frank's world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2014)

Old Rocks charts

Notice temperature collapse AFTER CO2 peaks.  According to the AGWCult, that should be physically impossible because CO2 DRIVES the climate

Their own charts out them as liars and gullible and stupid


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2014)

No one has EVER claimed that was impossible.  It has been mainstream science that brought you that data and told you what it showed.

There are TWO processes taking place:

1) As global temperatures increase, gases, including CO2, come OUT of solution in the ocean just like the bubbles in a warm Coke. This is the temperature dependence of gas solubility.
2) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation that a warmed surface (land and sea) try to radiate to space, thus trapping it in the atmosphere where roughly half of it will eventually come back to the surface.  This is greenhouse warming.

Both processes are completely independent of each other.  Both are quite real.  To continue, as you have been doing, to claim that because one occurs, the other cannot, is just to once more demonstrate your prejudice and your ignorance.  PLEASE put your thinking cap on for the 5 seconds it would take someone in command of normal senses to realize the truth of what we've been trying to tell you.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you can't answer the question.  So you have no idea what CO2 does with the climate.
> ...



Back to groundhog day with you, eh?  Again the mythbuster experiment addressed in a different thread, no need to rehash and you still have nothing. None, not one high school experiment, not one.  You have nothing sir, listen your alarm just went off and there is Sonny and Cher singing.

And Gigantor soars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> No one has EVER claimed that was impossible.  It has been mainstream science that brought you that data and told you what it showed.
> 
> There are TWO processes taking place:
> 
> ...



Are you calling Old Rocks chart total bullshit?






Start with 320,000. Temps up, CO2 up. All that ocean venting of CO2....and temperatures collapse? What? How?  Why is OR chart a denier??


----------



## Kosh (Aug 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> It'd be almost sad were you not such an unabidable jerk.



So in other words you have no real science to back your religious beliefs.

Still waiting for that link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> No one has EVER claimed that was impossible.  It has been mainstream science that brought you that data and told you what it showed.
> 
> There are TWO processes taking place:
> 
> ...



So where is the tropospheric hot spot demanded by that sort of energy movement?  It has to be there or the hypothesis trips over its shoelaces and falls on its face...Where is it at.  Half a million radiosondes say that it isn't there.  No such process is happening...Get yourself another hypothesis...that one has failed.  Only tremendous amounts of money and media support are keeping it alive.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2014)

Come on crick...according to you, and climate pseudoscience, the atmosphere is absorbing radiation that warmed ocean and land masses are trying to radiate out into space...that radiation is being trapped in the atmosphere....

WHERE IS THE HOT SPOT THAT SUCH AN ENERGY TRANSFER WOULD INEVETABLY CAUSE???

A million or more radiosondes sent up since the 1960's say conclusively that there is no tropospheric hot spot...the satellites don't see a hot spot...but the models and the greenhouse hypothesis demand that it be there...Where is it if the hypothesis is valid?


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2014)

The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion.  CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.

The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.

When the surface warms, there's more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate - there's less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It's all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what's causing the warming. If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you'd still see a hot spot.

There's a figure in the IPCC 4th Assessment report that shows the "temperature signature" expected from the various forcings that drive climate. This figure is frequently misinterpreted. Let's have a close look:   





_Figure 1: Atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1990 from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) greenhouse gases, (d) ozone, (e) sulfate aerosols and (f) sum of all forcing (IPCC AR4)._

The source of the confusion is box c, showing the modelled temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot. Does this mean the greenhouse effect causes the hot spot? Not directly. Greenhouse gases cause surface warming which changes the lapse rate leading to the hot spot. The reason the hot spot in box c is so strong is because greenhouse warming is so strong compared to the other forcings.

The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005), this increases our confidence that we're on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAH, RSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.

Weather balloon measurements are influenced by effects like the daytime heating of the balloons. When these effects are adjusted for, the weather balloon data is broadly consistent with models  (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). Lastly, there is measurements of wind strength from weather balloons. The direct relationship between temperature and wind shear allows us to empirically obtain a temperature profile of the atmosphere. This method finds a hot spot (Allen 2008).

Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying - there is still much uncertainty in the long-term trend. It's hard when the short-term variability is nearly an order of magnitude greater than the long-term trend. Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short-term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales. There is some evidence of a hot spot over timeframes of decades but there's still much work to be done in this department. Conversely, the data isn't conclusive enough to unequivocally say there is no hot spot.

The take-home message is that you first need to understand what's causing the hot spot. "Changes in the lapse rate" is not as sexy or intuitive as a greenhouse signature but that's the physical reality. Once you properly understand the cause, you can put the whole issue in proper context. As the hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate, we expect to see a short-term hot spot. We do.

What about a long-term hot spot? With short-term observations confirming our understanding of the lapse rate, that leaves spurious long-term biases as the most likely culprit. However, as observations improve, if it turns out the long-term hot spot is not as strong as expected, the main question will be why do we see a short-term hot spot but not a long-term hot spot?

There's no tropospheric hot spot


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion.  CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.
> 
> The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.
> 
> ...



*CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures *

The fish won't dissolve in the ocean?

That's a relief.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion.  CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.



Actually bulwinkle, it is the central issue and bears every relevance to the point under discussion...if, in fact, the additional CO2 is absorbing IR and preventing it from radiating out to space as you say, there would, in fact, be a hot spot in the troposphere..it would be the smoking gun...the fingerprint proving the hypothesis...it doesn't exist therefore what you claim to be happening isn't....and the hypothesis fails.

By the way, your excuse for no hot spot is as idiotic as the couple of dozen excuses for the fact that it isn't still warming...you have been fooled...you have been used...you are a dupe...you are a useful idiot...and you are too damned dumb to even know it or consider how badly you have been taken advantage of.


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2014)

The number of gross and fundamental errors you maintain regarding numerous areas of basic physics disqualify you from expressing a worthwhile opinion on diddly squat.  John Christy is one of the better qualified deniers you've got and his opinion is that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between short and long term observations is measurement uncertainty - NOT a failure of AGW.  The article I quoted referenced ten peer reviewed studies on this topic.  You've not referenced one.  

Why don't you get back to us when you grow a pair, intellectually speaking.

Ian - do you really want to encourage SSDD?  Do you really want us to think you agree with any of his physics misconceptions?


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 12, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It'd be almost sad were you not such an unabidable jerk.
> ...



Odd becausebi already gave you that.  All you do is repeat the same few statements, ad nausium.  Try changing records.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Woooo, bubba, you have evidence?  Wow let's see it, you know the one that shows that 120 PPM drives temperatures.  Oh haven't you been reading all of the other threads in here?  If you are, then you'll realize, you don't have any evidence, so ........*LoSiNg*


----------



## SSDD (Aug 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> The number of gross and fundamental errors you maintain regarding numerous areas of basic physics disqualify you from expressing a worthwhile opinion on diddly squat.  John Christy is one of the better qualified deniers you've got and his opinion is that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between short and long term observations is measurement uncertainty - NOT a failure of AGW.  The article I quoted referenced ten peer reviewed studies on this topic.  You've not referenced one.
> 
> Why don't you get back to us when you grow a pair, intellectually speaking.
> 
> Ian - do you really want to encourage SSDD?  Do you really want us to think you agree with any of his physics misconceptions?



Sure you won't mind if I don't put much credence in the opinion of a poser, obviously pretending to be an ocean engineer.  Sad and pathetic...being so embarrassed about whatever you are that you feel the need to pretend to be something  you aren't to a bunch of strangers you will never meet.   

Sad...damned sad.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> The issue of the tropospheric hotspot bears no relevance to the point under discussion.  CO2 is released from solution by increasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR.
> 
> The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it's more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.
> 
> ...



The source of the confusion is box c, showing the *modelled *temperature change from greenhouse gases. Note the strong hot spot.

AGWCult models predict...AGW.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The number of gross and fundamental errors you maintain regarding numerous areas of basic physics disqualify you from expressing a worthwhile opinion on diddly squat.  John Christy is one of the better qualified deniers you've got and his opinion is that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between short and long term observations is measurement uncertainty - NOT a failure of AGW.  The article I quoted referenced ten peer reviewed studies on this topic.  You've not referenced one.
> ...








Hey Robin. Hope you're feeling better.


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



How about John Christy?  Do you believe him to be a "poser"?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2014)

Crick, you are assuming that these people actually read anything at all on the subject. They do not, they merely mouth the twaddle that is fed them by the likes of the obese junkie on the radio. They neither understand science nor do they care to. For them, work is a four letter word, and they are not going to do such to understand basic physics and chemistry.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Crick, you are assuming that these people actually read anything at all on the subject. They do not, they merely mouth the twaddle that is fed them by the likes of the obese junkie on the radio. They neither understand science nor do they care to. For them, work is a four letter word, and they are not going to do such to understand basic physics and chemistry.



You know, you're right. I have no desire to go to school to become a physics major at age 58.  Instead, I expect and depend on those with the experience to guide me correctly.  And if you are not a physics major or climate type or scientist, then you are like me counting on others for data.  To which, I will remain focused on expecting proof from those supposed experts to provide correct data.  So, do you have the data set that shows through experiment what 120 PPM of CO2 can do to temperatures or climate.  See, i don't need to be an expert, I merely need to stay consistent with my inquisitve nature and expectations as a human being.  I do think for myself and don't just jump because someone tells me to jump.  I evaluate the situation and make decisions based on factual information.  So give me some factual info that agrees with your position. I've provided mine.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2014)

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which  a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified.  Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which  a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified.  Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.



The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.......


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which  a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified.  Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.
> ...



I believe he and the others are of the position that if one isn't an expert, then one is not allowed to ask questions of said experts.  We are all supposed to just drink the koolaid.  I can't and never will be one of those.  It isn't in my DNA.  You see, logic escapes them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which  a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified.  Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.



Well, there's the Oregon Oysters, or the Mythbuster 7.38% CO2 experiment


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Just pointing out SSDD's weak understanding of physics.

Still don't think we should crush our economy because watermelons are whining.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I was referring to old stones and his followers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Crick, you are assuming that these people actually read anything at all on the subject. They do not, they merely mouth the twaddle that is fed them by the likes of the obese junkie on the radio. They neither understand science nor do they care to. For them, work is a four letter word, and they are not going to do such to understand basic physics and chemistry.
> ...



*I am an industrial milwright with 50 years experiance, and am still working full time. I also have earned 110 credits toward a degree in Geology, and am still attending a university part time to get that degree. And, yes, I am 70 years old. 

Here is the information that you requested;*

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence  hotly debated among scientists of his day  that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?	
       - LINKS -



For full discussion see
<=Climate cycles

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (infrared radiation) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.	

<=Simple models

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which  a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified.  Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.



*Very easy to do, although you will deny the paper.*

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

*The paper has the math in it, and the predictions made have been pretty much spot on.*


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you want to point out my weak understanding of physics, then provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature with no work being done to make it happen....unless you can provide that, you have pointed out nothing other than your inability to provide evidence to support your faith in post modern science.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which  a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified.  Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.
> ...



So the authors say that models predict a temperature increase of 2 to 3.5 degree increase for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppm...of course that is not spot on...barely a half a degree since the beginning of the 20th century with most of that being prior to 1950 and no warming at all for damned near 2 decades...

Aside from that, you claim to have answered my challenge to have shown a peer reviewed paper which has actually observed, measured, and quantified when the authors state clearly that: "The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2 to 3.5 C for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600ppm.  I read the paper and may have missed it, so perhaps you can show me where an actual observation, measurement and quantification of the greenhouse effect happened.  I do hope you realize that model data is not actual observation.

The math is certainly there, but it is nothing more than the math that has gone into making the models which are failing spectacularly.  Arguing that the models are spot on is just stupid.

So this paper claims 2. to 3.5 degrees C for a doubling from 300 to 600.  But you made THIS post which says that models suggest a sensitivity of 1.5 to 5 degrees for a doubling of CO2.  without going out and looking at all of the model predictions you have posted, we have a margin of error of 4 degrees attached to an observed warming of barely half a degree with most of that happening in the early part of the 20th century when CO2 levels were "safe".

Of what value are model predictions with a margin of error of 4 degrees when those models are failing?

Go back and try again....lets see a peer reviewed paper where a greenhouse effect was actually observed, measured, and quantified......or be a grown up and simply admit that after hundreds of billions of dollars flushed down the climate science toilet, there is still no actual observation of a greenhouse effect, no actual measurement of a greenhouse effect, and no quantification of a greenhouse effect.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2014)

That's what I thought.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> That's what I thought.




What, that he would not be able to produce anything in which an actual observation, measurement and quantification of a greenhouse effect was documented?  

Just what I thought too.  

Question is, don't you think that after the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by climate science that it is unreasonable to expect that some actual observation, measurement, and quantification of a greenhouse effect would have been documented if it actually exists outside of computer models?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Photons (or waves, if you don't believe in photons) move from cold objects to warmer objects all the time. Check it out, an ice cube is colder than my eye, and not invisible.

I'm still waiting for your refutation of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant....


The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the *power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature . *

Check it out! The higher the temperature, the more power emitted.
Nothing about your smart photons. 

Or is  Stefan-Boltzmann too post-modern for you?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So like me you are no pysics genious.  SSDD already replied to you concerning models and the fact that models are not proof or evidence if the observed data doesn't support them.  So all of th hypothesis in the world doesn't mean or make an argument to which you have no evidence.  That is all we're asking for on this board.  

Since you are now studying geology, haven't you learned that the earth has hot magma at it's core?  Isn't it just possible that some of the magma that is released, causes warming to the surface of the planet?  Also, over the course of time isn't there now more rock on the surface to which becomes warm due to te sun's rays?   And wouldn't you expect that the science provide some evidence that human CO2 does anything to the atmosphere?  

Sorry, I just don't believe them or their failed models.  BTW, as an engineer myself, I am disappointed that they, the scientists, don't behave as one would expect when a model doesn't fit the observed.  That doesn't cut it in my field.  I have customers who count on accuracy of a hypothesis before buying a product.  Well I'm the customer of the climate science group and I ain't buyng it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

And as a multidecade experianced millwright, over half the engineers I deal with do not cut it. I have had to rework too many abysmally stupid designs to kowtow to anyone because they are an engineer.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> And as a multidecade experianced millwright, over half the engineers I deal with do not cut it. I have had to rework too many abysmally stupid designs to kowtow to anyone because they are an engineer.



Right!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Aug 15, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Isn't it just possible that some of the magma that is released, causes warming to the surface of the planet?



No. That is, the heat flowing out from the earth is fairly constant. It would require a thousand-fold increase in vulcanism to account for the increased temps, and that clearly hasn't happened.



> Also, over the course of time isn't there now more rock on the surface to which becomes warm due to the sun's rays?



There has been no increase in the amount of rockiness over the past 50 years that would account for warming. There have been changes in earth's albedo due to humans changing the landscape, which are closely tracked by scientists.



> And wouldn't you expect that the science provide some evidence that human CO2 does anything to the atmosphere?



It has done so, over and over, but you've chosen to deliberately ignore the evidence. If you act like that on the job, ignoring all the evidence you don't like, your products must suck.



> Sorry, I just don't believe them or their failed models.  BTW, as an engineer myself, I am disappointed that they, the scientists, don't behave as one would expect when a model doesn't fit the observed.  That doesn't cut it in my field.  I have customers who count on accuracy of a hypothesis before buying a product.  Well I'm the customer of the climate science group and I ain't buyng it.



Engineers are often deniers, and the the worst kinds, because they stupidly think their technical training has made them scientists. In general, they don't even understand the difference between engineering and science.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 15, 2014)

The smoking guns keep coming. This one confirms the water vapor feedback.

Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
---
    Eui-Seok Chunga,
    Brian Sodena,1,
    B. J. Sohnb, and
    Lei Shic
---

Uh-oh. No big names from the denier hate-list, so they can't instantly handwave it away. They'll have to add those names to their hate-list.

---
Abstract

Water vapor in the upper troposphere strongly regulates the strength of water-vapor feedback, which is the primary process for amplifying the response of the climate system to external radiative forcings. Monitoring changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor and scrutinizing the causes of such changes are therefore of great importance for establishing the credibility of model projections of past and future climates. Here, we use coupled oceanatmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 19792005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate. By attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying anthropogenic climate change.
---

Part one, they looked at the outgoing infrared in the water vapor absorption band between 1979 and 2005, and they found lots more water vapor.

Part two, they tried to figure out why, and the only explanation that worked was higher temps had led to more water vapor in the upper troposphere, exactly as the models had predicted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The smoking guns keep coming. This one confirms the water vapor feedback.
> 
> Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
> ---
> ...


As we've suspected. H2O > CO2 as a GHG

Thank you for highlighting that


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 15, 2014)

The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?



Which is when?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?



Why did they use the phrase "Climatic Optimum" to describe previous warm periods, if warmer gives us an "uninhabitable planet"? How does that work?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Photons (or waves, if you don't believe in photons) move from cold objects to warmer objects all the time. Check it out, an ice cube is colder than my eye, and not invisible.



I guess you believe you are making a point....I do wish you understood that you are not....put that ice cube in a dark cold room where only its radiation can reach your eye and tell me how much your eye absorbs...

When you see visible light, unless you are looking directly into the light source, you are seeing light reflected from the source, not photons (if photons exist) originating from the object itself.  The light you see reflecting to you from the ice cube didn't originate from the ice cube...it originated from another source.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> still waiting for your refutation of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant....



No need...the SB equation describes a one way gross flow of energy from warm to cold in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics...not a two way net flow with the net being towards warm according to an unproven, unobserved, unmeasured, untestable mathematical model..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?
> ...



In the warmer mind, optimum must mean something bad...just to be sure, I looked it up.

optimum - 1.the best or most favorable point, degree, amount, etc., as of temperature, light, and moisture for the growth or reproduction of an organism.

2.the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions.

Why would warmers not want to live in a climatic optimum?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Photons (or waves, if you don't believe in photons) move from cold objects to warmer objects all the time. Check it out, an ice cube is colder than my eye, and not invisible.
> ...



*the SB equation describes a one way gross flow of energy from warm to cold *

You'll have to show me the footnote that says "one-way" or "depending on the temperature of surrounding objects", because it isn't there.

Or explain this:

*If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.*

If the energy flow is one way, how does the warmer object know to slow down its radiation, as the cooler object warms? Is that your smart photon theory again?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?
> ...



The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction

In 1998 Samuel Bowring and colleagues reported that the carbon isotope change at the P-T boundary in South China was probably very short-lived: a "spike" only perhaps 165,000 years long. This suggests a major (catastrophic?) addition of non-organic carbon to the ocean, rather than just a failure in the supply of organic carbon. They suggested three possible scenarios. Two of them are variants of the Siberian Traps scenario above, except that in addition the climatic changes could have set off an overturn of Panthalassa and a carbon dioxide crisis. Their third suggestion is an asteroid impact, but there is not much evidence for that.

Most recently, Greg Retallack and colleagues have found evidence in Australia that suggests a prolonged greenhouse warming set in right at the P-T boundary. Several paleoclimatic indicators suggest the same story, which implies that the role of carbon dioxide was the vital link between any environmental disasters and the extinctions. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have been increased by volcanic eruptions, by oceanic turnover, and it would have been accentuated and prolonged if plants were killed off globally. (World floras and oceanic plankton would have to recover before the carbon dioxide could be drawn down out of the atmosphere.) We may be getting close to the answer here!

So far there is only enough evidence to fix a major impact at one of the mass extinctions in the fossil record, the K*T extinction, and perhaps to suggest another at the F*F boundary. Likewise, there is only enough evidence to connect giant flood basalt eruptions with two mass extinctions, at the P*Tr and the K*T boundary extinctions. It is clear, however, that the largest known impact and the largest known eruption coincide with undoubted mass extinctions. It would be amazing if that was a coincidence. These questions are still open!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

*Rapid changes in the overall temperature of the Earth will lead, and this is happening right now, to an unstable climate. That is bad news for an agriculture upon which over 7 billion people depend. Should the clathrates start to let go in the Arctic, things are going to get very interesting very quickly.*

Scientists discover vast methane plumes escaping from Arctic seafloor | Earth | EarthSky

An international team of scientists aboard the icebreaker Oden &#8211; currently north of eastern Siberia, in the Arctic Ocean &#8211; is working primarily to measure methane emissions from the Arctic seafloor. On July 22, 2014, only a week into their voyage, the team reported &#8220;elevated methane levels, about 10 times higher than background seawater.&#8221; They say the culprit in this release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, may be a tongue of relatively warm water from the Atlantic Ocean, the last remnants of the Gulf Stream, mixing into the Arctic Ocean. A press release from University of Stockholm described the discovery as:

&#8230; vast methane plumes escaping from the seafloor of the Laptev continental slope. These early glimpses of what may be in store for a warming Arctic Ocean could help scientists project the future releases of the strong greenhouse gas methane from the Arctic Ocean.

The scientists refer to the plumes as methane mega flares.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Optimum is not spelled "extinction". Try again?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.



It's been warmer than now, fairly recently.

I might have missed the massive extinctions that occurred.
You have a link?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.
> ...



Really? Your link as to when it has recently been warmer is where?

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

The reconstruction from Moberg et al. (2005) utilizes complementary information from proxy data that preserve both low- and high-frequency climate information. High-resolution data from tree rings reflect annual to multidecadal variability best and are precisely dated to the calendar year. The low resolution proxy records used here, from ice cores, boreholes, cave stalagmites, and lake and ocean sediments, contain information at centennial scales, but are based on less precise dating. A methodology based on wavelet transformation was used to isolate the climate information at the appropriate frequencies for each of the two types of data. The resulting reconstruction combines this information to include climate variability at annual to centennial scale frequencies. The reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere annual temperature anomalies is scaled to the 1961-1990 instrumental mean temperature, in degrees K (equivalent to degrees C). The Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature from instrumental records has been added to this graph (in red) for comparison and is scaled to the same mean period. 

The Moberg reconstruction shares the larger degree of multicentennial variability with the borehole reconstructions (see Huang 2005), but the pattern of variability is very similar to that of the high-resolution reconstructions. The authors suggest that the greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*Really? Your link as to when it has recently been warmer is where?*

It hasn't been warmer in the last 20,000 years? 30,000? 50,000? 100,000?
Did we get a massive extinction event then?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm. And the CH4 was about 800 ppb. Today, the CO2 level is above 400 ppm, and the CH4 above 1800 ppb. The sea level at that time was about 20 ft higher than today. The climate has an inertia in it, and takes time to ramp up, but as it does, our descendents will see more than a 20 ft increase in sea level, and a much warmer world than today.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm. And the CH4 was about 800 ppb. Today, the CO2 level is above 400 ppm, and the CH4 above 1800 ppb. The sea level at that time was about 20 ft higher than today. The climate has an inertia in it, and takes time to ramp up, but as it does, our descendents will see more than a 20 ft increase in sea level, and a much warmer world than today.



*It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm. *

How many species died out?

How many during the MWP?

*and a much warmer world than today.*

Maybe they'll see another Climatic Optimum?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

Toddster, are you really that stupid, or are you being purposely obtuse. The present level has happened in the last 150 years. That is a far greater rate of increase than we have seen in millions of years. In fact, it is a faster rate of increase than we saw in the P-T extinction event.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddster, are you really that stupid, or are you being purposely obtuse. The present level has happened in the last 150 years. That is a far greater rate of increase than we have seen in millions of years. In fact, it is a faster rate of increase than we saw in the P-T extinction event.



You can tell that the increase now is faster than the increase 253 million years ago? Cool!

Show me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2014)

End-Permian mass extinction (the Great Dying) | Natural History Museum

Over the course of about 600,000 years huge volumes of viscous basalt lava poured out across Siberia, covering an area roughly 7 times the size of France. 

Massive clouds of gases belched out. The sulphur dioxide caused acid rain and global cooling. But this was only short-term. The temperature increased as the eruptions injected carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and yet more escaped from coal deposits exposed in the surrounding area. 

As the oceans warmed, frozen methane located in marine sediments may have melted. If so, the release of this potent greenhouse gas could have turned the planet&#8217;s temperature up even more.

As well as being devastating for marine and land plants and animals, Late Permian environmental changes created anoxic conditions in the sea. This lack of oxygen caused additional widespread extinctions because it destroyed food chains.

*There are many, many articles on the P-T extinction. As more data comes in, it looks increasingly like a very rapid increase in GHGs created a very hot earth with a low oxygen level. Now we are creating the potential for a repeat of this.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> End-Permian mass extinction (the Great Dying) | Natural History Museum
> 
> Over the course of about 600,000 years huge volumes of viscous basalt lava poured out across Siberia, covering an area roughly 7 times the size of France.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link.

Let me know when you find one that proves your claim.

* a very hot earth with a low oxygen level. Now we are creating the potential for a repeat of this*

We're going to repeat a low oxygen level?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm. And the CH4 was about 800 ppb. Today, the CO2 level is above 400 ppm, and the CH4 above 1800 ppb. The sea level at that time was about 20 ft higher than today. The climate has an inertia in it, and takes time to ramp up, but as it does, our descendents will see more than a 20 ft increase in sea level, and a much warmer world than today.


...and he can back that up with lab experiments too.

Uh huh

Sure he can


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2014)

What makes you think lab experiments are required?  What makes you think they're definitive?  What lab experiments would you like to see... specifically?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.



They didn't involve major changes in CO2 but at the time, the atmospheric CO2 was close to 2000ppm. No runaway warming at 2000ppm...how could that be?  What is our paltry contribution to atmospheric CO2 when the natural level, when the earth is not in an ice age is over 1000ppm?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Your link as to when it has recently been warmer is where?



Here...according to the IPCC


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddster, are you really that stupid, or are you being purposely obtuse. The present level has happened in the last 150 years. That is a far greater rate of increase than we have seen in millions of years. In fact, it is a faster rate of increase than we saw in the P-T extinction event.



Can you prove any of that claim?  Which proxies will give you an accurate resolution of 150 years?

You are full of shit rocks...you say whatever you think will bolster your cause because you are driven by a political agenda....you claim to be studying towards a degree...and you lie through your teeth in an effort to make a point...nothing about you makes me think that if you were an actual scientist that you would hesitate for a second to fudge, alter, manipulate, or fabricate data to help you in your political motivations....most of those who claim to be climate scientists identify themselves with the same politics as you and I don't doubt for a second that people like you will lie without even an eye blink if you think it will further your politics.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> What makes you think lab experiments are required?  What makes you think they're definitive?  What lab experiments would you like to see... specifically?



An experiment reflecting something like real world conditions that demonstrates that adding a whisp of CO2 will result in warming might be nice....maybe some experiments that would actually demonstrate an observable greenhouse effect in the atmosphere...some experiments that would perhaps result in quantifying the greenhouse effect if it exists...

Hundreds of billion dollars have been poured into the AGW hoax...do you think it is unreasonable to expect that a greenhouse effect, if it exists would have been observed and measured by now...or that it would have been quantified.....and I mean really quantified...not the 5 degree temperature spread posited by climate models....hundreds of billions that could have been spent on real environmental issues and not the first observation, measurement, or quantification of the claimed greenhouse effect...the so called data is all computer model output.


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think lab experiments are required?  What makes you think they're definitive?  What lab experiments would you like to see... specifically?
> ...



A desktop-sized container of gas DOES "reflect something like real world conditions", but it is obviously grossly less complex, less massive with a tiny fraction of the components present in the Earth's environment.  This is all obvious.  When I asked you what experiment you'd like to see "specifically" I wanted to know how you would address the scaling issues and gross simplification that any LABORATORY experiment of this nature will unavoidably suffer.



SSDD said:


> Hundreds of billion dollars have been poured into the AGW hoax...do you think it is unreasonable to expect that a greenhouse effect, if it exists would have been observed and measured by now...or that it would have been quantified.....and I mean really quantified...not the 5 degree temperature spread posited by climate models....hundreds of billions that could have been spent on real environmental issues and not the first observation, measurement, or quantification of the claimed greenhouse effect...the so called data is all computer model output.



If the greenhouse effect did not exist (and did you not just a few hours ago make the statement "who says it doesn't exist?") the average of the estimates of climate sensitivity would be ZERO.  Half the estimates would show cooling.  How many studies have you seen that indicate greenhouse gases can cause cooling?

The greenhouse effect was demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL the world's scientists over a hundred years ago.  It is not widely accepted.  It is UNIVERSALLY accepted.   The graphs of absorption spectra you've seen posted here dozens of times are definitive evidence.  Your classic denier charge that it is all meaningless computer models shows only the multivariate nature of your ignorance.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


So why do you keep insisting that the CO2 drives the climate? Now you're saying that you havent eliminated all the variables except -- it can't be both. Either you've eliminated all the variables or you haven't


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> If the greenhouse effect did not exist (and did you not just a few hours ago make the statement "who says it doesn't exist?") the average of the estimates of climate sensitivity would be ZERO.  Half the estimates would show cooling.  How many studies have you seen that indicate greenhouse gases can cause cooling?



No...I don't think I said that at all....I said that no one said that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit LW....again, you simply make up what you wish your opponent said and argue against that.

If, a greenhouse effect exists as described and modeled by climate science, why does the model only work on earth?  Why do the physics used to describe the so called greenhouse on earth break down on other planets and not yield a temperature even close to the actual temperature on those other planets while using nothing more than the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation, one can get very close to the actual temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere.



Crick said:


> greenhouse effect was demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL the world's scientists over a hundred years ago.  It is not widely accepted.  It is UNIVERSALLY accepted.   The graphs of absorption spectra you've seen posted here dozens of times are definitive evidence.  Your classic denier charge that it is all meaningless computer models shows only the multivariate nature of your ignorance.




The greenhouse effect as demonstrated 100 years ago was debunked by woods barely a year later....all of the claims were shown to be false.

As to a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, as opposed to in a jar being demonstrated, observed, measured or quantified.........still waiting.


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> If the greenhouse effect did not exist (and did you not just a few hours ago make the statement "who says it doesn't exist?") the average of the estimates of climate sensitivity would be ZERO.  Half the estimates would show cooling.  How many studies have you seen that indicate greenhouse gases can cause cooling?





SSDD said:


> No...I don't think I said that at all....I said that no one said that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit LW....again, you simply make up what you wish your opponent said and argue against that.



How many times have you said "If a greenhouse effect exists"?  How many times have you said "absorption followed by emission doesn't equal warming"?



SSDD said:


> If, a greenhouse effect exists as described and modeled by climate science, why does the model only work on earth?  Why do the physics used to describe the so called greenhouse on earth break down on other planets and not yield a temperature even close to the actual temperature on those other planets while using nothing more than the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation, one can get very close to the actual temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere.



The greenhouse effect works just fine on other planets.  Here are a few sites discussing the matter:

Greenhouse effect: Other planets - - Science Museum

ESA Science & Technology: Greenhouse effects... also on other planets

Venus & Mars

Greenhouse effect on other planets?



Crick said:


> greenhouse effect was demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL the world's scientists over a hundred years ago.  It is not widely accepted.  It is UNIVERSALLY accepted.   The graphs of absorption spectra you've seen posted here dozens of times are definitive evidence.  Your classic denier charge that it is all meaningless computer models shows only the multivariate nature of your ignorance.





SSDD said:


> The greenhouse effect as demonstrated 100 years ago was debunked by woods barely a year later....all of the claims were shown to be false.



Then you do reject it.  Though even Willis Eschenback says Wood was full of crap.  Check out The R. W. Wood Experiment | Watts Up With That?



SSDD said:


> As to a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, as opposed to in a jar being demonstrated, observed, measured or quantified.........still waiting.



What do you believe is raising the Earth's temperature 33C higher than Stefan-Boltzman says it should be?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> How many times have you said "If a greenhouse effect exists"?  How many times have you said "absorption followed by emission doesn't equal warming"?



Since I don't think that a greenhouse effect, as described by climate science exists, I say it every time I voice the opinion...and absorption followed by emission do not equal warming.



Crick said:


> greenhouse effect works just fine on other planets.  Here are a few sites discussing the matter:



Your links are bullshit...they simply make the claim that a greenhouse effect as described by climate science exists on other planets...fact is, it doesn't even exist here.....and any pseudoscientific site that claims that the temperature on venus is due to a runaway greehouse effect is not worth the time it takes to read....the temperature on venus is due to its atmospheric pressure....not a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

A greenhouse effect as described by climate science requires solar radiation be absorbed by the surface, radiated into the atmosphere and then back radiated to the surface...very little solar radiation ever reaches the surface of venus..

The lack of a greenhouse effect was proven by the venus probe...despite claims of a runaway greenhouse effect on venus, the probes showed that if one descends into the atmosphere of venus to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is 1000 millibars or the sea level pressure of earth, the temperature is 66C....warmer than earth but when one accounts for the difference from the sun and resulting increased incoming solar radiation, the temperature there at the same pressure as earth is almost identical to the temperature of earth....in an atmosphere composed almost entirely of so called greenhouse gasses.  That alone should have been enough to send the greenhouse hypothesis to the trash if climate science were an honest branch of science...

For further evidence of the lack of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science one need only apply the ideal gas laws to the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres.

These calculations were provided by Ross MLeod..properties are from the planetary fact sheet from NASA....feel free to point out any errors to NASA...(note:  (S)=Surface (1 bar)= equals  altitude where pressure equals that at earth sea level

Property      Venus         Earth       Mars        Jupiter        Saturn        Uranus        Neptune

Pressure      92000         1014       6.9-9        1000           1000            1000           1000
(millibar)       (S)              (S)         (S)         (1 bar)        (1 bar)         (1 bar)        (1 bar)

Density         65000        1217        20            160             190              420            450
(g/m3)            (S)            (S)         (S)         (1 bar)        (1 bar)         (1 bar)         (1 bar)

Molecular       43.45        28.97      43.34        2.22             2.07           2.64           2.59
weight 
(g/mole)

Temp(K)         737K         288K       210k        165K            134K          76K             72K              
                                  (S)            (S)          (S)       (1 bar)         (1 bar)       (1 bar)        (1 bar)


Solar              2613.9     1367.6     589.2        50.50            14.90          3.71          1.51
Irradiance
(w/m2)

Black Body      184.2        254.3       210.1      110.0             81.1            58.2          46.6
Temperature
(K)


Venus
PV = nRT
92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth
PV = nRT
1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K

Mars
PV = nRT
Because the Martian atmosphere is so slight 2 calculations  were used the minimum and maximum measured at the Viking Lander Site to demonstrate something significant.
6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,
T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K

Jupiter
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K
There can, by definition be no greenhouse effect on jupiter

Saturn
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Saturn

Uranus
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Uranus

Neptune
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Neptune

Particularly note the actual surface temperature of earth and the temperature calculated via the ideal gas laws....very close....doesn't the greenhouse hypothesis claim that an additional 33C is added by the greenhouse effect?   Don't you find it interesting that according to the greenhouse hypothesis without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C while the ideal gas laws say that the temperature on earth should be pretty damned close to the actual temperature on earth?

And as to the physics of the greenhouse effect working fine on other planets, that statement is laughable...the actual temperature on the surface of Venus is about 464C  the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature on venus should be about 477C...the greenhouse effect model, when applied to venus predicts that without a greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus would be a balmy 68C....the ideal gas laws say 477....the greenhouse effect claims to be 396 degrees on venus.

It is absolutely laughable....What would the greenhouse effect be on planets that have no greenhouse effect due to a lack of greenhouse gasses?  The ideal gas laws predict those temperatures just fine...what does the greenhouse effect say?

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is profound, but it doesn't care what the composition of the atmosphere is and thus isn't politically attractive as human activity can not be demonized...




Crick said:


> you do reject it.  Though even Willis Eschenback says Wood was full of crap.  Check out The R. W. Wood Experiment | Watts Up With That?



You think Willis is full of shit and don't believe a word he says, but think he is correct regarding Woods experiment?  Interesting...Since you don't believe him, and think he is a hack, why do you accept his opinion on this matter?  Let me guess...you accept anything from anyone so long as it agrees with what you think...and reject anything from anyone if they disagree with you.




Crick said:


> do you believe is raising the Earth's temperature 33C higher than Stefan-Boltzman says it should be?



The Stephan Boltzman law applies to black bodies...it can't be rightly applied to earth..one more error within the failing greenhouse hypothesis.

The actual san temperature of the planet is about 59 degrees F....the ideal gas laws (with no greenhouse effect) predict that the temperature is 69 degrees F....the greenhouse hypothesis predicts that the temperaure without a greenhouse effect the temperature would be barely above 0 degrees F....which is more believable?  No greenhouse effect as described by climate science exists.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2014)

You are both stupid and full of shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C [278.45K]. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about &#8722;18 °C [255.15K].[7][8]   The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C[287.15K].[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]



5) "NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
6) "Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, "The Greenhouse Effect"". Acmg.seas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
7) "Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
8) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97
9) The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion
10) Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2014)

And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?

Then consider reflected incoming solar radiation...albedo...etc., and the ideal gas laws just about nail the temperature on earth while the greehouse effect is way off in left field...

You have fallen for a hoax...and are to dumb to know it...at some point (assuming that even idiots can't be fooled indefinitely) you will transition from to dumb to know to to proud and arrogant to admit it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?



The ideal gas law?!?!? I wouldn't have thought someone could be this stupid if they tried.  You still think that pressure generates energy forever.  What the ever-living fuck is wrong with you?



SSDD said:


> Then consider reflected incoming solar radiation...albedo...etc., and the ideal gas laws just about nail the temperature on earth while the greehouse effect is way off in left field...



The idea gas law is PV=nRT.  Which one of those terms covers albedo?  Which one of those terms covers incoming radiation?  Which one covers outgoing radiation?  My god are you STUPID.



SSDD said:


> You have fallen for a hoax...and are to dumb to know it...at some point (assuming that even idiots can't be fooled indefinitely) you will transition from to dumb to know to to proud and arrogant to admit it.



You believe all the world's scientists have been perpetrating a hoax since the time of Boyle, Charles and Dalton.  Yeah, that's a reasonable position.

You're an idiot and a whack job.  You need to seek an education and professional help.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 17, 2014)

Why do we have to do this with the AGW cult every single time:






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Also not that neither Venus nor Mars has a magnetic field. So to compare the Earth to any other planet like Venus or Mars as the so called greenhouse effect is silly.

But then again the AGW religious scriptures will not allow them to admit they are wrong:






AGW is not science and soon as we can get this cult to step down and let real science happen, the better we will all be.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Why do we have to do this with the AGW cult every single time:



Repeat your lies?  Because you've no real evidence or data to support the shite you're trying to push on us; that's why.



Kosh said:


> People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.



People are told that all over.  The point has been made in every single IPCC assessment report.  The point has appeared in hundreds if not thousands of articles about global warming.  Your contention here that such information is being withheld is a lie.



Kosh said:


> When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.



This is bullshit and why it is bullshit has been explained to you before.  Thus your repetition of this post (and this is probably the fifth time you've posted the exact same material) is a WILLFUL LIE.  Your "one percent" is the *annual contribution* humans make to the total of all greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.  Humans have been putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, at an ever-increasing rate, since the beginning of the industrial revolution over 150 years ago.  The total amount of human-derived greenhouse gases CURRENTLY in the Earth's atmosphere is 42% of the total.  *42%, not 1%, you lying sack of shit*



Kosh said:


> Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it.



Not all the global warming you're talking about.  The greenhouse effect was taking place before humans existed.  If it weren't for the global warming provided by the greenhouse effect acting on CO2, CH4 and water vapor, this planet would have never been anything but a bloody frozen rock (I almost said snowball, but snow would require water which would cause warming).  The 42% of atmospheric CO2 that humans have added *IS* responsible for the increasing temperatures we've been experiencing. 



Kosh said:


> Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity.



I don't buy your "70 times" but water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.  Fortunately it has a very short life time in the atmosphere: no more than a few days.  Unfortunately, it also provides a strong positive feedback mechanism for any other warming mechanism.  Atmospheric water vapor levels are controlled entirely by temperature.  Increased temperatures - and ONLY increased temperatures - will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.  If CO2 provides 1C of greenhouse warming, the added water vapor in the air from that 1C will produce ANOTHER 1C of warming.



Kosh said:


> When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.



Clouds do have a complex effect.  Clouds reflect incoming solar radiation and absorb and reradiate infrared.  Here's a point for SSDD and his radiative insanity.  If I stand under a clear night sky, I am radiating to space (2.6K) which doesn't send much back..  If I stand under a full bank of cumulus clouds at, say, 15,000 feet, I am radiating to a ceiling at perhaps 250K, which sends MUCH more energy back down to me.  If I walk under a shelter: a leafy forest, a pavilion roof or my own house, I will be radiating to a surface at about 280K and with that decrease in my net loss, will be even more comfortable.

The net effect of clouds, worldwide, is net cooling but not sufficient (obviously) to cancel the effect of  our increased CO2 levels.    



Kosh said:


> Also not that neither Venus nor Mars has a magnetic field. So to compare the Earth to any other planet like Venus or Mars as the so called greenhouse effect is silly.



*What?*  What effect do you think a magnetic field has on the greenhouse effect?  It has *NONE*.  Was this supposed to demonstrate your scientific competence?  I'm curious who told you this was relevant.  Where'd you get this point?



Kosh said:


> But then again the AGW religious scriptures will not allow them to admit they are wrong:



Roy Spencer's graph here is a grossly manipulated lie.  See HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception



Kosh said:


> AGW is not science and soon as we can get this cult to step down and let real science happen, the better we will all be.



Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists and every single national science academy on the planet, your statement is patent nonsense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?
> 
> Then consider reflected incoming solar radiation...albedo...etc., and the ideal gas laws just about nail the temperature on earth while the greehouse effect is way off in left field...
> 
> You have fallen for a hoax...and are to dumb to know it...at some point (assuming that even idiots can't be fooled indefinitely) you will transition from to dumb to know to to proud and arrogant to admit it.



Wow. 
And I thought your only issue was your complete misunderstanding of the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann. 
You should just stop posting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Why do we have to do this with the AGW cult every single time:
> ...



*Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists *

Yes, 75/77 is an impressive number.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 17, 2014)

There was so much AGW religious scripture that was not based in science I chose these:



> Clouds do have a complex effect. Clouds reflect incoming solar radiation and absorb and reradiate infrared. Here's a point for SSDD and his radiative insanity. If I stand under a clear night sky, I am radiating to space (2.6K) which doesn't send much back.. If I stand under a full bank of cumulus clouds at, say, 15,000 feet, I am radiating to a ceiling at perhaps 250K, which sends MUCH more energy back down to me. If I walk under a shelter: a leafy forest, a pavilion roof or my own house, I will be radiating to a surface at about 280K and with that decrease in my net loss, will be even more comfortable.
> 
> The net effect of clouds, worldwide, is net cooling but no sufficient (obviously) to cancel the effect of our increased CO2 levels.



More proof the AGW cult hates real science:






The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot. 

More proof that the AGW scriptures will rule the cult over actual science.



> What? What effect do you think a magnetic field has on the greenhouse effect? It has NONE. Was this supposed to demonstrate your scientific competence? I'm curious who told you this was relevant. Where'd you get this point?



Once again the AGW cult goes to show they do not understand actual science.

If the Earth had NO magnetic field there would be ZERO life on this planet. Just like if there was NO sun there would be ZERO life here.

The AGW religion has been proven to be false.

Although here is something that will make the AGW cult go nuts:

Focus: Simulations Strengthen Earth&#8217;s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection
Physics - Simulations Strengthen Earth?s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection



> Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists and every single national science academy on the planet, your statement is patent nonsense.



So what 75 or so climatologists from the IPCC, that drive high end cars and live a luxurious homes and make their living off the preaching of the AWG religious scriptures? I am supposed to believe a unproven religious belief over actual science?

Sure you continue to believe that, but the real science proves your religion incorrect. Also your AGW cult link to one who posted the AGW cult mantra and not any real science.

The AGW cult will do all they can to suppress real science in order to promote their religion.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2014)

It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, 75/77 is an impressive number.



It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.



Yes. Thousands to start, boiled down to 75/77.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> There was so much AGW religious scripture that was not based in science I chose these:





			
				Crick said:
			
		

> The net effect of clouds, worldwide, is net cooling but not sufficient (obviously) to cancel the effect of our increased CO2 levels.





Kosh said:


> More proof the AGW cult hates real science:



This will be entertaining



Kosh said:


>



This information all comes from Global Warming Classroom, a website produced by 

Dr. Michael S. Coffman (BS in Forestry, MS in Biology, Ph.D. in Forest Science) and

Kristie Pelletier (Associate of Science in Legal Technology) who, between the two of them, have created 

Sovereignty International, Inc., which focuses on threats to national sovereignty in public policies, international treaties and agreements, and in educational and cultural trends.  

Yeah... this is real science.



Kosh said:


> The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.



"Unbearably hot"?  For christ's sake dude.  You've got to be kidding.  Do you ACTUALLY believe this constitutes "real science"?

Here is some fooking real science:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> What? What effect do you think a magnetic field has on the greenhouse effect? It has NONE. Was this supposed to demonstrate your scientific competence? I'm curious who told you this was relevant. Where'd you get this point?





Kosh said:


> Once again the AGW cult goes to show they do not understand actual science.
> 
> If the Earth had NO magnetic field there would be ZERO life on this planet. Just like if there was NO sun there would be ZERO life here.
> 
> The AGW religion has been proven to be false.



No life.  Wow... what a fucking idiot.



Kosh said:


> Although here is something that will make the AGW cult go nuts:
> 
> Focus: Simulations Strengthen Earth&#8217;s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection
> Physics - Simulations Strengthen Earth?s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection



The lead paragraph from your article.  


> *Simulations support the idea that during past ice ages, a slightly faster rotation rate for the Earth could have increased its magnetic field.*
> 
> Rock samples show that variations in Earth&#8217;s magnetic field over tens to hundreds of thousands of years are roughly synchronized with the ice ages. In Physical Review Letters, researchers present a simulation that strengthens the case that the field was influenced by climate changes. The simulation shows that the magnetic field is stronger when Earth rotates faster, which could have occurred when the polar ice caps expanded. The researchers&#8217; model assumes an unrealistically large variation in Earth&#8217;s rotation rate in order to show the effect clearly, but the findings could still help geophysicists better understand the value of Earth&#8217;s magnetic field record as an indicator of climate history.



This has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.  You just did a panicked search and thought this might do.  Too bad.  You still look like a fucking idiot.




			
				Crick said:
			
		

> Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists and every single national science academy on the planet, your statement is patent nonsense.





Kosh said:


> So what 75 or so climatologists from the IPCC, that drive high end cars and live a luxurious homes and make their living off the preaching of the AWG religious scriptures? I am supposed to believe a unproven religious belief over actual science?
> 
> Sure you continue to believe that, but the real science proves your religion incorrect. Also your AGW cult link to one who posted the AGW cult mantra and not any real science.
> 
> The AGW cult will do all they can to suppress real science in order to promote their religion.



"75 climatologists from the IPCC drive high end cars"?  You set new records in stupid.  No, it's worse than that.  You give stupid a bad name.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 17, 2014)

I wonder if any of the deniers here are also Higgs Boson deniers. After all, nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, or even seen direct evidence of a Higgs Boson. The models predictedd what statistical data from particle accelerator experments would, after sifting vast quantities of that statistical data, indicate a high likelihood (not absolute proof) of the existence of the Higgs Boson, and such statistical data was found. Just like AGW science.

The point, obviously, is that deniers are wildly hypocritical on the issue of models, only handwaving away all models on the single issue of AGW science, and that wild double standard completely invalidates their position.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I wonder if any of the deniers here are also Higgs Boson deniers. After all, nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, or even seen direct evidence of a Higgs Boson. The models predictedd what statistical data from particle accelerator experments would, after sifting vast quantities of that statistical data, indicate a high likelihood (not absolute proof) of the existence of the Higgs Boson, and such statistical data was found. Just like AGW science.
> 
> The point, obviously, is that deniers are wildly hypocritical on the issue of models, only handwaving away all models on the single issue of AGW science, and that wild double standard completely invalidates their position.



When a Higgs Boson model is used to push us to waste trillions on more expensive, less reliable energy or to otherwise cripple our economy, I'd be happy to criticize that model.


----------



## Crick (Aug 17, 2014)

The LHC cost over $9 billion to build.  Was that a waste?  What personal benefit have you seen from it's operation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> The LHC cost over $9 billion to build.  Was that a waste?  What personal benefit have you seen from it's operation?



No. Wasting trillions to slow down our economy.......would be a waste.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2014)

Even if that expenditure saves hundreds of trillions down the line.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> The ideal gas law?!?!? I wouldn't have thought someone could be this stupid if they tried.  You still think that pressure generates energy forever.  What the ever-living fuck is wrong with you?



Typical warmer idiot...consider venus and the greenhouse effect you believe it is exhibiting...permanent input of 132 watts per square meter...permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter.  That isn't science...that is science fiction.

And we are still left with the undeniable fact that the ideal gas laws alone come damned close in their predictions of the temperatures of the various planets while the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't even come close....

Tell me about how the greenhouse effect works on planets with no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres?...how do they maintain warmth in their atmospheres if pressure doesn't generate energy forever?  

You are ridiculous...you believe that a permanent solar input on venus of 132 watts per square meter and a greenhouse effect results in an permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter...you think that is science but the ideal gas laws are ridiculous...you are truly an idiot.  If that sort of power generation were possible via a greenhouse effect, don't you think it would be in use commercially?



Crick said:


> believe all the world's scientists have been perpetrating a hoax since the time of Boyle, Charles and Dalton.  Yeah, that's a reasonable position.



You believe in two hoaxes...one that CO2 can warm the climate and two...that most of the worlds scientists are on board with you....neither are true...further you believe that a permanent input of *132* watts per square meter can result in a permanent output of *16,728 *watts per square meter...you believe in science fiction...and not even good science fiction.



Crick said:


> an idiot and a whack job.  You need to seek an education and professional help.



You believe that a permanent input of 132 watts per square meter can result in a permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter and that the ideal gas laws are nonsense...and you call me an idiot and a wack job......You are a laughing stock.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?
> ...



You also believe in a greenhouse effect on venus?  You think a permanent input of 132 watts per square meter there can result in a permanent output of 16,720 watts per square meter?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.



Sure thousands of scientists were involved...but only 77 cherries were picked.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> Even if that expenditure saves hundreds of trillions down the line.



It won't because it is money flushed down the toilet...money wasted on a hoax.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2014)

Is it a hoax or is it an error?

Or is all of that YOUR error?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I wonder if any of the deniers here are also Higgs Boson deniers. After all, nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, or even seen direct evidence of a Higgs Boson. The models predictedd what statistical data from particle accelerator experments would, after sifting vast quantities of that statistical data, indicate a high likelihood (not absolute proof) of the existence of the Higgs Boson, and such statistical data was found. Just like AGW science.
> 
> The point, obviously, is that deniers are wildly hypocritical on the issue of models, only handwaving away all models on the single issue of AGW science, and that wild double standard completely invalidates their position.


Odd that we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the big bang in the lab but you guys can't control for a 120ppm change in CO2






^ Real science






^ Climate change "Science"

See the difference?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Typical warmer idiot...consider venus and the greenhouse effect you believe it is exhibiting...permanent input of 132 watts per square meter...permanent output of 16,728 watts per square meter.  That isn't science...that is science fiction.



Actually, it's you babbling your cult's nonsense again. Where did you get such crazy numbers?

Being that I live to educate others, I"m going to help you out and show the energy budget for Venus. Yes, it's the same diagram as for Earth, but with the numbers for Venus substituted in. Perhaps you can point out for us the energy imbalance.








> Tell me about how the greenhouse effect works on planets with no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres?...how do they maintain warmth in their atmospheres if pressure doesn't generate energy forever?



Wow. SSDD actually thinks pressure alone generates heat forever. Perpetual free energy, baby!

Pardon me while I take a break to laugh.

And excuse me now. I have a couple fire extinguishers with high pressure inside them. Under SSDD physics, they must be continuously heating up big time, so I had better get rid of them before they set the house on fire.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Odd that we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the big bang in the lab but you guys can't control for a 120ppm change in CO2



You're evading the issue, most likely because your stinking hypocrisy was pointed out, and you have no response. Since you ran, it shows I hit the target, so I"ll keep hitting it.

Both particle physics and AGW rely somewhat on models, and on sifting through petabytes of data to validate models to certain degree of probability. Both involve some money and government grants, though a pretty insignificant amount in the big picture. Yet you only declare models invalid for one, and the the barking cult kooks only invent global conspiracy theories about one field.

Given such a brazen double standard on your part, why should the world not just point and laugh at you?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wow. SSDD actually thinks pressure alone generates heat forever. Perpetual free energy, baby!



Typical warmer idiot...can't see past your dogma...so stupid that you think research isn't necessary...or perhaps (probably) to stupid to research.

Here is a bit of research for you.  Jupiter...ever hear of it...biggest planet in the solar system...no greenhouse gasses...so far away from the sun that a greenhouse effect is not possible even if there were greenhouse gasses.  Any idea what the temperature profile of jupiter is?  Of course not or you wouldn't make stupid comments like the one above.  Here have a bit of information for all the good it will do an idiot like you.'

The temperature of Jupiter varies. The temperature of the core is different than the upper atmosphere, and so on. Scientists do not have exact numbers for the various temperatures on the planet, but at the *upper edge of the cloud cover, the temperature is thought to be -145 degrees C.* On J*upiter the temperature increases because of atmospheric pressure,* so as you descend temperature increases. *Not far into the atmosphere the pressure is about ten times what it is here on Earth and the temperature is thought to be about 20 degrees C or average room temperature for Earth*. *Descend further and hydrogen becomes hot enough to turn into a liquid and the temperature is thought to be over 9,700 C.* *At the planet’s core scientists think that the temperatures could be as high as 35,500 C.
*
Real science knows about pressure and heat and the ideal gas laws even if climate pseudoscience doesn't....or doesn't care to inform idiots like you about it.

So tell me hairball...if constant pressure alone can't generate heat forever...how do you explain the temperature profile of jupiter...no greenhouse effect there...hydrogen/helium atmosphere...certainly not enough solar input for a greenhouse effect even if there were greenhouse gasses there... Nothing but pressure and strangely enough, and according the the ideal gas laws, it gets warmer as the pressure increases till the temperature finally reaches more than 6 times the temperature of the surface of the sun.....nothing but pressure.

So tell me admiral...if constant pressure can't cause the temperature to increase and remain so, how do you explain the temperature deep in the atmospheres of all of the gas planets?  No greenhouse effect....just pressure and incredibly high temperatures.  

You people are idiots...the frauds at skeptical science tell you that an incase of pressure is a short lived phenomenon and you morons simply buy it and repeat it like pavlov's dogs...you couldn't be bothered to see if perhaps there was a planet in your own neighborhood that put the lie to the claim but there are several of them....far from the sun...no greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres...high pressure and very high temperatures due to nothing but constant pressure.

Still laughing admiral?  Got an explanation?  Science says that the temperature profile on jupiter and the other gas giants is due to pressure....still laughing?


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2014)

Yes, I am still laughing.

You're a complete idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yes, I am still laughing.
> 
> You're a complete idiot.



Laughing like a monkey in a tree...nothing to say...don't know jack...but just laughing away.  Have fun.

Maybe if you ever develop enough intelligence to do more than laugh and throw shit from a tree, you would like to explain why actual science says that permanent pressure results in permanent heat and the gas giants prove it....and you still believe that a fictitious greenhouse effect is actual science and the ideal gas laws are nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

Come on warmers....if the high atmospheric pressure can't be responsible fort the temperature on venus, what is responsible for the high temperatures deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants?  If the heat due to pressure is temporary..how can the temperature possibly be so high deep in the atmospheres of those planets?  If the ideal gas laws, which predict those temperatures are nonsense, how do you explain a greenhouse effect on planets with no greenhouse gasses?


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2014)

"Permanent heat".  I would have no problem explaining to a four year old why that doesn't work.  But not you.  Fuckin-A, are you *stupid*.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> "Permanent heat".  I would have no problem explaining to a four year old why that doesn't work.  But not you.  Fuckin-A, are you *stupid*.



You can convince a 4 year old that Santa exists....a 4 year old can be convinced of damned near anything...like a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

You keep saying I'm stupid but you aren't explaining why the temperatures are so high within the atmospheres of the gas giants where no greenhouse effect is possible if pressure doesn't explain it.  If pressure can't be responsible for those temps...what is...and if pressure is responsible there, why is it not a consideration on venus?

You are the one looking stupid here because you can't explain...you have tripped over the reality of the physical laws and have no answer.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

Lets hear your explanation crick....science says that the high temperatures in the atmosphere of the gas giants are the result of pressure....You said"  I wouldn't have thought someone could be this stupid if they tried. You still think that pressure generates energy forever. What the ever-living fuck is wrong with you?"   If pressure isn't the cause of the temperature within the atmospheres of gas giants as science says....what is?  And are those temperatures recent or have they been that way "forever"?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Here is a bit of research for you.  Jupiter...ever hear of it...biggest planet in the solar system...no greenhouse gasses.



Okay, mark down Jupiter as yet another topic you fail totally at.

Jupiter self-generates considerable amounts of heat because it is still contracting. It is not in a steady state; the contraction of the core increases pressure, which makes vast amounts of heat.

Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The *Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism* is an astronomical process that occurs when the surface of a star or a planet cools. The cooling causes the pressure to drop and the star or planet shrinks as a result. This compression, in turn, heats up the core of the star/planet. This mechanism is evident on Jupiter and Saturn and on brown dwarfs whose central temperatures are not high enough to undergo nuclear fusion. It is estimated that Jupiter radiates more energy through this mechanism than it receives from the Sun, but Saturn might not.
---

Seriously, learn the basics before you blather.

You don't even pay lip service to conservation of energy. According to your idiot physics, I could hook up a heat-driven Sterling engine to my fire extinguisher casing, and use the heat generated by the gas under pressure to get free energy forever. Perpetual motion machines aren't possible, except in your kook world.

Let's keep hammering at those basics that you keep running from. If your kook theory is true, why isn't my fire extinguisher warmer than the background temp?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2014)

You said "


mamooth said:


> Okay, mark down Jupiter as yet another topic you fail totally at.
> 
> Jupiter self-generates considerable amounts of heat because it is still contracting. It is not in a steady state; the contraction of the core increases pressure, which makes vast amounts of heat.



So pressure creates heat...and constant pressure results in constant heat...not at all what you were claiming before...and it seems that this pressure results in Jupiter radiating more pressure than it gets from the sun....the heat that pressure generates doesn't matter whether it is the result of gravity, or contracting...pressure results in heat and constant pressure results in constant heat



mamooth said:


> Seriously, learn the basics before you blather.



You think the pressure is intelligent and knows whether it is the result of contraction or of simple gravity....and is the contraction itself not the result of gravity?  You think one sort of pressure results in heat while another sort doesn't?  Maybe it is you who needs to get acquainted with the basics.



mamooth said:


> Perpetual motion machines aren't possible, except in your kook world.



And yet you believe that a constant input of 132 watts per square meter on venus can result in a constant output of more than 16,000 watts per square meter and the ideal gas laws are nonsense.



mamooth said:


> keep hammering at those basics that you keep running from. If your kook theory is true, why isn't my fire extinguisher warmer than the background temp?



My kook theory as you call it happens to be the result of physical laws and is predicted by exactly those physical laws...you on the other hand believe in magic....you believe pressure somehow knows its cause and results in heat sometimes and doesn't at other times...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> So pressure creates heat



No, no, no, no. You are the only one here saying such a crazy thing.



> and constant pressure results in constant heat..



No, no, no, no. Jupiter does not have constant pressure. Jupiter has _increasing_ pressure, and that generates heat.



> You think the pressure is intelligent and knows whether it is the result of contraction or of simple gravity....and is the contraction itself not the result of gravity?  You think one sort of pressure results in heat while another sort doesn't?  Maybe it is you who needs to get acquainted with the basics.
> 
> And yet you believe that a constant input of 132 watts per square meter on venus can result in a constant output of more than 16,000 watts per square meter and the ideal gas laws are nonsense.



I simply have no idea what insane thought processes drove you to write such nonsense. To attempt to replicate such thought processes is a path to insanity, so I won't try. I'm just going to point out that you're nuts.



> My kook theory as you call it happens to be the result of physical laws and is predicted by exactly those physical laws...you on the other hand believe in magic....you believe pressure somehow knows its cause and results in heat sometimes and doesn't at other times...



You're running from the issue of the way your theory allows for perpetual motion machines. Conservation of energy, above the quantum level, may not be violated, ever. Your physics joyfully violates conservation of energy, hence your physics is clearly religious kookery.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 19, 2014)

So. SSDD seems to have no concept of delta in physics. But then, he has no concept of anything science has found out in the last 2000 years.


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2014)

*Charles's law* (also known as the *law of volumes*) is an experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when heated. A modern statement of Charles's law is:

When the pressure on a sample of a dry gas is held constant, the Kelvin temperature and the volume will be directly related. [1]

this directly proportional relationship can be written as:






or





where:

_V_ is the volume of the gas
_T_ is the temperature of the gas (measured in Kelvin).
_k_ is a constant.
This law describes how a gas expands as the temperature increases; conversely, a decrease in temperature will lead to a decrease in volume. For comparing the same substance under two different sets of conditions, the law can be written as:





The equation shows that, as absolute temperature increases, the volume of the gas also increases in proportion. The law was named after scientist Jacques Charles, who formulated the original law in his unpublished work from the 1780s.
***********************************************************************************

So, when we compress a unit of gas, it's temperature increases.  But ONLY when we compress it.  Once we have arrived at a higher pressure and a higher temperature, it is just as it was before: a volume of gas like any volume of gas.  If its surroundings are hotter, it will heat up. If its surroundings are colder, it will cool off.  There is nothing left generating heat.  If what you said was true, the universe would be constantly heating up.  All gases are under SOME pressure.  Under you concept, ALL gases would be generating SOME amount of heat.  Where would all that energy come from?

  You can neither create nor destroy energy.  That's the conservation of energy.  You claim to be looking for work to radiate energy from a cooler to a warmer surface.  Why do you think it would require no work to keep something hot till the end of time?
**********************************************************************************
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

In physics, the *law of conservation of energy* states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be_conserved_ over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can beconverted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.
***********************************************************************************
First bit from Wikipedia's article on Charles' Law, second from Wikipedia's article on the Conservation of Energy.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> No, no, no, no. Jupiter does not have constant pressure. Jupiter has _increasing_ pressure, and that generates heat.



Interesting how you warmers throw around hypothesis as if it were proven fact...aside from that, you can only hypothesize contraction on jupiter and saturn....there is still neptune and uranus....no such effect can reasonably be applied to neptune and certainly not to uranus and yet, at the base of the troposphere on uranus...arguably the coldest planet in the solar system, with no greenhouse effect possible,  the temperature is 330K...warmer than here on earth....this temperature is entirely due to pressure.  It is interesting how you wackos so casually disregard the laws of physics in order to hold on to your failed hypothesis...

With regards to earth and the pressure effect here, maxwell said that a static column of gas would reach equilibrium which, I suppose is where you get the crazy idea that the ideal gas laws can't result in increased temperature on earth...maxwell also said that no such equilibrium was possible in an atmosphere because of the movement within the atmosphere....further it has been found experimentally that even a static column of air will be warmer at its base than at its top....

One other thing regarding the ideal gas laws  PV=nRT...P and V must remain proportional to each other...so that an increase in P will result in a decrease in V or a decrease in P will result in an increase in V... If you want to increase either P or V without reducing the other, you will have to increase n, R or T.    

The greenhouse hypothesis seeks to raise the value of T which must result in an equal increase in V in order to keep the equation balanced....the problem is that an increase in V results in a decrease in (n) which has to result in a reduction of the product of nRT.  

If you believe the ideal gas laws (do you believe them or reject them) PV must be equal to nRT. ...and a failure of PV to equal nRT is exactly what happens if you try to hold P constant while increasing T and V by the same amount while reducing (n).

If you want to increase T due to the greenhouse effect, and accordingly increase V with the "extra" CO2, then the lower (n) must result in a lower V which, according to the gas laws must result in a lower T.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2014)

Why do you find it necessary to go to a planet millions of miles away to demonstrate what you claim to be a universal physical truth?  Are you having a little trouble finding good examples in the world with which your readership is actually familiar?

This claim of yours, like all of your claims, is so stupid it begins to make me think you're a flaming troll.  They are absolute horseshit and that's been clearly and indisputably demonstrated to you on repeated occasions.  Since you refuse to even begin to reexamine your nonsense, I have to assume you only spout this shit to rile people up. 

Go play with your shit in your own toilet on your own time.  You're a waste of ours.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> Why do you find it necessary to go to a planet millions of miles away to demonstrate what you claim to be a universal physical truth?  Are you having a little trouble finding good examples in the world with which your readership is actually familiar?
> 
> This claim of yours, like all of your claims, is so stupid it begins to make me think you're a flaming troll.  They are absolute horseshit and that's been clearly and indisputably demonstrated to you on repeated occasions.  Since you refuse to even begin to reexamine your nonsense, I have to assume you only spout this shit to rile people up.
> 
> Go play with your shit in your own toilet on your own time.  You're a waste of ours.


 Seems like your chicken, so easily defeated.  Can't even answer his question.  Of course, you never answer any question since you have no answer.  So again, where's that experimental proof of what happens with 120 PPM of CO2?  Come on, put up those deflector rods and avoid it, by calling me an insult, cme on I know you have it in you, because I know you ain't got any proof.  And that keeps us WiNniNg..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> Why do you find it necessary to go to a planet millions of miles away to demonstrate what you claim to be a universal physical truth?  Are you having a little trouble finding good examples in the world with which your readership is actually familiar?



Because if one only considers earth...and is gullible enough, or willing to prostitute oneself for money, the greenhouse effect and AGW can sound, or be made to sound plausible...like convincing a 4 year old that Santa exists.  By looking at other planets, especially planets where no greenhouse effect is possible, one can see that other things besides greenhouse gasses drive the temperature.  The same physics are at work on those planets as on good old earth and if one considers the things that raise the temperature on those planets and grasps that they same things are at work here...then if one has any brains at all, one must see that when those heat sources are considered...there is no room for the 33 degrees claimed by climate science to be the greenhouse effect.

Or do you believe that a completely unique set of physics are at work here that are not at work on other planets...do you believe that pressure increases temperature everywhere but here and venus...do you really believe the ideal gas laws are nonsense and the equation doesn't have to be balanced?  You believe all sorts of things that you have no evidence for so why not believe that the natural  laws can bend to your beliefs as well?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Interesting how you warmers throw around hypothesis as if it were proven fact...aside from that, you can only hypothesize contraction on jupiter and saturn....



Is there any science at all from the last century that you don't claim to be a conspiracy? Apparently not.

You're a fruit-loop religious death-cultist. Don't think we don't see through your genocidal plot. After all, you've made your genocidal nature clear with your previous death-worshipping posts. You plot here is to have modern science discarded, which will lead to the death of most of humanity.

So exactly what percentage of humanity has to die to fulfill your denier death-cult's agenda? And what happens at that point? Do you get raptured away, does your demon leader appear to usher in an age of darkness, does the mothership come down  ... come on, give us the details.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Is there any science at all from the last century that you don't claim to be a conspiracy? Apparently not.
> 
> You're a fruit-loop religious death-cultist. Don't think we don't see through your genocidal plot. After all, you've made your genocidal nature clear with your previous death-worshipping posts. You plot here is to have modern science discarded, which will lead to the death of most of humanity.
> 
> So exactly what percentage of humanity has to die to fulfill your denier death-cult's agenda? And what happens at that point? Do you get raptured away, does your demon leader appear to usher in an age of darkness, does the mothership come down  ... come on, give us the details.


hahahhaahhahahaahahhahaahaahahahaahha...........


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2014)

jc, alas, doesn't have the brains to be a death-cultist. The best he can manage is being a suckup toadie to the death cultists. Perhaps we should call him "Chester" from now on.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, alas, doesn't have the brains to be a death-cultist. The best he can manage is being a suckup toadie to the death cultists. Perhaps we should call him "Chester" from now on.
> 
> []


That's Marshall Dillion to you. Now run away and play with your pots and pans.  It is obvious you don't know what you're talking about.  Don't go away mad space varmit, just go away!!!!!

BTW, sorry that I intimidate you!!!!!

Oh, one more thing, it is quite obvious that you have issues with cause and correlations.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2014)

jc, you don't intimidate anyone. You make people roll their eyes, but obnoxious children have that effect.

Come on, you really didn't expect anyone here to believe you're not 13, did you? You're way too freakin' stupid to have been any sort of engineer. The only talent you've shown here is your ability to turn threads to shit. You enter a thread, it turns to shit. The correlation is perfect. You contribute nothing useful, and you turn threads to shit. Are you proud of yourself?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, you don't intimidate anyone. You make people roll their eyes, but obnoxious children have that effect.
> 
> Come on, you really didn't expect anyone here to believe you're not 13, did you? You're way too freakin' stupid to have been any sort of engineer. The only talent you've shown here is your ability to turn threads to shit. You enter a thread, it turns to shit. The correlation is perfect. You contribute nothing useful, and you turn threads to shit. Are you proud of yourself?


I certainly had no expectation about you or your peer group.  Heck you believe humans can affect climate, then run around screaming the sky is falling and can't justify your belief or claim. So If I'm 13 then you're still in diapers.  Perhaps take binky out of your mouth.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Because if one only considers earth...and is gullible enough, or willing to prostitute oneself for money, the greenhouse effect and AGW can sound, or be made to sound plausible...like convincing a 4 year old that Santa exists.



But the world's scientists are not 4-year olds.  They are quite able to see any falsehoods that you or your sources could produce.  But they don't.  I don't.  Your objections to the greenhouse effect are all based on your insane understanding of several aspects of science.  Aspects that any reasonable person would have abandoned having been CLEARLY and SOUNDLY refuted by multiple textbooks ,authoritative references and irrefutable common experience.

I am quite certain that the reason you attempt to make your arguments using the atmospheres of distant planets is the ease with which that choice allows you to lie.  The greenhouse effect works in exactly the same manner as it does here on every planet of the universe.  Real astrophysicist and planetary scientists have not the slightest doubt that is the case and can demonstrate it to be so.

Greenhouse effect: Other planets -
             -
     Science Museum

ESA Science & Technology: Greenhouse effects... also on other planets

Venus & Mars

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/eschwiet/essays/greenhouse_ASTR555.pdf

Greenhouse Effect

Climate Change: Causes

NOVA Online/Cracking the Ice Age/Greenhouse - Green Planet

Which planets have the greenhouse effect?

The Greenhouse Effect at 150: The Planetary Perspective - Retort

What is the greenhouse effect? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Climates of terrestrial planets

and lots, lots more.

How do these explanations and the level of authority and expertise of their sources compare with yours?.



SSDD said:


> By looking at other planets, especially planets where no greenhouse effect is possible, one can see that other things besides greenhouse gasses drive the temperature.



No one ever said that the greenhouse effect was the only process that affected temperature.  But on all planets with virtually ANY atmosphere, the results of the greenhouse effect may be seen.  Your contention that it cannot is simply false.  



SSDD said:


> The same physics are at work on those planets as on good old earth



That's absolutely correct.  Now if only you understood how physics actually worked.



SSDD said:


> and if one considers the things that raise the temperature on those planets and grasps that they same things are at work here



Same physics everywhere.



SSDD said:


> ...then if one has any brains at all, one must see that when those heat sources are considered...there is no room for the 33 degrees claimed by climate science to be the greenhouse effect.



And to what do you attribute the 33C?  Let me guess.  Air pressure.



SSDD said:


> Or do you believe that a completely unique set of physics are at work here that are not at work on other planets.



Not at all.  I believe the same rules operate throughout our universe.  I am just well aware how poorly you understand them.



SSDD said:


> ..do you believe that pressure increases temperature everywhere but here and venus



I believe the ideal gas law operates everywhere.  You don't believe it at all.  You, instead, believe in magic.



SSDD said:


> ...do you really believe the ideal gas laws are nonsense and the equation doesn't have to be balanced?  You believe all sorts of things that you have no evidence for so why not believe that the natural  laws can bend to your beliefs as well?



Your descriptions of how you think the universe operates are in complete violation of the ideal gas laws, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy, Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.  Your opinion on any scientific topic I can think of is simply complete shit.  Complete.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Is there any science at all from the last century that you don't claim to be a conspiracy? Apparently not.



Wh said conspiracy...I said that you people treat unproven, untested hypothesis as if it were observed measured fact...it isn't .  If science is in fact treating unproven, untested, unmeasured hypothesis as fact, and selling it as fact, what would you call it?



mamooth said:


> So exactly what percentage of humanity has to die to fulfill your denier death-cult's agenda? And what happens at that point? Do you get raptured away, does your demon leader appear to usher in an age of darkness, does the mothership come down  ... come on, give us the details.



Die from what?  Climate change?  Tell me hairball, what is the ideal temperature to support life on earth and when has that temperature ever held steady for any appreciable length of time?  You really believe ice age temperatures as the earth is experiencing now are ideal?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Because if one only considers earth...and is gullible enough, or willing to prostitute oneself for money, the greenhouse effect and AGW can sound, or be made to sound plausible...like convincing a 4 year old that Santa exists.
> ...



the world's scientists are not on board the crazy train...the fact that you keep claiming that they are once again, identifies you as a liar...



Crick said:


> No one ever said that the greenhouse effect was the only process that affected temperature.  But on all planets with virtually ANY atmosphere, the results of the greenhouse effect may be seen.  Your contention that it cannot is simply false.



And you lie yet again....I would like to hear your explanation of how a greenhouse effect as described by climate science can be observed on a planet with virtually no greenhouse gasses.



Crick said:


> And to what do you attribute the 33C?  Let me guess.  Air pressure.



What do I attribute it to?...the same physical process that accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...question is why do you believe it is due to an effect that can't predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system and can only predict it here if the climate models, and the temperature record are constantly adjusted?



Crick said:


> Your descriptions of how you think the universe operates are in complete violation of the ideal gas laws, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy, Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.  Your opinion on any scientific topic I can think of is simply complete shit.  Complete.



You answered a question I did not ask..You do that a lot....I asked you if you think the ideal gas law equation can be out of balance within the atmosphere?  Do you think you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n) which must lower T.  You are claiming that the greenhouse effect can overcome the ideal gas laws and keep the equation out of balance indefinitely....in short, you are saying that the ideal gas law is nonsense while the greenhouse hypothesis is real science.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2014)

The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science.  As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply ignorant.

And I REALLY have to add that taking seriously your point of view about virtually ANY science topic, is also simply ignorant.  Your ideas as to how the universe works are patently absurd and discussing any of these topics with you - save for the purpose of preventing you from misleading children - is a complete waste of time.  You are a complete idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science.  As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply ignorant.




Still no answer...do you think the greenhouse effect is so powerful that it can unbalance the ideal gas law equation?  And no science is ever settled...that is a proclamation of faith...not a scientific observation...

Speaking of "settled science"  do you side with the consensus regarding salt intake in our diet?  Just asking because it seems that another long held consensus is getting ready to fall.

By the way, you haven't demonstrated anything...certainly not demonstrated that any science is settled.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science.  As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply .ignorant.





SSDD said:


> Still no answer...do you think the greenhouse effect is so powerful that it can unbalance the ideal gas law equation?  And no science is ever settled...that is a proclamation of faith...not a scientific observation...



It is pointless discussing any of these questions with you.  Your misconceptions leave you unable to participate in any meaningful way.  Obvously, there is no conflict between the greenhouse effect and the gas laws.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science.  As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply .ignorant.
> ...



Still no answer?  Either you think the ideal gas law is nonsense...or you think that the greenhouse effect is so powerful it can overturn a natural law...

Answer the question ...do you think the greenhouse effect can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)....if so, how do you think it happens?  You claim no conflict, but you don't seem to be able to answer the question....or perhaps you are to embarrassed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a bit of research for you.  Jupiter...ever hear of it...biggest planet in the solar system...no greenhouse gasses.
> ...



But it's not a Greenhouse effect.

Do you read your own posts?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He doesn't read...he doesn't think...and he doesn't know jack....he is a AGW propaganda regurgitating dolt..nothing more nothing less.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2014)

SSDD: Jupiter does not have a Greenhouse effect

Mamooth: DENIER!!! Jupiter does not have a Greenhouse effect!!


----------



## mamooth (Aug 21, 2014)

Frank, just what are you babbling about?

Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.

I pointed out the ongoing compression of the core of Jupiter is what creates the heat. Rather than address that, SSDD fled in terror, flinging out more red herring to cover his retreat. You know, the way he keeps telling us we hold a position that nobody never held, demands we defend that position which nobody ever held, and then declares victory when we don't defend an idiot position that nobody ever held.

I don't need to ask if you approve of such lying, because you obviously do. But since SSDD refuses to actually defend his claims, maybe you can help him out. Do you agree with SSDD's physics which says a gas under constant pressure will constantly generate heat? Presuming your testicles have descended, answer with a simple "yes" or "no", please, and we'll go on from there.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, just what are you babbling about?
> 
> Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.
> 
> ...


 Explain constant pressure!


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, just what are you babbling about?
> 
> Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.



You claimed the planet is contracting....even though there is no proof that it is happening, I chose not to argue about it...I moved on to neptune and uranus which are not even thought to be contracting.....have no possibility of a greenhouse effect...and yet, exhibit high temperatures...uranus, the coldest place in the solar system has a temperature of over 300k at the base of its troposphere...warmer than here on earth....explain that temperature in the absence of the possibility of a greenhouse effect....and explain why the same physics at work there, are not at work here...

I


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, just what are you babbling about?
> 
> Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.
> 
> ...



I'll answer. Right after you show us the AGW Lab Experiment


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2014)

No you won't.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> No you won't.



Talk about not answering.  In your case, you still haven't answered....Either you think the ideal gas law is nonsense...or you think that the greenhouse effect is so powerful it can overturn a natural law...

Answer the question ...do you think the greenhouse effect can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)....if so, how do you think it happens? You claim no conflict, but you don't seem to be able to answer the question....or perhaps you are to embarrassed.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2014)

You're a fucking idiot.  There is no conflict between the greenhouse effect and the ideal gas laws - as you contended.  The greenhouse effect takes place on all other planets as appropriate.  Obviously, the moon would experience none.  Venus would expect a great deal.  The point is that the temperature profiles of the Solar System's planets produce no conflict with the greenhouse effect.  The claim that they refute it is ignorant shite.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're a fucking idiot.  There is no conflict between the greenhouse effect and the ideal gas laws - as you contended.  The greenhouse effect takes place on all other planets as appropriate.  Obviously, the moon would experience none.  Venus would expect a great deal.  The point is that the temperature profiles of the Solar System's planets produce no conflict with the greenhouse effect.  The claim that they refute it is ignorant shite.



There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science...and no greenhouse effect takes place on uranus...the coldest place in the solar system where the bottom of the troposphere is warmer than here on earth due to pressure...if pressure is at work raising the temperature there....pressure is at work raising the temperature here...

And if there is no conflict between the ideal gas laws then explain how you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)...explain how you think it happens...Simply gibbering that there is no conflict between the greenhouse hypothesis and the ideal gas laws hardly makes your case....The ideal gas laws say that if you change one value....all of the other values change accordingly...so again, do you believe that you can change T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)....and do you believe the hypothesized greenhouse effect is so powerful that it can stop the inevitable decrease of T with a decrease of (n).

Come on crick...lets hear some explanations.  Do you really believe the hypothesized greenhouse effect is more powerful than the ideal gas laws...or do you believe the ideal gas laws are nonsense...which is it?  Because I have pointed out a clear conflict....if you can't see it, then you are even more ignorant than I had thought you were and even more of a poser....This one isn't even complicated...change one value and the others change to balance the equation...happens every time...every observation ever made....just as the law predicts and now you think you can raise T without raising V which must be followed by a decrease of (n).


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2014)

Do you actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be as widely accepted (universal except for you) were it in conflict with the ideal gas laws?  Do you actually believe the world is that stupid and that you are that smart?

That's stupider than the rest of your physics fantasies.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be as widely accepted (universal except for you) were it in conflict with the ideal gas laws?  Do you actually believe the world is that stupid and that you are that smart?
> 
> That's stupider than the rest of your physics fantasies.


 And still no answer!!!!!* LoSiNg*


----------



## mamooth (Aug 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You claimed the planet is contracting....even though there is no proof that it is happening,



Yes, yes, we get. You say the past century of science is all fraudulent. Boring.

The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism affects all gas/ice giant planets. It's more powerful on bigger bodies, and it decays over time. It's very significant on Jupiter, less significant on Saturn, and has only a small effect on Uranus and Neptune.



> I chose not to argue about it...I moved on to neptune and uranus which are not even thought to be contracting.....



Since nobody ever claimed there was a greenhouse effect, why do you keep attempting to prove there's no greenhouse effect? Everyone already agrees with that. You keep declaring victory after disproving your own strawman.



> have no possibility of a greenhouse effect...and yet, exhibit high temperatures...uranus, the coldest place in the solar system has a temperature of over 300k at the base of its troposphere...warmer than here on earth....explain that temperature in the absence of the possibility of a greenhouse effect....and explain why the same physics at work there, are not at work here...



Both ice giants generate internal heat from radioactive decay and Kelvin-Hemholtz, so the temp has to get higher as you go deeper. The atmospheric physics at play are not well understood, being they involve ice and ammonia under superhigh pressures, something even the labs can't duplicate. And there are possible interplanetary collisions in the distant past that could still be having effects. However, nobody thinks a greenhouse effect matters. And especially nobody thinks constant pressure constantly generates heat, because that would be insane, being how it wildly violates conservation of energy.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And if there is no conflict between the ideal gas laws then explain how you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)...



But you can raise V. There's no shell around the earth constraining the atmosphere to a constant V.

And hence your theory falls apart.

And yes, an increase in the height of the tropopause has been observed.

9.4.4.2 Changes in Tropopause Height - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2014)

everyone here is a little bit right and a lot wrong, with a massive amount of uncertainty and lack of data.

here is a paper that explains a lot of the problems/complexities of atmospheric models. it is probably right in some areas and wrong in others like most papers but it does lay down many of the basics, including why the 'missing hotspot' is important.

http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Sep-2011-v2.1.pdf

The virial theorem is a statistical rule about the distribution of different kinds of energy in
random systems with many particles. It specifies that for an atmosphere confined to a fixed
volume by a central attractive force like gravity, the total kinetic energy of the system will be
strictly proportional to the total gravitational potential energy. That is to say, any alteration in
the temperature structure of the air column will be accompanied by a proportional change in
the density structure. The two are inseparable in principle.
​


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2014)

This is a self-published piece.  I have no idea what the author's qualifications might be.  He mentions that he's doing technical writing for Electronic Arts concerning their games.  Here is the first paragraph of his abstract



> In response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, general circulation
> models (GCM) unanimously forecast a substantial rise in sea level
> temperatures, the typical range cited being between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees
> C. The largest single component of this forecast is a positive feedback
> ...



I put the following string into Google: "GCM, hydrostatic, models".  The *first nine results had the term "non-hydrostatic" in their titles*.  Try it yourself if you doubt me.  What your man is saying here might have been true in the past (else why the emphasis on its absence in the search results) but it does NOT seem to be true today.

I then did a Google search on "GCM, hydrostatic, IPCC".  The first result was a discussion of the use of non-hydrostatic GCMs in AR4; to wit



> Recently, projections of climate changes for East Asia were completed with a 5-km *non-hydrostatic RCM* (Kanada et al., 2005; Yoshizaki et al., 2005; Yasunaga et al., 2006), but only for short simulations. Following the trend in global modelling, RCMs are increasingly coupled interactively with other components of the climate system, such as regional ocean and sea ice (e.g., Bailey and Lynch 2000; Döscher et al., 2002; Rinke et al., 2003; Bailey et al., 2004; Meier et al., 2004; Sasaki et al., 2006a), hydrology, and with interactive vegetation (Gao and Yu, 1998; Xue et al., 2000)."



The next return concerned hydrostatic pressure in  ice sheets.

The third return was entitled:


> "GFDL *non-hydrostatic* finite-volume dynamical core on the cubed-Sphere and the Global “Cloud-resolving” Model Developments"



It seems obvious to me that the author's contention that the IPCC's 1.5 to 4.5C climate sensitivity figure is based on the output of hydrostatically-constrained GCMs is incorrect.

That makes the rest of his comments irrelevant and moot.

So, I don't know where you were going with this, but it doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere significant.  Good try, but I wish you'd stick more with peer-reviewed work from refereed journals.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> This is a self-published piece.  I have no idea what the author's qualifications might be.  He mentions that he's doing technical writing for Electronic Arts concerning their games.  Here is his abstract
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How easy is it to test for a doubling of CO2 in a lab experiment.

Is 380 * 2, too big a number?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And if there is no conflict between the ideal gas laws then explain how you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)...
> ...




Of course V changes when you raise T.  You clearly aren't understanding.  No surprise there.  Here...step by step....P and V are inversely proportional...know what that means?  Increase P get a decrease in V...increase V get a decrease in P. If you want to increase P or V without reducing the other, you must A) increase (n) B) Increase R, or C) Increase T...the product of rRT will then increase to equal the increased product of PV.....with me so far?  

The AGW hypothesis claims increased greenhouse gasses cause T to increase, which results in an increase in V in order to both sides of the equation balanced....As you said, increase T and V increases.  That is apparently where you stopped thinking.....the problem begins with that increase in V which causes a reduction in the density of the atmosphere (r) which must reduce the product of nRT.  Get that?  The two sides of the equation must balance.

In the real world, a reduction in (r) will result in a reduction of P also because less mass in the atmosphere will result in less pressure if gravity remains the same....is gravity changing?   We know from direct measurement that P is not, in fact changing at the surface even though the density of the whole atmosphere changes when V changes.  Still with me?...because we know that P isn't changing at the surface, we can't balance the equation with a reduction in P that results from the reduction of (n)

If you believe the ideal gas law, it simply is not possible for PV to not equal nRT.....so what happens if you hold P steady...which we know by measurement is happening while at the same time you increase T and V while reducing (n)?  

The ideal gas law is only satisfied when PV=nRT....and that can only happen if A) more mass is added to the atmosphere to keep the density from decreasing due to expansion or, B) gravity increases to reduce V and bring the equation back into balance...

Since there is neither additional mass or additional gravity the ideal gas law equation remains out of balance.

If you believe the ideal gas law then increasing T will increase V and the resulting reduction in density (n) will result in a lower V which must be followed by a lower T....which puts the AGW hypothesis at loggerheads with the ideal gas law.

Crick claims that there is no imbalance but can't say why...do you also say that there is no imbalance but can't say why?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be as widely accepted (universal except for you) were it in conflict with the ideal gas laws?  Do you actually believe the world is that stupid and that you are that smart?
> 
> That's stupider than the rest of your physics fantasies.



I believe enough money can make the truth hard to see for some people and the hundreds of billions being spent in climate science is certainly a lot of money for people who traditionally thought they had a top notch gig if they got a spot as a TV weatherman....


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism affects all gas/ice giant planets. It's more powerful on bigger bodies, and it decays over time. It's very significant on Jupiter, less significant on Saturn, and has only a small effect on Uranus and Neptune.



Your own source says the effect is happening on Jupiter and Saturn...not on neptune and uranus.



mamooth said:


> nobody ever claimed there was a greenhouse effect, why do you keep attempting to prove there's no greenhouse effect? Everyone already agrees with that. You keep declaring victory after disproving your own straw man.



Point is that there is no greenhouse effect on neptune or uranus and no Kelvin-Helmholtz effect either and yet, high temperatures are present due to nothing but pressure and if pressure can cause permeant temperature increase on those planets it can cause permanent temperature increase here as well...


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2014)

But the greenhouse effect has been widely accepted for well over a century before penny was spent trying to combat global warming.  And you still have the issue that you claim a severe conflict between the greenhouse effect and the idea gas laws and would have been seen by junior high school kids did it actually exist.


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2014)

SSDD- you are making a simple mistake by not realising that potential energy and kinetic energy are easily transferable in any atmosphere. That is what explains the thermal gradients here and on other planets. That does not disprove the small changes at the surface that could be caused in part by the CO2 greenhouse effect. 

Energy in matches energy out to a very fine degree but there are many possible values along the pathway. That is why it is nonsense when you claim Venus is radiating 16000w from a 135w input. The heatsinks make the surface hot but the radiation does not escape, except for the 135w.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD- you are making a simple mistake by not realising that potential energy and kinetic energy are easily transferable in any atmosphere. That is what explains the thermal gradients here and on other planets. That does not disprove the small changes at the surface that could be caused in part by the CO2 greenhouse effect.
> 
> Energy in matches energy out to a very fine degree but there are many possible values along the pathway. That is why it is nonsense when you claim Venus is radiating 16000w from a 135w input. The heatsinks make the surface hot but the radiation does not escape, except for the 135w.




Ian, for all the hundreds of billions spent on climate change....if there were a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science....don't you think it would have been at least observed, measured and quantified to some degree based on observations and measurements?

There certainly is a thermal effect in the atmosphere, but it isn't the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that hypothesis has failed....why not move on to more plausible hypotheses predicted by the laws of physics and that actually match observation...and don't require constant tampering of the temperature record...one day we may really need the real temperature record and at this point, I wonder if it even still exists...warmer wackaloons are crazy enough to actually destroy historical data if they fear it might call their religion into question.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD- you are making a simple mistake by not realising that potential energy and kinetic energy are easily transferable in any atmosphere. That is what explains the thermal gradients here and on other planets. That does not disprove the small changes at the surface that could be caused in part by the CO2 greenhouse effect.
> 
> Energy in matches energy out to a very fine degree but there are many possible values along the pathway. That is why it is nonsense when you claim Venus is radiating 16000w from a 135w input. The heatsinks make the surface hot but the radiation does not escape, except for the 135w.




The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science requires that energy be absorbed by the surface and radiated out....approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus....the output of venus is in excess of 16,000 watts...135 in, 16,000 out due to the magic of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2014)

Could you explain how the atmosphere of Venus can radiate 16,000 W/m2 upward but only 135 W/m2 down?  It is because the surface is warm and the atmosphere KNOWS it shouldn't go that way?  Of course it is.  WHAT was I thinking?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> Could you explain how the atmosphere of Venus can radiate 16,000 W/m2 upward but only 135 W/m2 down?  It is because the surface is warm and the atmosphere KNOWS it shouldn't go that way?  Of course it is.  WHAT was I thinking?



As ususal, the point goes right over your head...and there wasn't even a graph involved.....According to climate science as stated by the IPCC, the greenhouse effect is as follows...



			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.



Roughly 135 wm/2 reach the surface of venus and are available to power a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.....135 wm/2 is absorbed by the surface and re emitted as IR by that surface...or are you claiming that on venus, incoming short wave radiation from the sun is absorbed and emitted by CO2? 

Another inconvenient fact regarding venus is that it isn't warming....according to the greenhouse hypothesis, it should be.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2014)

You're either missing or ignoring my point.  If the atmosphere is hot enough to radiate 16 kW/m2 upward, why isn't it hot enough to radiate 16 kW/m2 downward?  There's a lesson at the end of this chain that I doubt you'll accept or retain, but it might be handy for other, more rational readers.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're either missing or ignoring my point.  If the atmosphere is hot enough to radiate 16 kW/m2 upward, why isn't it hot enough to radiate 16 kW/m2 downward?  There's a lesson at the end of this chain that I doubt you'll accept or retain, but it might be handy for other, more rational readers.



The heat is not due to a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is the point....not enough energy reaches the surface to power a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science....pressure is the driving force on venus...


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

I wish there was something that could be said that would break posters like SSDD and crick out of their ruts but I fear that is impossible. 

Both of them hold onto a small piece of the puzzle and say it is the only piece that is important. 

Science is made up of individual principles that are seldom seen in a pure form in reality because many other factors are acting at the same time.

It is like crick saying a person making 10k a year will have 100k in the bank after 10 years. Or SSDD saying a business cannot have a million dollars in expenses and still break even because he refuses to acknowledge receipts.


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

So have you read the Pot Lid Hypotheses yet SSDD? Or is it still inaccessible from your computers?


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

crick- why did you edit out your comment on the missing hotspot? other than the obvious reason that it was spectacularly incorrect. do you disagree with Brook's comments on it? did you actually think about the points made in the paper or did you just skim the material looking for some nitpick to argue about? 

you say that the climate models actually model the bolus of moist air rising rather than just the water vapour. are you sure about that? there are a lot of things that you declare to be true that in fact turn out to be misrepresentations. moist air being heavier than dry air, and radiative imbalance at TOA being 'measured' are two examples that spring to mind.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 23, 2014)

The "missing hotspot" myth has been debunked.

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/ThorneEtAl.WIREs2010.pdf

In general, one should be very suspicious of "The whole world has been totally wrong for decades, and only I, a mere layman, have managed to see the problem" claims. Especially from a guy who has no climate science experience, and is an HIV-causes-AIDS denier to boot. In his pot lid paper, he was basically just shooting down his own strawmen, attacking models that never existed.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Of course V changes when you raise T.  You clearly aren't understanding.  No surprise there.  Here...step by step....P and V are inversely proportional...know what that means?  Increase P get a decrease in V...increase V get a decrease in P. If you want to increase P or V without reducing the other, you must A) increase (n) B) Increase R, or C) Increase T...the product of rRT will then increase to equal the increased product of PV.....with me so far?



So  far, all good.



> The AGW hypothesis claims increased greenhouse gasses cause T to increase, which results in an increase in V in order to both sides of the equation balanced....As you said, increase T and V increases.  That is apparently where you stopped thinking.....the problem begins with that increase in V which causes a reduction in the density of the atmosphere (r) which must reduce the product of nRT.  Get that?  The two sides of the equation must balance.



PV = nRT

T went up, so V went up. It balances just fine. Density can change, but there's no density term in the ideal gas law. P doesn't change, as we'll discuss below.



> In the real world, a reduction in (r) will result in a reduction of P also because less mass in the atmosphere will result in less pressure if gravity remains the same....is gravity changing?



In the real world, the taller air column balances the lower density, keeping pressure the same.



> We know from direct measurement that P is not, in fact changing at the surface even though the density of the whole atmosphere changes when V changes.  Still with me?...because we know that P isn't changing at the surface, we can't balance the equation with a reduction in P that results from the reduction of (n).



Again, there's no density term in PV = nRT. V went up, T went up, everything else in the ideal gas law equation stayed the same. It balances just fine.

I'll also note you're torturing the ideal gas law, which is derived by starting with the assumption of a system with the same conditions throughout. It's not correct to try to apply the ideal gas law across systems with gravitational or pressure gradients, so the whole discussion is really moot.


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

Thorne's claim of the uncertainty being to large to decide one way or the other is not exactly settled science, is it? nice hatchet job on Brooks. I wonder if the real story actually confirms what you say? every time I chase down one of your red herrings it usually says the opposite. AIDS denier, EA games consultant, anything else you guys would like to add? I wonder what his CV reads like? hahahahaha


----------



## mamooth (Aug 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> nice hatchet job on Brooks. I wonder if the real story actually confirms what you say? every time I chase down one of your red herrings it usually says the opposite.



Given you won't be able to show an example, that's obviously sour grapes on your parts. If you don't want it pointed out your sources tend to be nuts, don't use nutty sources.



> AIDS denier, EA games consultant, anything else you guys would like to add? I wonder what his CV reads like? hahahahaha



The signatures on this  "_questioning the hypothesis that HIV causes Aids" _petition clearly include one "Dean M Brooks. Engineering Physicist, founder of Ekaros Analytical, Vancouver, Canada".

HIV AIDS Rethinkers


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 23, 2014)

So far, no experiments posted by the AGWCult


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course V changes when you raise T.  You clearly aren't understanding.  No surprise there.  Here...step by step....P and V are inversely proportional...know what that means?  Increase P get a decrease in V...increase V get a decrease in P. If you want to increase P or V without reducing the other, you must A) increase (n) B) Increase R, or C) Increase T...the product of rRT will then increase to equal the increased product of PV.....with me so far?
> ...


 

Are there any laws of physics he understands?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD- you are making a simple mistake by not realising that potential energy and kinetic energy are easily transferable in any atmosphere. That is what explains the thermal gradients here and on other planets. That does not disprove the small changes at the surface that could be caused in part by the CO2 greenhouse effect.
> ...


 
*approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus*

Why so little? Source?


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

Venus is very cloudy.


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

Mamooth- which strawmen are you talking about?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> Venus is very cloudy.


 
I guess SSDD feels energy absorbed by clouds doesn't count for input/output calculations.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 23, 2014)

Faithers figure if their pop gets warm in the bottle outside, it is due to the CO2.


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2014)

It's hard to tell what SSDD thinks. But he sure stubborn.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2014)

IanC said:


> I wish there was something that could be said that would break posters like SSDD and crick out of their ruts but I fear that is impossible.
> 
> Both of them hold onto a small piece of the puzzle and say it is the only piece that is important.
> 
> ...



When did I ever say anything like that?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> PV = nRT
> 
> T went up, so V went up. It balances just fine. Density can change, but there's no density term in the ideal gas law. P doesn't change, as we'll discuss below.



(n) is the total atmospheric mass...(n) is density by definition.



mamooth said:


> the real world, the taller air column balances the lower density, keeping pressure the same.



Did I not say that P is not changing?  It's clear that you are not getting this....you keep agreeing but don't like the implications, so you disagree.  P is not changing



mamooth said:


> , there's no density term in PV = nRT. V went up, T went up, everything else in the ideal gas law equation stayed the same. It balances just fine.



Again, (n) is the total atmospheric mass...it is a density term by definition....the equation does not balance....go back to the beginning with at least a rudimentary understanding that (n) is in fact a density term and try again.

As to torturing anything...look at the greenhouse gas hypothesis...it assumes CO2 to be a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...do you think CO2 is a well mixed gas?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



NASA...there are lots of clouds on venus....contrary to what you might think...sunlight doesn't penetrate those clouds so easily....there are, in fact 135 watts per square meter reaching the surface on venus to power a greenhouse effect that has a net output of more than 16,000 wm/2. ...if you believe in magic, that is.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Venus is very cloudy.
> ...



Again, I posted precisely how climate science defines the greenhouse effect....the greenhouse effect is powered by solar energy reaching the surface...and being reradiated as LW by the surface....by the way...which gasses in the atmosphere of venus are absorbing all that short wave....Does CO2 absorb shortwave on venus?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2014)

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down.  Care to explain?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2014)

Crick said:


> You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down.  Care to explain?



Sure..as soon as you explain how 135 watts gets converted to 16k in the first place since it clearly isn't due to any greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
Why would you only compare energy reaching the surface with all the energy being radiated away?
It sounds like you're confused about this as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down.  Care to explain?
> ...


 
Any luck finding the flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, or are you still clinging to your 2nd Law fallacy?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Pressure is king on venus...if our atmosphere weighed 100 times more than it does even with the same proportions of gas...it would be hot as hell here as well...pressure...not some pie in the sky politically motivated non physical, unobservable, unmeasurable, unquantifiable greenhouse effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
The ideal gas law works in a sealed container.
Trying to prove a similar precise ratio in an atmospheric environment is silly.

No luck finding a flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law? Ready to admit your long-running error?


----------



## IanC (Aug 25, 2014)

SSDD - I am one who has said from the beginning that pressure is a factor in surface temperature. But it is not the only factor. This planet is in near equilibrium so pressure is no longer the important influence in small changes. But the escape of surface radiation is. How warm the atmosphere is, and how opaque it is to the relevant wavelengths is more important than the pressure. 

If the 16kW on Venus were free to escape then the surface there would quickly cool.likewise with earth. CO2 interferes with the escape of radiation here but it is only one factor out of many so its effect is small but real.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The only flaw regarding the SB law is your misconception that it describes a one way gross flow of energy...not a two way net flow.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD - I am one who has said from the beginning that pressure is a factor in surface temperature. But it is not the only factor. This planet is in near equilibrium so pressure is no longer the important influence in small changes. But the escape of surface radiation is. How warm the atmosphere is, and how opaque it is to the relevant wavelengths is more important than the pressure.
> 
> If the 16kW on Venus were free to escape then the surface there would quickly cool.likewise with earth. CO2 interferes with the escape of radiation here but it is only one factor out of many so its effect is small but real.




Check Maxwell Ian....he said (but didn't prove) that while such equilibrium might happen in static columns of air, it could never happen in an atmosphere...not the atmosphere here on earth and certainly not in an atmosphere as unsettled as that of venus...



			
				Maxwell said:
			
		

> *”This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, the temperature at any height being such that a mass of air, brought from one height to another without gaining or losing heat, would always find itself at the temperature of the surrounding air. In this condition of what Sir William Thomson has called the convective equilibrium of heat, it is not the temperature which is constant, but the quantity ϕ [entropy], which determines the adiabatic curves.*




  And Graeff has demonstrated experimentally that the temperature of a static column of air does not reach an equilibrium where the top and bottom are the same temperature.


CO2 does not interfere with the escape of radiation here...it is just goofy to claim that the presence of a radiative gas will decrease the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2014)

If everyone (*EVERYONE*) told me I was wrong about something, I'd have a look.  But not you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
One way flow is your claim. Which requires smart waves.
The Stefan Boltzmann Law doesn't require smart waves.
Doesn't require objects to suddenly stop or start radiating.
Doesn't show that an object can radiate out of one side and not the other.
In other words, it actually works, unlike your confused mismash.

Explain again why -50C surroundings make a hot object cool faster than 50C surroundings.
Without smart waves.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 26, 2014)

Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up.  If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen.  As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air.  I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm.  If not, I stand down.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up.  If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen.  As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air.  I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm.  If not, I stand down.


 
Yes, you should stand down.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up.  If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen.  As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air.  I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm.  If not, I stand down.



It isn't cold moving towards warm...it is you bleeding heat to the cold.  If energy moved from cool to warm, any energy at all, your surface temperature would rise...it doesn't...the cold you feel is your own warmth radiating away towards the cold.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?



I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all.  You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> One way flow is your claim.



Pardon my typo...and smart waves are your idiot invention...one way energy flow doesn't require smart waves to radiate from warm to cool any more than gravity requires smart rocks to fall down.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> If everyone (*EVERYONE*) told me I was wrong about something, I'd have a look.  But not you.



I keep asking for someone to give me a look...how many times have I asked for an actual observed, measured example of energy spontaneously radiating from a cool object to a warm object?  I ask over and over and you don't seem to be able to produce a single example while every observation ever made supports my position...why would I believe you when every observation ever made says I am right and exactly zero observations say that you are right?


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?
> ...


wow she is a very intelligent first grade teacher. What does this have to do with anything? Where are her facts from? Bush's texas changed text books? Not to mention, ,increasing your cianide intake by four parts per million could have a big affect. I don't follow nor believe this silly video made by what you believe is over paid teachers. This would have been better if you put a few phds in front of her name and told me how much they were making off oil stocks. lool


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...



Do feel free to prove that her numbers are wrong....you will find that if you actually take the time to check something rather than simply go with the typical warmer knee jerk response...her numbers are dead on.  

As to cyanide...are you really going to try to compare CO2...a molecule that every life on earth requires with cyanide?  Really?  Guess you have already drunk to much of the koolaid for any amount of fact to sway you.  Congratulations...you are truly a dupe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up.  If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen.  As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air.  I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm.  If not, I stand down.
> ...


 
* If energy moved from cool to warm, any energy at all, your surface temperature would rise...*

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law proves you're wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > One way flow is your claim.
> ...


 
*one way energy flow doesn't require smart waves to radiate from warm to cool*

Your theory does require smart waves.
An object needs to stop radiating, instantly, according to your theory, if a warmer object approaches.
An object needs to radiate more slowly, if the surroundings are 100K than if they are 50K.
If your mechanism isn't smart waves, I await your better explanation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If everyone (*EVERYONE*) told me I was wrong about something, I'd have a look.  But not you.
> ...


 
Why do you keep ignoring the 1963 article in Science?

*a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. *

You can plug those temperatures into the Stefan-Boltzmann formula and see for yourself.

*



*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...



CO2, the new cyanide

The AGWCult, membership limited only by your gullibility and ability to lie on a 24/7 basis


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


i was pointing out that part per million is relevant to the substances affect you babbling moron. go back to this third grade teacher and learn that ;poisons and toxins with carbon monoxide and dioxide are have negative affects even at low levels. ie asthma rate rising etc...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...


 man you all get out there don't you.  Why not learn the facts before posting such nonsense.

here:"
*Question: *Is Genetics One of the Causes of Asthma?
*Answer: *Yes and no. Studies show that *more than half of childhood asthma cases are related to inheritance* (meaning that often a parent or family member had or has asthma, too). However, a whole host of other risk factors increase asthma risk, too. Genetics certainly explains some, but not all cases of asthma."


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

does it explain the clustering of asthma in the highest pollution areas such as inner cities? china's worst cities?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...



You AGWCult sickos think CO2 is a some lethal poison.

The fact is additional 120PPM CO2 in the atmosphere has NO EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE OR CLIMATE


----------



## IanC (Aug 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD - I am one who has said from the beginning that pressure is a factor in surface temperature. But it is not the only factor. This planet is in near equilibrium so pressure is no longer the important influence in small changes. But the escape of surface radiation is. How warm the atmosphere is, and how opaque it is to the relevant wavelengths is more important than the pressure.
> ...




???? what are you talking about?

this planet is in near equilibrium. the heatsinks are charged, air and ocean currents are in place, solar input is matched by radiative output to a fine degree. what we areleft with are small perturbations such as increased CO2 by fossil fuels or tiny solar variations.

while the surface is just another location along the pathway from solar in to IR out, it is special to us because that is where we live. the surface temp at this time in the earth's history is about 15C due to the particular order of the equilibrium. it can be naturally higher or lower depending on conditions that affect the equilibrium, but there has been a rather narrow range of temps since the earth formed mostly because of hydrological cycle.

if there were no atmosphere it would get much warmer and much cooler during day and night. if the atmosphere had no GHGs to impede the surface radiation from escaping directly to space it would be cooler because the energy trapped in the heatsink of the atmosphere would be much less. the surface temp is affected by the temp of the atmosphere above it, because of blackbody radiation returning a portion of the energy to the surface, and even a small amount of re-radiated IR by CO2 near the surface (after ~10 meters CO2 has almost completely dispersed its favourite wavelengths and you cannot make a deck of cards more random by shuffling 1000 times rather than just 7). CO2 is much more likely to absorb IR and then collide with another molecule which then turns that absorbed energy into kinetic energy, potential energy, or/and blackbody radiation. 

you believe pressure is the main determinant of surface temp but I only believe it is a long established factor with little relevance other than yet another heatsink where sunlight puffs up the atmosphere by turning kinetic energy into potential energy.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

IanC said:


> this planet is in near equilibrium. the heatsinks are charged, air and ocean currents are in place, solar input is matched by radiative output to a fine degree. what we areleft with are small perturbations such as increased CO2 by fossil fuels or tiny solar variations.



Are you saying that ocean and air currents are perfectly stable and never change?  Good one.


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2014)

What was it about "what we are left with are small perturbations" that you failed to comprehend?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> What was it about "what we are left with are small perturbations" that you failed to comprehend?




Small perturbations which you and yours like to blame for the failure of the models...interesting.


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2014)

Doesn't it bother you that wrt science fundamentals, EVERYONE disagrees with you?  No one here thinks you know what you're talking about.  NO ONE.  No one is on your side (re science).  No one wants you on their side (re science).

See how nice I'm being?


----------



## IanC (Aug 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > this planet is in near equilibrium. the heatsinks are charged, air and ocean currents are in place, solar input is matched by radiative output to a fine degree. what we areleft with are small perturbations such as increased CO2 by fossil fuels or tiny solar variations.
> ...




Nope. That's not what I said. The earth is trying to shed its energy. Air and ocean currents help facilitate that. Air changes quickly but has standard patterns like the Hadley cell. Oceans have much more inertia and change slowly.

You say atmospheric pressure controls the surface temp. I say you have it backwards. Any atmosphere contracts, giving up gravitational potential energy, until it reaches equilibrium where the energy input matches energy loss. A planet with no solar or radioactive heat source would have no atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

IanC said:


> Nope. That's not what I said. The earth is trying to shed its energy. Air and ocean currents help facilitate that. Air changes quickly but has standard patterns like the Hadley cell. Oceans have much more inertia and change slowly.



The earth is cooling...the energy is going right out of the ToA in spite of steadily increasing CO2.  There is no santa...tooth fairy, or magic property to CO2.  Don't you find it odd that the ideal gas laws predict the temperature here better than the greenhouse hypothesis?


----------



## IanC (Aug 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. That's not what I said. The earth is trying to shed its energy. Air and ocean currents help facilitate that. Air changes quickly but has standard patterns like the Hadley cell. Oceans have much more inertia and change slowly.
> ...




The TOA measurements seem to show a slight decrease in LW and a slight increase in SW going out. This is consistent with CO2 interfering with LW but compensated by increased clouds or the timing of cloud formation. 

You haven't addressed the issue of atmosphere height to energy input. Change in pressure affects temp but once it is in near equilibrium it is only a heatsink to smooth out small fluctuations.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

IanC said:


> The TOA measurements seem to show a slight decrease in LW and a slight increase in SW going out. This is consistent with CO2 interfering with LW but compensated by increased clouds or the timing of cloud formation.
> 
> You haven't addressed the issue of atmosphere height to energy input. Change in pressure affects temp but once it is in near equilibrium it is only a heatsink to smooth out small fluctuations.



The ToA measurements show a notable increase in outgoing LW since the 70's which is in no way consistent with the claim that CO2 interferes with LW.






As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 27, 2014)

walk_thetalk said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Look at my sig line...crick hypothesized that it would be expedient to simply kill off those who disagree with him.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> walk_thetalk said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If that wasn't the clearest and most idiotic attempt to change the subject, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.



I posted links to more than a few technical articles and peer reviewed studies that showed that statement to be complete horseshit.  The idea gas laws are universal and so is the greenhouse effect.  Where greenhouse gases exist in the universe, they trap infrared radiation and increase temperatures.

Let's see a peer reviewed study that shows the greenhouse effect failing on the Earth or any other planet.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.
> ...


 again, you have no eveidence that greenhouse gases increase temperatures.  You just haven't. No matter how many times you want a post your nonsense.


----------



## elektra (Aug 28, 2014)

Quoting a theory as fact is not science, crick.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2014)

This is the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect.  Do you see the word "theory" anywhere?



> The *greenhouse effect* is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2014)

From Greenhouse Effect



> The greenhouse effect is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth.  It happens because certain gases absorb infrared heat that would normally be radiated into space.



Again, the word theory doesn't appear.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2014)

From The Greenhouse Effect



> The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths ofvisible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed, but the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from theheated objects are unable to pass through that medium. The trapping of the long wavelength radiation leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature. Besides the heating of an automobile by sunlight through the windshield and the namesake example of heating the greenhouse by sunlight passing through sealed, transparent windows, the greenhouse effect has been widely used to describe the trapping of excess heat by the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space.



Again, the word "theory" does not appear


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2014)

Greenhouse effect climatechange.gov.au



> The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.
> 
> Greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
> 
> The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. This process maintains the Earth’s temperature at around 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be, allowing life on Earth to exist.



The word "theory" does not appear


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2014)

So, Elektra, how about you find us a reliable source that states the Greenhouse Effect is a theory.  Or you could admit your error.


----------

