# Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years  to the present



## orogenicman (May 7, 2014)

*EDIT*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2014)

Ol' Walleyes has a problem with a real geologist posting.


----------



## American Horse (May 7, 2014)

To Summarize:
Ice Ages = 185 parts per million (baseline)
Pre Industrial = 278 parts per million (50 percent increase from baseline)
Present (2014) = 398 parts per million (43 percent increase from Pre-Industrial)


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2014)

American Horse said:


> To Summarize:
> Ice Ages = 185 parts per million (baseline)
> Pre Industrial = 278 parts per million (50 percent increase from baseline)
> Present (2014) = 398 parts per million (43 percent increase from Pre-Industrial)



One part of your summary that you left out:  The fact that CO2 levels have never been as high in the past 800,000 years as they are today.


----------



## DGS49 (May 7, 2014)

The only relevant question is as follows:  If the U.S. shut down all of its coal-fired power plants, mothballed all of its SUV's, killed all of its farting cattle, and decreed that we all must become organic subsistence farmers, and everyone else on earth continued doing what we know they are going to do anyway, WOULD OUR SELF-IMPOSED MISERY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE FUTURE CLIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES?

The answer is clearly, "No."  

Carry on.


----------



## DGS49 (May 7, 2014)

Note that in my previous posting, it is not necessary to be a "Climate Change DENIER" in order to conclude that it would be futile to punish ourselves in our horror and fear at the coming catastrophic climate changes.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> The only relevant question is as follows: If the U.S. shut down all of its coal-fired power plants, mothballed all of its SUV's, killed all of its farting cattle, and decreed that we all must become organic subsistence farmers, and everyone else on earth continued doing what we know they are going to do anyway, WOULD OUR SELF-IMPOSED MISERY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE FUTURE CLIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES?
> 
> The answer is clearly, "No."
> 
> Carry on.



Straw man argument.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> Note that in my previous posting, it is not necessary to be a "Climate Change DENIER" in order to conclude that it would be futile to punish ourselves in our horror and fear at the coming catastrophic climate changes.



So your response is "fuck it, let's have an apocalypse party"?  I only ask because they tried that in during Hurricane Camile, and as I recall, it didn't work out too well for the participants.


----------



## DGS49 (May 8, 2014)

No, my response is, (1) use our resources wisely, and (2) plan ahead for the effects of climate change.  Like they are doing in Venice right now with the tidal dikes.

But shutting down coal fired power plants is stupid.  Minimize the a real pollution, but do not walk away from that huge resource we have.


----------



## orogenicman (May 8, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> No, my response is, (1) use our resources wisely, and (2) plan ahead for the effects of climate change. Like they are doing in Venice right now with the tidal dikes.
> 
> But shutting down coal fired power plants is stupid. Minimize the a real pollution, but do not walk away from that huge resource we have.



Why not shut down coal plants?  They are the dirtiest source of energy we have. And aren't needed when we have an ample supply of much cleaner natural gas.


----------



## waltky (May 8, 2014)

Granny says, "Dat's right - we all gonna die - it's the end times...

*Study: Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Threaten Human Nutrition*
_May 07, 2014 ~ Climate change is threatening human nutrition, according to experts, who say rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are robbing the global population of vital plant nutrients._


> That conclusion follows the release of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, which predicts that extreme weather will disrupt agricultural production, and have negative consequences for food security, both in the U.S. and globally.  The study says the damage will come not only through changes in crop yields, but also from changes in the ways climate affects food processing, storage, transportation and retailing.
> 
> Unless something is done, climate change will take significant amounts of dietary zinc and iron away by 2050 from food staples, including rice, wheat, corn, soy, field peas and sorghum. Scientists with the Harvard [University] School of Public Health make the prediction in a new study published in the journal Nature.  An estimated 2 to 3 billion people receive 70 percent or more of those essential nutrients from wheat, rice and legumes, particularly in the developing world.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UatUDnFmNTY



We know that CO2 lags temperature....you are showing a graph of CO2 increasing as the earth comes out of an ice age....what's your point?  Why not go back to the period prior to the  beginning of the ice age?  Oh...I know....that would ruin your flawed point because it would show that CO2 was in the range of 1000ppm when the ice age began...  Tell me, if CO2 causes warming...how did the earth descend into a deep ice age with CO2 levels at 1000ppm?


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > To Summarize:
> ...



Does the fact that the earth has been in an ice age for the past 800,000 years mean anything to you?


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > The only relevant question is as follows: If the U.S. shut down all of its coal-fired power plants, mothballed all of its SUV's, killed all of its farting cattle, and decreed that we all must become organic subsistence farmers, and everyone else on earth continued doing what we know they are going to do anyway, WOULD OUR SELF-IMPOSED MISERY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE FUTURE CLIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES?
> ...



You don't think posting CO2 levels from the period of a deep ice age and coming out of that ice age are also a strawman argument when if one looks back to the period when the ice age began the CO2 levels were at or slightly above 1000ppm?


----------



## orogenicman (May 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UatUDnFmNTY
> ...



 The Earth came out of the last ice age 11,000 years ago.  And the graph goes back 800,000 years, dude.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 8, 2014)

Why not open up nuclear?


----------



## orogenicman (May 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...



At no point in the last 800,000 years were CO2 levels as high as they are today.  Do you have a problem reading graphs?


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Come on man!  Can't you read?


----------



## boedicca (May 8, 2014)

So, basically we have higher CO2 than during the Ice Ages.

That is AWESOME!

Global Warming been berry berry good to me.


----------



## orogenicman (May 8, 2014)

boedicca said:


> So, basically we have higher CO2 than during the Ice Ages.
> 
> That is AWESOME!
> 
> Global Warming been berry berry good to me.



And during all the interglacials in the last 800,000 years.  In other words, modern concentrations aren't a natural occurrence.  We did it. And are still doing it.  And it is having adverse consequences that will only get worse.  Not that you give a shit.


----------



## boedicca (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > So, basically we have higher CO2 than during the Ice Ages.
> ...




Your time scale is too short.


----------



## boedicca (May 8, 2014)

Lower CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (May 8, 2014)

boedicca said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Right.  Let's push the atmosphere back to the early Cambrian, where no animals could live on land.  Who knows, maybe you will evolve a tail fluke and survive us all.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UatUDnFmNTY



Here's the time history of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last 600 million years.  Notice that there's no correlation between the two:


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> The Earth came out of the last ice age 11,000 years ago.  And the graph goes back 800,000 years, dude.  You didn't know this?  Huh.



The earth is still in an ice age....the long climb out of the ice age began 14k years ago.  And yes, I know that the graph goes back 800,000 years....the ice age that the earth is in the process of exiting dates back well over a million years.  Ever wonder why there are no ice gores going back any further?  Duh....there was no ice.  Prior to the beginning of the ice age the earth is currently exiting, the average global mean temperature was just shy of 22C....compare that to the average of 14 today.  Can you give any reason that  we should not expect the temperature to continue to climb until it is once again in the 22C range where it has been for most of the history of the earth?

You didn't know this?  Huh?


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It's because the earth has been in an ice age for the past million or so years...prior to entering the ice age that the earth is clawing its way out of, the average global temp was about 22C.  Is there any reason that we should not expect the temp to continue to climb till it reaches the temp prior to the beginning of the ice age?


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> And during all the interglacials in the last 800,000 years.  In other words, modern concentrations aren't a natural occurrence.  We did it. And are still doing it.  And it is having adverse consequences that will only get worse.  Not that you give a shit.



You really haven't spent much time examining the hoax, have you?  CO2 concentrations of 400ppm certainly aren't natural if one looks at earth history.  Here, have a look at what CO2 looked like up to the point that the present ice age began.  At present, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2 if one looks at the history of the earth.  concentrations in excess of 1000ppm are more natural.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Are you claiming that CO2 is responsible for evolution also?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2014)

Look all you lying dumb fucks, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA

In 2009, the level then exceeded anything in the last 2 million years.

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Look all you lying dumb fucks, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;
> 
> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA
> 
> ...



So CO2 hasn't been this high since the earth was well into the decent into the ice age we are presently climbing out of?  What's your point?  Go back to the time at which the present ice age began and you find CO2 levels at, or above 1000ppm.

Try to answer a question honestly for once in your life rocks.....  Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began?   And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Look all you lying dumb fucks, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;
> ...



Which Came First: Low CO2 or an Ice Age? - Scientific American

What starts an Ice Age? Clues exist in the remains of coccolithophores, a type of marine algae with a shell.

A study finds that some seven million years ago, the algae had to adapt to low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They pulled CO2 from the surrounding seas for photosynthesis as well as bicarbonatecommonly known as baking soda. The study is in the journal Nature. [Clara T. Bolton and Heather M. Stoll, Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation]

At that same time, sea surface temperatures were dropping, plants that were more efficient at using CO2 came to predominate on land and vast glaciers began to expand on the continentsan Ice Age was underway. The low concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were thus linked to the eras cool climate.

That situation is now reversed thanks mostly to fossil fuel burning. And the change is happening at least 30,000 times faster this time. In May, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 touched 400 parts per million for the first time in human existence. When they touch 500 ppm, the algae might no longer need the bicarbonate trick.

*So it looks like the ice ages began when the the CO2 level hit 500 ppm. Someday, SSDD, you will learn to do research. Maybe.*


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Try to answer a question honestly for once in your life rocks.....  Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began?   And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?
> ...



Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research.  Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age.   Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.  




 

Look what was happening 7 million years ago.  The ice age wasn't just beginning, the temperature drop was well underway.  Seven million years ago, the temperature was considerably cooler than today after having taken a steep plunge from about 21C.  CO2 had also taken a dive as the temperatures fell due to the increased ability of the oceans to hold it.  

Your article is deceptive at best.  First, the ice age didn't just begin 7 million years ago.  The decent into the ice age had begun 5 million years earlier.  Seven million years ago, temperatures were colder than they are today...down from about 21C.  CO2, at 7 million years ago was slightly higher than today even though temps were colder and the CO2 was down from about 1000ppm at the time the decent into the ice age began.

You claim to have some knowledge of geology rocks so why does a non geologist have to point out the deliberate deception in your article.  The answer is one of two things.  1) You have no actual knowledge of geology and just take whatever you read at face value if it happens to agree with your position, or 2) You have some knowledge of geology, recognize the deliberate deception and are perfectly willing to pass it along in support of your political position.  In either event, you are a bald faced liar.

I couldn't help but note that you dodged the questions I asked.  Guess honesty just isn't part of your makeup.  Typical of liberals.   Here, let me ask again...Over the course of earth's history, what has been the average temperature up to the point that the ice age that the earth is currently exiting began? And for a bonus, is there any reason to think that it won't eventually reach that normal temperature again?


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I'm a geologist, and the first thing I notice is your lack of understanding of the scale of your own graph. Mine, for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago. Yes sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence. What you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere. What you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades. What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak. Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring. The fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Opinions, when it comes to science, are gay.

This guys opinion may be gay too >>> 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


And that's the point. Nobody knows shit about shit with climate change so you don't go making policy decisions based upon speculation.......cause that would be gay.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




As per usual...SSDD schools the amateurs.


Oh God.....I love this forum......and what is truly astonishing......they keep coming back to get humiliated.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



so you're a geologist eh?  So do you ever have to prove your theories or are you just allowed to theorize and move on?  You just made a claim that (bolded) crops will lose nutrional value.  Have you tested that?  Do you as a geologist have the tested results of too much CO2 causing a loss of nutrion?  Because there are many experiments that show the exact opposite.  So, if you have the confirmation, let's see it.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Believing anything Roy Spencer says - GAY.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



My bad. I assumed that you folks actually keep up with current research. The research you are talking about demonstrates that, up to a point, increases in CO2 concentrations aids plant growth. Very little work had been done on the effects on nutrition. Here is the paper I am referring to :

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13179.html


----------



## skookerasbil (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





s0n......you're still not getting it.

The whole point is nobody should believe anything ANYBODY says, one way or another. No conclusions can be made either way....we still have decades and decades which are needed to study this climate shit. And for you s0n......gotta exit that bubble one of these days and climb out of the matrix. Special interests dominate this whole debate on both sides.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


research, reearch, research, but still no actual confirmation of that research.  Again, you claim to be a geologist, isn't that part of the responsibility to prove out the research?  Or, like I said, you merely believe what someone tells you.  LOL.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Then I suggest you get busy and confirm or refute it. After all, that is what independent replication of experimental results is all about.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Erm, I don't believe you.  See how that works?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


The research already does that.  95% of models wrong.  WRONG.  That means getting back to the drawing board and perform some experiments to improve the model.  Again, the observed does not match the models.  IPCC AR5 report states that. As a geologist, again don't you all take the observed data and confirm the model?  In our case for this argument, 95% of the models are wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (May 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The OP graph is what is observed.  The results of the plant nutrition study is what is observed.  I said nothing here about models, did I?  If we cannot agree on the observations, discussions about models are pointless.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


So  show a video showing CO2 increasing.  Ok, so what?  What has that to do with weather, climate, agriculture?  There is nothing in your OP to conclude anything other than a line showing CO2 increasing.  Ok, then so what.  If your point isn't what I was posting against, then excuse me, but the intended video gave me that perception.  And perception is everything.

You were infering something.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





Works for me!!!   http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html 

70,000 views works for me too!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 9, 2014)




----------



## ScienceRocks (May 9, 2014)

I think Spencer is right on the Cloud reflectivity and aerosols reflecting solar energy back into space. I use his temperature data all the time.

I am a skeptic.  There's no reason not to be as people like Hansen, etc have proven me right with agreeing with the pause.

Now, I do  think he is extreme and we don't agree that global warming has stopped.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Geez rocks, I am afraid that it is you who is a failure at research. Seven million years ago, the earth was well on its way into a deep ice age. Again, look at the graph and try to actually understand what is being depicted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are no geologist....if you were, you wouldn't need a non geologist to point out the deliberate deception contained in your OP...or perhaps you are a geologist and are perfectly willing to deceive if it suits your political goal.



orogenicman said:


> for instance, in the OP, is at the scale of years to decades, while yours is in the range of a million to ten million years or so, not very useful for comparison purposes nor relevant to the current situation, particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago.



Yours is a deliberate deception in that it only shows CO2 levels during an ice age and makes no mention of what the atmospheric CO2 levels were like prior to the beginning of that ice age.



orogenicman said:


> particularly when there was little to no land life hundreds of millions of years ago



You are absolutely full of crap and are most certainly no geologist if you actually believe that.  Are you claiming that there was no life on earth prior to the present ice age?  

While life first appeared on land much earlier, the Triassic period 250 million years ago was teaming with terrestrial life.  The global mean temp was around 22C and the atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 1500 to 2000ppm....then came the Jurassic...more teeming life on land...temperature, again around 22C and atmospheric CO2 in the 2500ppm range.  Then comes the cretataceous period...again the average temp was in the neighborhood of 22C and the atmospheric CO2 at the beginning of the period was in excess of 2000ppm and by the end of the period it was about 1000ppm.  Next comes the tertiary period...if we examine fossils from that period, we find the oldest examples of modern land animals....temps during that period were as high as 30C according to some sources...CO2 at the beginning of the tertiary...in excess of 1000ppm...then the decent into the present ice age began....CO2 began to fall and bottomed out a bit less than we have today.

Here is a graph with a bit more resolution since you seem to be unable to see the obvious from the graph you have been provided.  It shows the decent into the ice age from the eocene optmum about 50 million years ago to the depths of the ice age that the earth is presently exiting.





So again, life on earth was much the same as life today at the time of the Eocene optimum but the temperatures were much warmer and atmospheric CO2 was much higher...then came the ice age.  Now, is there any reason to believe that the global mean temperature won't again, reach near 22C as it has been for most of earth's history????and is there any reason to think that CO2 levels below 1000 are normal on planet earth during any time other than an ice age?



orogenicman said:


> sir, things were different then; no one is debating this. What you are also glossing over is the fact that at no time up until the past 10,000 years or less, have there been humans living by the millions in cities along ocean coastlines dependent on stable conditions for their very existence.



We are the most adaptable creature to have ever walked the face of the earth....our survival, in no way, depends on stable climate conditions and if it did, we would be doomed because the history of the earth has shown that climate is not stable here....never has been...never will be.



orogenicman said:


> you are glossing over is the fact that humans depend on crops for their survival, crops that will lose nutritional value in a higher CO2 atmosphere.



Alarmist claptrap. 



orogenicman said:


> you fail to acknowledge is that there are millions already subsisting on marginal land that will become useless in the coming decades.



Again, alarmist claptrap.  History has shown that when the world was warmer, what is desert today was green....what is to cool to be useful as farmland was once lush.  Tell me, what do you think the ideal temperature is for life on earth?  Consider the historical evidence.



orogenicman said:


> What you have said nothing about is the fact that billions depend on marginal water supplies that are not only going to dry up in the future, but are drying up as we speak.



Drought is associated more with cold periods than warm....what was the water situation like during the Eocene optimum when the global mean temp was in the neighborhood of 22C?  Is there evidence of extensive drought then or was life blooming?




orogenicman said:


> Whether or not you believe humans are ultimately responsible for global warming, the fact is that it is occurring.



That is what happens when a planet exits an ice age.  It has happened before...over and over without our help and the temperature invariably rose to the high side of 20C...the normal temperature for planet earth.




orogenicman said:


> fact is that we need stop the bickering and start preparing for that inevitability by minimizing our human and economic losses, which I have no doubt will be great.



By crippling our economies via taxes on a trace gas in the atmosphere?


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2014)

SSDD,

What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD,
> 
> What mechanism do you believe is causing it to warm as rapidly as it has since the Industrial Revolution?


What mechanism caused all of the other warming and cooling periods?

1) How rapidly is the temperature increasing? 
2) Does a fraction of a degree in 100 years seem fast to you?  
3) How much of that warming is real and how much is an artifact of bad placement of temperature sensors?  
4) How much of that fraction of a degree is due to data tampering of which there has been quite a bit?
5) How fast did temperatures rise during the Holocene optimum....the Minoan warm period...the Roman warm period...and the Medieval warm period which were all warmer than the present and global in nature?


----------



## orogenicman (May 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



 So what you are saying is that you don't know.  I only make that conclusion because it appears that you intentionally avoided answering his question.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2014)

orogenicman said:


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



I am saying that no one knows.  There is nothing more than corroboratory evidence that CO2 is the catalyst for the warming and a great deal of observational evidence that says that it is not.  

That big ball of fire in the sky drives the climate here on earth now just as it has since the earth has been in existence.  If you claim to know that CO2 is the driver of the climate, then you are either delusional or just a liar.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2014)

...and in all that time, CO2 never drove climate once


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



The temperature has increased 0.9C/150 years or 0.6C/century.  I realize things get smeared out badly when looking back that far, but the most rapid change I see in the record you provided looks like 4C/million years or 0.0004C/century.   

The current rate of change seems very fast to me, but so what?

Several studies have shown that very, very little of the warming is an artifact from the bad placement of temperature sensors.  The satellites weren't badly placed.  The ocean measurements weren't badly placed.  The warming is real.

And you've missed the point.  I asked you to identify the mechanism that is causing the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing recently.  The rate at which we'd been "coming out of the current ice age" accelerated tremendously as we started industrializing.  That does not happen without a CAUSE.  The scientists at the IPCC have collected an enormous amount of evidence that clearly indicates it is being caused by increased greenhouse gases.  You seem to reject that.  I ask what cause you have in it's place.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2014)

Number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating a link between temperature increase and an additional wisp of CO2: zero, 0, nada, none, zippo


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2014)

Crick said:


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



What's the Earth's average temperature?


----------



## mamooth (May 11, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What's the Earth's average temperature?



Depends on the data set used.

And it doesn't matter which one you use, as long as you go apples to apples and make comparisons within the same data set.

Why did you think that question was going to trip someone up? Don't you understand temperature?


----------



## mamooth (May 11, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating a link between temperature increase and an additional wisp of CO2: zero, 0, nada, none, zippo



Except the ones any high schooler can do.

Which you don't count, because they don't recreate the whole earth. 

And when a model does do that, you say it doesn't count because it's a model.

You've defined it so it's impossible. So nobody is interested in playing this dishonest game of yours.


----------



## mamooth (May 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I am saying that no one knows.  There is nothing more than corroboratory evidence that CO2 is the catalyst for the warming and a great deal of observational evidence that says that it is not.



The atmospheric heat flux measurements say otherwise.



> That big ball of fire in the sky drives the climate here on earth now just as it has since the earth has been in existence.



Yet temps go up as solar output goes down, meaning you stink in the common sense department. Oh, that's right, you claim there's a multi-decade lag, but won't identify where all the heat is magically stored, before it springs back to life decades later. It's your magical temporarily vanishing heat theory, to go along with your magical vanishing photon theory. Physics is whatever you want it to be in order to push your weird cult agenda.



> If you claim to know that CO2 is the driver of the climate, then you are either delusional or just a liar.



Or it means we don't suck at the science as much as you.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> The temperature has increased 0.9C/150 years or 0.6C/century.  I realize things get smeared out badly when looking back that far, but the most rapid change I see in the record you provided looks like 4C/million years or 0.0004C/century.



Really?  What sort of proxy gives you that sort of resolution?



Crick said:


> current rate of change seems very fast to me, but so what?



Compared to that non existent proxy that gives you those numbers?  



Crick said:


> studies have shown that very, very little of the warming is an artifact from the bad placement of temperature sensors.  The satellites weren't badly placed.  The ocean measurements weren't badly placed.  The warming is real.



40% is very little?  OK.  If you say so.  Of course the warming is real.  It has been going on for 14 thousand years now.  It is called coming out of an ice age.  What do you expect?  What was the temperature prior to the beginning of the ice age?  What caused it?  What triggered the warming that started us out of it?  Is there any reason to expect that the temperature won't rise back to the temperature it was prior to the beginning of the ice age?



Crick said:


> you've missed the point.  I asked you to identify the mechanism that is causing the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing recently.



Recently?  There has been no warming recently.  Damned near 20 years now with no warming while atmospheric CO2 increases merrily on its way.  A fraction of a degree in 100 years...coming out of the little ice age is by no means (unless you are chicken little) rapid warming.



Crick said:


> The rate at which we'd been "coming out of the current ice age" accelerated tremendously as we started industrializing.  That does not happen without a CAUSE.  The scientists at the IPCC have collected an enormous amount of evidence that clearly indicates it is being caused by increased greenhouse gases.  You seem to reject that.  I ask what cause you have in it's place.



And you can say with how much certainty, and based on what, that previous exits from cold periods along the path of exiting this ice age were not equally rapid?


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating a link between temperature increase and an additional wisp of CO2: zero, 0, nada, none, zippo
> ...



They don't show that CO2 causes warming either.  Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression, but some show other things.  What they don't show is that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The atmospheric heat flux measurements say otherwise.



No they don't.  If they did, perhaps we would know why the warming stopped.


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The temperature has increased 0.9C/150 years or 0.6C/century.  I realize things get smeared out badly when looking back that far, but the most rapid change I see in the record you provided looks like 4C/million years or 0.0004C/century.
> ...



Are you actually going to try to deny that the rate of warming has increased in the last 150 years?  Of course you are.  You've already tried to deny there's been any warming at all.  And what studies show 40% of observed warming is from poor sensor siting?


----------



## orogenicman (May 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So you are in denial of 100 years of scientific evidence that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, are you?  Oh dear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating a link between temperature increase and an additional wisp of CO2: zero, 0, nada, none, zippo
> ...



I thought your theory was "Adding 100PPM of CO2 to Earth atmosphere will cause a discernible increase in temperature of between .5  to 8 degrees which ever comes first"?

Do you have a theory you can put into simple words?


----------



## orogenicman (May 12, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers.  100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers).  We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers).  Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> Are you actually going to try to deny that the rate of warming has increased in the last 150 years?  Of course you are.  You've already tried to deny there's been any warming at all.  And what studies show 40% of observed warming is from poor sensor siting?



Presently, it is not warming.  As to denying that it has warmed, you are simply lying.  The earth is coming out of an ice age with a long way to go...what do you expect.  Most of the 20th century warming happened before the end of the second world war....the bulk of the remainder is in all likelihood due to the urban heat island effect.

The only actual study that has taken a serious look at sensor sitting.  
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

Want some papers regarding UHI?

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

00509.1http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015452.shtml

Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954?2008)

There is plenty more if you care to look.  Then there is the fact that the CRN..NOAA'state of the art surface temperature network...the equipment is pristine and the locations are meticulously situated to the point that no "adjustment" is necessary. You don't hear much about that network because the results coming out of there don't support the claims of any warming, much less rapid warming.

The fact is that hand waving and histrionics on the part of warmest wackos really is no reason for anyone to get excited.  When pressed on what sort of data you rely on to make your crazy claims...you are ashamed to answer and instead change gears to attack me...or whoever else may ask you who told you that such fine resolution was available via proxy data.

So again...

What was the temperature prior to the beginning of the ice age that earth is currently exiting?

Is there any reason to expect that the temperature will not climb back to that level?

Do you have any actual evidence that the temperature did not climb at least as fast, if not faster leading up to the Holocene maximum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm perod, or the medieval warm period?  The Vostok ice cores suggest that the present warming is no big deal and in fact, quite minor.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> So you are in denial of 100 years of scientific evidence that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, are you?  Oh dear.



Can you show me a single repeatable measurable experiment that demonstrates that CO2 can cause warming in the open atmosphere?  The fact is that there is no 100 years of "evidence" that CO2 alters the temperature at all.  There is 100 years of assumption, and guesswork, and fudge factor...but no actual evidence at all.  If you think that there is any such actual evidence.....then lets see it.  Maybe you can produce what no other warmer has managed to do to date.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers.  100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers).  We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers).  Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?



Can you show any proof at all that it isn't?  We all know that CO2 absorbs and emits IR but absorption and emission do not equal warming....that is an assumption on your part.  if there were any actual proof to support your beliefs, it would be everywhere...inescapable and yet, us skeptics are asking continuously and it never seems to come forth.


----------



## orogenicman (May 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The effective volume of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. 100 ppm of that is a friggin lot of CO2 (42,000,000 cubic kilometers). We are currently near 400 ppm (210,000,000 cubic kilometers). Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?
> ...



The energy has to go somewhere?  Or are you now going to argue against the laws of thermodynamics?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 12, 2014)

SSDD is going to flap yap and repeat whatever nonsense he can think of on the spur of the moment. In spite of all the Physicists in the world stating otherwise, he will claim that CO2 does not block the longwave IR that is radiated from the earth. 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD is going to flap yap and repeat whatever nonsense he can think of on the spur of the moment. In spite of all the Physicists in the world stating otherwise, he will claim that CO2 does not block the longwave IR that is radiated from the earth.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Actually rocks, it is physicists who made a skeptic of me...that and the common sense it requires to look around and see that the models aren't doing a good job of predicting reality....that alone should make a skeptic of any thinking person as the supposed physics of the hypothetical greenhouse effect are personified in the models and the models are failing....therefore the physics are wrong.

And absorption and emission do not equal blocking....they only equal absorption and emission.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


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



Is "Are you honestly going to argue that this volume of CO2 is inert in our atmosphere?" your scientific theory?

You also seem to be confused about the meaning of PPM; it's parts per million. No matter the volume of the atmosphere, we're adding what can be generously described as a "trace amount"


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.



The actual data says the opposite of your claim. Of course, that's never stopped you from making any claims before.

Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models -- Gastineau et al. (2014)

AMS Journals Online
---
While the tropical ocean surface temperature has risen by roughly 0.2 K from 1982 to 2004, the reconstructed OLR remains stable over the ocean. Consequently, there is an increase in the clear-sky greenhouse effect (GHE) of 0.80 W m^2 decade&#8722;1
---

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS &#8211; Chapman et al. (2013) 

SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS
---
Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1).
---

You'll ignore the summary studies, of course, and find a cherrypicked graph of a location somewhere that shows uncorrected ENSO effects.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression,.



That's a laughably stupid claim, so delusional that only you could make it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression,.
> ...



Can you state your AGW theory?


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No matter the volume of the atmosphere, we're adding what can be generously described as a "trace amount"



A drop of India ink in a glass of water also has a 100 ppm concentration, yet it blocks all visible light. According to your kook "a trace can't block radiation!" theory, that can't happen. Yet it does. Therefore, your claim is clearly dead wrong.

This is grade school level stuff, but you consistently fail at it. It's tough to get someone to not be stupid when their beloved political cult has ordered them to be stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > No matter the volume of the atmosphere, we're adding what can be generously described as a "trace amount"
> ...



Really?

Let's say there's 5,000 drops to a cup.

You need 200 cups to make up 1,000,000 drops.

There's 16 cups in a gallon, so 1MM drops takes 12.5 gallon.

And you're telling us that 1 drop in 12.5 gallons will block all visible light?

So, what's your AGW theory again? I must have missed it


----------



## orogenicman (May 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Links, please.  While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.
> ...



Sorry admiral hairball.  The "actual" data says exactly what I said.







As to your papers, you clearly never read them beyond the meager data this side of the firewall.  here are the graphs found in those papers...show me the claimed decrease in outgoing LW radiation.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression,.
> ...



Your response shows how easily, and completely you have been duped.  If there were actual experiments that prove the AGW hypothesis, they would be unavoidable...but alas, they are nowhere.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



That's how they do "science".  Make up something that they think sounds intelligent and when it turns out not to be...act as if they never said it.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




Look above.


----------



## orogenicman (May 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yeah, I did.  So links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Those graphs, unfortunately live behind a firewall.  I got them way back when and have kept them.  The study suggested that outgoing LW was indeed decreasing based on the model predictions as indicated by the red lines....they neglected the fact that reality didn't match the predictions as is so often the case in climate science....model output is treated as if it were observational data and all to often is used instead of observed data.

The fact is that outgoing LW is increasing in direct contradiction to the predictions based on the AGW hypothesis.  That hypothesis has failed over and over and over.   If climate science were practicing real science, that hypothesis would have been tossed out 20 years ago.  One failure of a hypothesis is just cause to disregard it and go back to the drawing board in real science....just one more indication that climate science is, in reality, climate pseudoscience.


----------



## orogenicman (May 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Oh, so now you decide to put an interpretation to your graphs.  Perhaps you can also put an original source link to them as well, per my earlier request.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Oh, so now you decide to put an interpretation to your graphs.  Perhaps you can also put an original source link to them as well, per my earlier request.



The graphs are what they are.  They show no decrease in OLR as the models predicted.  

admiral hairball already provided the link to the data.  The abstracts don't show the graphs, I provided the graphs and the challenge to show the decrease in OLR that the paper claimed based on the graphs.

SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS

Look at the abstract and then look at the graphs and ask yourself how the claims made in the abstract relate to the graphs.

Of course you won't....you are a warmer wacko....incapable of questioning anything that goes against your politically motivated position.  If you were capable of such questions, then you would also be a skeptic.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Let's say there's 5,000 drops to a cup.
> 
> You need 200 cups to make up 1,000,000 drops.
> 
> ...



Your amusing failure there is using 1 ppm instead of 400 ppm. 400 drops, hell yes it would block all visible light.



> So, what's your AGW theory again? I must have missed it



It can be summarized as "Eat shit, Frank". Being you've consistently been such a dishonest cult asswipe and will never change, nobody is willing to waste time playing your games. Learn to enjoy the joke status you've so richly earned.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The graphs are what they are. They show no decrease in OLR as the models predicted.



Score! Exactly as predicted, SSDD proceeds to try to bullshit everyone with cherrypicked graphs from an unknown source and no context at all. Damn, I'm good. I said he'd do it, and he didn't disappoint.

Mildly amusing is his claim those graphs came from the very recent papers, even though he said he's had them since way back. He doesn't lie very well. I should feel insulted, as I'm used to deniers putting more effort into their fabrications.

More amusing is how he doesn't know the context of the graphs or what they mean. He tries to bluff his way past that, but it's not working. He has no freaking idea what he's posting. He's just dropping random pictures and claiming victory. And ignoring the actual science, because it all says he's a full of shit.

I can keep going with more papers, but what's the point? SSDD would ignore them too, post bullshit and declare victory. Who ya gonna believe, the actual science, or SSDD raving about mystery graphs?


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The graphs are what they are. They show no decrease in OLR as the models predicted.
> ...



Actually admiral hairball...the graphs are from your source...behind the firewall so clearly you never actually looked at anything beyond the abstract.  You are pathetic.


----------



## mamooth (May 13, 2014)

If you're not lying, simply give us the full context of that first graph, which means quoting all the text from the paper that you claim the graph is in, that paper you claim to have read completely.

Saying "well, I don't have access anymore" will have everyone laughing at your obvious weasel routine. You gave us a mystery graph, no source, no context, but you expect everyone to accept that it overturns the actual peer-reveiwed science, simply because you say so.

Are you happy with what you've become, a liar for your cult? But the ends justify the means for you, right?


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> If you're not lying, simply give us the full context of that first graph, which means quoting all the text from the paper that you claim the graph is in, that paper you claim to have read completely.
> 
> Saying "well, I don't have access anymore" will have everyone laughing at your obvious weasel routine. You gave us a mystery graph, no source, no context, but you expect everyone to accept that it overturns the actual peer-reveiwed science, simply because you say so.
> 
> Are you happy with what you've become, a liar for your cult? But the ends justify the means for you, right?



You do realize admiral hairball, that that paper was published in 2007?  Sorry that you can't look at a graph and understand its context.  Unsurprising that you have been so completely duped.  The first graph depicts snapshots of OLR taken by the satellite IRIS in 1970 and by the satellite IMG in 1977.  Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of year and under the same weather conditions.  It is clear to see that in the CO2 absorption bands (2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers) there is no decrease in OLR.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 13, 2014)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 13, 2014)

Matthew said:


>



So what?


----------



## SSDD (May 13, 2014)

He doesn't understand that those graphs don't mean anything unless CO2 actually "traps" OLR in the atmosphere.  The satellite snapshots and the fact that OLR is increasing....and the fact that there has been no warming for 2 decades while CO2 increased is hard evidence that CO2 is not the climate change culprit.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 14, 2014)

Most of the world disagree's...


Also, this proves that co2 emissions aren't just caused by a single volcano on Hawaii!!!!

Barrow, Alaska, United States
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Summit, Greenland
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

South Pole, Antarctica, United States
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ccgg&type=ts

Tutuila, American Samoa
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SMO&program=ccgg&type=ts

World wide!

Methane at Summit! Also, there's one for Barrow too 
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Methane at the south pole!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ccgg&type=ts


ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Most of the world disagree's...
> 
> 
> Also, this proves that co2 emissions aren't just caused by a single volcano on Hawaii!!!!
> ...



Most of the world disagreed with me when I told my doctor that my stomach ulcer was not due to stress also....I am about the most laid back person you could ever meet...my normal heart rate is in the 50 bpm and my blood pressure is, and has always been enviable to those who measure it.  Stress is not my enemy.  Turns out that he, and practically all of medical science (a much more credible branch of science than climate pseudscience by the way) were, in fact wrong about the cause of my ulcer.  Most of the world's scientists have been wrong about many things over the centuries....CO2 being a climate driver is just one more in a long string of scientific errors.

Just as my doctor should have looked at my level of health, my overall condition, my nutrition, and lifestyle and questioned whether or not stress was causing my ulcer, climate science should be looking at the repeated failures of the AGW hypothesis and returning to the drawing board for a new hypothesis on climate.  They don't because of money.

As to sources of CO2....there is an untold amount bubbling up from the ocean floor....we have no idea how much volcanic activity is happening at the floor of the ocean...  It makes no difference though because CO2 isn't driving the climate.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You do realize admiral hairball, that that paper was published in 2007?



Which paper? The only study you linked to is clearly dated May 18, 2013. So you got some 'splainin to do. A helpful hint, if you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't always end up forgetting which particular lie you told.

SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS



> Sorry that you can't look at a graph and understand its context.  Unsurprising that you have been so completely duped.



This is going to be fun, running you around in circles and watching you flail.



> The first graph



This is the first graph. Which you won't tell us the source of. Just a big mystery, it is.






If I had to guess, it looks like an amateur plotted raw data and thought it meant something, not understanding how the satellite drift over the years has to be compensated for.



> depicts snapshots of OLR taken by the satellite IRIS in 1970 and by the satellite IMG in 1977.  Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of year and under the same weather conditions.  It is clear to see that in the CO2 absorption bands (2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers) there is no decrease in OLR.



That's your second graph.






The source of that graph is Harries 2001. The abstract notably says the opposite of what you claim.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
---
Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
--

So, you clearly didn't know the date or source of the graph, because you cribbed it from a denialist source (tallbloke). You also have little idea what it was about. But I can help you out there, being my soul oozes with a desire to help educate the less able.

First, while the black IMG line is 1970, the grey IRIS line is 1996, not 1977. Again, you don't know the basics.

Second, it shows the opposite of what you claim. This is more obvious if you take the second graph from Harries 2001 that plots the difference. You know, the graph that was right below the graph you posted and which would be impossible to miss, if someone had actually looked at the paper.






The top line shows the OLR difference between the years. Dips at 700 (15 microns) for CO2, also for ozone and methane. Your other CO2 bands (2.7, 4.3) are off the chart scale to the right. OLR rises outside the greenhouse gas bands, as it's supposed to. The middle line shows the model predictions, which match reality quite nicely.

Notably, your denier source took the first graph from Harries 2001, but then deliberately left out the second graph that clearly shows the OLR decreasing. Rather dishonest cherrypicking on their part. And you fell for it. If you had any self-respect, you'd publicly condemn that source for lying to you like that. However, if you're too deep into the cult, you'll keep defending your cult masters no matter how often they lie to you. And you'll keep parroting them and then lying outright about how you supposedly read the paper, like you got caught doing here.

Oh, your graphs 3 and 4. Tell us what paper they came from, and what they mean. You say you've read the original sources, hence that should be as easy task for you. Since I've got the original source of those graphs open in front of me, I'd suggest you not try to bullshit everyone yet another time.


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Which paper? The only study you linked to is clearly dated May 18, 2013. So you got some 'splainin to do. A helpful hint, if you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't always end up forgetting which particular lie you told.



My my but you are a bitter old biddy aren't you admiral hairball.  Had you actually looked at the study, you would have seen that the one you posted referenced older work.  The original work was harries, et al published in nature 2001 which was then referenced by griggs and harries published in the journal of climate volume 20 and then referenced again by chen, harries, blindly and ringer in a paper published by the euuropean organization for meteorological satellites, and then by chapman, nguyen, and hale in the paper at the SPIE digital library which you linked to yourself.

Clearly admiral hairball, it is you who has not done the research.  And you, admiral hairball who is the liar here



mamooth said:


> This is the first graph. Which you won't tell us the source of. Just a big mystery, it is.



That graph is from none of the papers above.  It is just one of many that show OLR increasing.  I am not sure who produced the graph...the data, however is from NOAA. Here is another that shows the increase in OLR more clearly if you wish.  Are you going to claim that NOAA does not understand satellite drift as well?

You are pathetic.






NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer



mamooth said:


> your second graph.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, that graph is from harries 2001.  And it is interesting in that the graph itself says exactly the opposite of what they say.  Can you show me a decrease in OLR in the CO2 absorption bands on that graph?  The model certainly shows a difference, but there is no difference in observation.  Another example of climate science taking the word of a computer over direct measured observation.



mamooth said:


> First, while the black IMG line is 1970, the grey IRIS line is 1996, not 1977. Again, you don't know the basics.



Actually, the IMG line is from 1997, not 1996 as you claim and the IRIS line is from 1970.

You think you scored some victory because you found a mistype on my part?  Congratulations.  Maybe you can find some spelling or punctuation errors as well.



			
				harris et al 2001 said:
			
		

> The previous page shows graphs of brightness temperature as a function of wavenumber measured from instruments on satellites in 1970 (IRIS  Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer) and 1997 (IMG  Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases).



,





mamooth said:


> it shows the opposite of what you claim. This is more obvious if you take the second graph from Harries 2001 that plots the difference. You know, the graph that was right below the graph you posted and which would be impossible to miss, if someone had actually looked at the paper.



Actually, it shows just what I claim...the model output and the heavily massaged data show what the authors claim.




mamooth said:


> The third and forth graphs are from chen, harries, brindly and ringer and again, they show that there is no difference in OLR in the CO2 bands.  Here is the original source:
> https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?
> 
> IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v&allowInterrupt=1&noSaveAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased
> ...


----------



## Darkwind (May 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Which paper? The only study you linked to is clearly dated May 18, 2013. So you got some 'splainin to do. A helpful hint, if you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't always end up forgetting which particular lie you told.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 14, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Its too bad we don't have the measurements of the output before the last ice age began.  I would be curious to see if a level of 1000 ppm or higher of CO2 would correspond to the output at the top of that atmosphere.
> 
> This could possibly be a balancing mechanism for the planet.  But who knows.



Radiative gasses allow the atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.  It would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses as convection and conduction would be the only way to move heat to the top of the atmosphere.  It is just silly to think that more of  a radiative gas reduces the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 14, 2014)

Hey, frank, Look at 21 minutes in this video to see a confirmation for co2 holding heat!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gE6zipFWmo]BBC Documentary Climate Wars Episode 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Crick (May 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> It would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses as convection and conduction would be the only way to move heat to the top of the atmosphere.  It is just silly to think that more of  a radiative gas reduces the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself



So you think the greenhouse effect is "just silly"?  Well. that's one way to demonstrate your level of scientific expertise.  By the way, things that radiate well also absorb well.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses as convection and conduction would be the only way to move heat to the top of the atmosphere.  It is just silly to think that more of  a radiative gas reduces the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself
> ...



The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is beyond silly.  It is an ad hoc construct that only works (and works badly) on this planet.  If you model any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using models based on the greenhouse effect, the temperature those models predict isn't even close.  You can, however accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and the amount of incoming solar radiation.  The atmospheric thermal effect is much greater than the greenhouse effect and can predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...but isn't dependent upon the make up of the atmosphere so politically, it is unacceptable as man can't be blamed.


----------



## orogenicman (May 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



There are only two other rocky planets in the solar system with an atmosphere. One is sun-side of the habitable zone and has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of CO2 where the surface is (surprise surprise) hot enough to melt lead. The other is outside of the habitable zone (towards Jupiter) , but still can reach temperatures above freezing in the summer at the equator, despite having atmosphere as rarified as Earth's at an altitude of 30 miles (because - you guessed it, its atmosphere is also composed of CO2). Were it not for the presence of CO2 here on Earth, the oceans would be nearly frozen solid. So no you are wrong, CO2 is a rather efficient greenhouse gas. Next.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Just what the hell are you talking about? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere just before the last ice age began was not 1000 ppm.*
> 
> Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm
> 
> ...



No rocks, the glacial began about 2 million years ago.  The ice age began much earlier.  For someone who claims to have some knowledge of geology, you sure do make a great number of very basic errors.

The earth started defending into the ice age that still continues a tick over 50 million years ago.  The ice caps and glaciation  began in earnest about 30 million years ago.  Prior to that, there was no ice at the north pole and trees grew on antarctica.  Northern Spain was tropical as were the central latitudes of the US.  The ice age has  relaxed, then surged, relaxed, and surged several times over the past 50 million years or so but the ice age has continued.    Right now the earth is exiting from the third major cooling period of the ice age which began about 3 million years ago.  

You must go back more than 50 million years to reach a time when the earth was not in an ice age and at that time...the time the earth began to descend into the present ice age, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm.  

If you have some knowledge of geology, why does a non geologist have to point this obvious and very basic error out to you?  That's the problem with being a fake geologist, or a fake anything.  You spend so much time picking through information on the internet for stuff that you think makes you look impressive, that you have no time to learn the basics...things any geologist would know and be able to call up as easily as people educated prior to 1970 can call up their multiplication tables.  You are a fake rocks and you get outed over and over again on the basics.

It is understandable why you guys never want to talk about the actual time prior to the beginning of the ice age....what with maintaining the hoax and all, but 5 million years ago when you acknowledge that CO2 was as high or greater than it is now, the earth had already been in the grips of an ice age for 25 million years.  Low levels of CO2 during an ice age...who would have thought. 

The normal level of atmospheric CO2 on planet earth, when it is not in an ice age is over 1000 ppm whether you like it, or care to acknowledge it, or not.  Try learning some basics before you continue with your fakery.  Here is a relatively basic explanation, and time table of the ice age from a source trusted by warmer wackos such as yourself.

What Triggers Ice Ages?

The fact is rocks, that ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth....it isn't normal.  The normal condition for earth is warm with a high atmospheric concentration of CO2....eventually the ice age will end and the earth will return to its normal state.  With any luck, we are standing at that threshold now and are in for a very long period of warming.....although, it is looking like the cold may be beginning again..


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> There are only two other rocky planets in the solar system with an atmosphere. One is sun-side of the habitable zone and has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of CO2 where the surface is (surprise surprise) hot enough to melt lead. The other is outside of the habitable zone (towards Jupiter) , but still can reach temperatures above freezing in the summer at the equator, despite having atmosphere as rarified as Earth's at an altitude of 30 miles (because - you guessed it, its atmosphere is also composed of CO2). Were it not for the presence of CO2 here on Earth, the oceans would be nearly frozen solid. So no you are wrong, CO2 is a rather efficient greenhouse gas. Next.



Do you guys ever read anything?  Are you completely devoid of education?  Why is it that those with the smallest information base claim to be professionals?  Mercury has an atmosphere...very thin, but an atmosphere none the less.  It is composed mostly of hydrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and potassium.  

Venus has an atmosphere and it is indeed hot enough to melt lead.  It has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere however (beyond the atomic weight of CO2).  If our own atmosphere were 90 times more dense with the same percentages of the various gasses, it would be hot enough to melt lead here as well.  If you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, and correct for the difference in incoming solar radiation, the temperature there is very close to the temperature here.

Mars has an atmosphere as well.  Thin, but an atmosphere none the less.  Mostly CO2 interestingly enough but no where near as warm as the greenhouse effect predicts.

The atmospheric thermal effect based on the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation can predict the temperatures at the various altitudes in the gas giants...the greenhouse effect can't even come close.

Uranus has an atmosphere....interestingly enough, it is considered to be one of the coldest places in the solar system but at the base of its troposphere, it is about 33 degrees warmer than at the base of the troposphere here on earth.  Explained by the atmospheric thermal effect, but not by the greenhouse hypothesis.

Neptune has an atmosphere as well...again the atmospheric thermal effect and incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature at the various altitudes while the greenhouse effect can't even come close.

That fact alone should be enough for a thinking person to disregard the greenhouse hypothesis...the physics are the same here as on any other planet so why does it only work here?  If it doesn't work everywhere, it is flawed and therefore useless.

Then there are the moons.  Our own moon, as well as ganymeade, europa, castillio, rhea, dione, enceladus, and titania all have very thin atmospheres.  

Triton and Io have atmospheres dense enough for them to experience weather, clouds, and seasons and Titan has a fully developed atmosphere.  

And the atmospheric thermal effect along with the incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature of them all while the greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here with constant tweaking and adjustment.  

I am surprised that you would think that only two planets in the solar system have atmospheres.  Like I told rocks, that's the problem with being a fake scientist, you spend so much time sifting through data trying to look impressive, that you are always tripping up on the basics that an actual scientist would know as surely as children educated prior to 1970 know their multiplication tables.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Had you actually looked at the study, you would have seen that the one you posted referenced older work.



So now your everchanging story is that you actually knew what the original 2001 source was, but deliberately chose to attribute it instead to a 2013 source by different authors. I don't see how that makes your story any better. Is it still your final answer, or would you like to try a new revision?



> That graph is from none of the papers above.  It is just one of many that show OLR increasing.  I am not sure who produced the graph...the data, however is from NOAA.



So your devout religious faith has you believing it must be gospel truth, given that it agrees with your cult's teachings. Therefore, you don't need to know where it came from, nor do you care.



> Here is another that shows the increase in OLR more clearly if you wish.  Are you going to claim that NOAA does not understand satellite drift as well?



They understand it, but you don't. Your heroes are plotting NOAA data that doesn't correct for drift, different sampling platforms, differing sampling algorithms, ENSO state, anything. So, the only thing that graph proves is that you're clueless on the topic.



> Yes, that graph is from harries 2001. And it is interesting in that the graph itself says exactly the opposite of what they say.  Can you show me a decrease in OLR in the CO2 absorption bands on that graph?  The model certainly shows a difference, but there is no difference in observation.  Another example of climate science taking the word of a computer over direct measured observation.



You mean another example of you being clueless, since the top line _is_ the actual observation, and not a model. The second line is the model. Both the actual observation and the model shows the dips for CO2, ozone and methane. As I directly stated before, but your brain seems to auto-ignore any info that contradicts your sacred scripture.






This means, of course, that you'll need a new tactic to handwave away this troublesome data that disagrees with your cult. I'd suggest you switch to your standard fallback position that it's all just a big fraud.



> The third and forth graphs are from chen, harries, brindly and ringer and again,



Good, though your link was mangled.

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?...veAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased



> they show that there is no difference in OLR in the CO2 bands.



Bzzzt, no, sorry, not even close, but we have some lovely parting gifts for you. You had the source right, but seemingly refused to read it. You think that graph is showing a difference between two time periods, which is totally wrong. It's just comparing measurements to model predictions at a single instant in time. It's not showing any OLR differences in the real world, it's showing where the model is good and bad.






Now, figure 3 in that paper (grabbing an image from a pdf takes significant work, so I'll just tell people to look at the link), shows the 1970-2006 OLR differences, and that shows the OLR decreases in the greenhouse gas bands. Hence yet another paper you'll have to handwave away somehow.



> I guess if I lost as many discussions as you,



You are truly a legend in your own mind. I suppose that's what keeps you going through all the humiliation.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Do you guys ever read anything?  Are you completely devoid of education?



Says the guy who just brought Uranus and Neptune and various moons into a discussion of rocky planets.

They are amusing, these constant belligerent ignorance routines of yours. 

However, the way you always try to switch the topic of discussion and then call people stupid for not having talked about whatever you switched to, that's more deliberate dishonesty on your part.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


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



Stupid fuck, Venus can melt lead due to the atmospheric *PRESSURE,* not the composition


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2014)

Um, Frank? Compression only heats a gas once. Once it's compressed, the heat will then flow away, unless you keep adding more heat. Sitting there at the same high pressure won't magically keep creating heat.


----------



## orogenicman (May 15, 2014)

STDdude said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > There are only two other rocky planets in the solar system with an atmosphere. One is sun-side of the habitable zone and has an extremely dense atmosphere composed of CO2 where the surface is (surprise surprise) hot enough to melt lead. The other is outside of the habitable zone (towards Jupiter) , but still can reach temperatures above freezing in the summer at the equator, despite having atmosphere as rarified as Earth's at an altitude of 30 miles (because - you guessed it, its atmosphere is also composed of CO2). Were it not for the presence of CO2 here on Earth, the oceans would be nearly frozen solid. So no you are wrong, CO2 is a rather efficient greenhouse gas. Next.
> ...



Mercury's tenuous atmosphere mostly comes from the fact that it is being constantly bombarded by the solar wind - and the particles that make up that atmosphere is mostly FROM THE SUN.



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> Venus has an atmosphere and it is indeed hot enough to melt lead. It has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere however (beyond the atomic weight of CO2). If our own atmosphere were 90 times more dense with the same percentages of the various gasses, it would be hot enough to melt lead here as well. If you travel up into the atmosphere of venus to a level where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, and correct for the difference in incoming solar radiation, the temperature there is very close to the temperature here.



By that reasoning, the bottom of the ocean where the pressure is crushingly high should be hundreds of degrees - except that it is not.



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> Mars has an atmosphere as well. Thin, but an atmosphere none the less. Mostly CO2 interestingly enough but no where near as warm as the greenhouse effect predicts.



According to who?



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> The atmospheric thermal effect based on the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation can predict the temperatures at the various altitudes in the gas giants...the greenhouse effect can't even come close.


 But then, the gas giants are mostly composed of hydrogen and helium.



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> Uranus has an atmosphere....interestingly enough, it is considered to be one of the coldest places in the solar system but at the base of its troposphere, it is about 33 degrees warmer than at the base of the troposphere here on earth. Explained by the atmospheric thermal effect, but not by the greenhouse hypothesis.



Erm, WTF??? None of the gas giants are rocky planets, which is what I was talking about in the first place.



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> Neptune has an atmosphere as well...again the atmospheric thermal effect and incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature at the various altitudes while the greenhouse effect can't even come close.



According to who?



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> That fact alone should be enough for a thinking person to disregard the greenhouse hypothesis...the physics are the same here as on any other planet so why does it only work here? If it doesn't work everywhere, it is flawed and therefore useless.



Right, so the number of NASA scientists who are on board with your utter rejection of the greenhouse gas effect based on these ridiculous proposals is?



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> Then there are the moons. Our own moon, as well as ganymeade, europa, castillio, rhea, dione, enceladus, and titania all have very thin atmospheres.



And?



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> Triton and Io have atmospheres dense enough for them to experience weather, clouds, and seasons...



Only in a Harry Potter movie is this true.



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> and Titan has a fully developed atmosphere.



Composed entirely of methane and ethane, and is nearly one billion miles from the sun. Your point?



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> And the atmospheric thermal effect along with the incoming solar radiation can accurately predict the temperature of them all while the greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here with constant tweaking and adjustment.



Right, so in your next post you are going to provide us with links to these peer reviewed papers.



			
				STDdude said:
			
		

> I am surprised that you would think that only two planets in the solar system have atmospheres.



I am not surprised that you are misconstruing what I actually said. Probably a comprehension problem.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys ever read anything?  Are you completely devoid of education?
> ...



Actually, it was a discussion of planets with atmospheres...orogemican tried to limit it to rocky planets as if that would make the failed greenhouse hypothesis acceptable...it doesn't work on them either.  Limiting the discussion is the warmer tactic because if you look at the whole picture...you look like the hysterical handwaving old women you all are.


----------



## orogenicman (May 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The atmospheres of the gas giants are irrelevant as models for Earth's atmosphere, particularly Jupiter and Saturn since they emit more energy than they receive from the sun, but also because they have totally different compositions. You may as well be comparing Jupiter with Arcturus for all it matters.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2014)

you cannot compare historical CO2 levels to today's artificially induced levels. if CO2 has a meaningful impact on greenhouse warming, past the initial bolus, we will find out soon enough. if it is just a trivial adjustment as the last 15 years appears to show, that will be obvious as well.


----------



## polarbear (May 16, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



So according to you NASA`s and all the other scientists who are investigating CO2 cooling rates are wasting their time?

CO2 cooling in terrestrial planet thermospheres - Bougher - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991?2012) - Wiley Online Library


> *The comparative approach to planetary problems is becoming increasingly  fruitful as new information from various planet atmospheres is  assimilated. In particular, it is clear that the important problem of CO2 cooling in the Earth's lower thermosphere is closely tied to the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus and Mars*. CO2 cooling in each of these thermospheres is strongly impacted by collisions of CO2 and O, yielding vibrationally excited CO2  and enhanced 15-&#956;m emissions in regions where non-local thermodynamic  equilibrium conditions prevail. Both the relative abundance of atomic O  and the CO2-O relaxation rate affect the magnitude of this enhanced cooling process. We examine the recent progress in the debate on the CO2-O  relaxation rate, its temperature dependence, and its corresponding  impact on the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus, Earth, and Mars. This  comparative approach provides the broadest range of conditions under  which a common CO2-O relaxation rate should provide  consistent results. *New global mean calculations are presented for the  heat budgets of these three planets using large CO2-O relaxation rates that have been inferred recently from Earth CO2 radiance measurements and laboratory studies.* Results indicate that available Venus and Mars data constrain the CO2-O relaxation rate to be 2&#8211;4 × 10&#8722;12 cm3/s  at 300 K. For Venus, this strong cooling serves as an effective  thermostat that gives rise to a small variation of thermospheric  temperatures over the solar cycle, just as observed. Conversely, CO2  cooling does not appear to be dominant in the dayside heat budget of  the Mars thermosphere over most of the solar cycle. *For the Earth, this  strong cooling implies that the lower thermosphere does not typically  require significant eddy diffusion or heat conduction. *However,  global-scale dynamics or an additional heating mechanism may be needed  to restore calculated temperatures to observed values when relaxation  rates exceeding 2 × 10&#8722;12 cm3/s are employed.


Non-LTE radiative transfer studies  show how non-"settled" your so called "settled" science is.
There is a lot more energy transferred from CO2 to O2 than any of the current climate model budgets considered.
*Matter of fact that mechanism does not even exist in your religion.*
It exaggerates what`s going on  at  15  &#956;m and totally ignores what`s going on at 4.3 &#956;m where CO2 enhances the cooling rate by as much as .35 deg K per day.


----------



## orogenicman (May 16, 2014)

polarbear said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Damn, are you people really this fucking thick? Again, Jupiter and Saturn, as well as Uranus and Neptune are gas giants that have different compositions and different thermal input and outputs than Earth, and as such are not appropriate models for Earth's atmosphere. Nowhere in your post is this contradicted.


----------



## Kosh (May 16, 2014)

And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.

Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.


----------



## orogenicman (May 16, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.
> 
> Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.
> 
> Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.



Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs.  And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence.  Gee, I wonder why that is?


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




The greenhouse hypothesis is nothing more than an energy budget...energy into the system...energy out of the system...resulting temperature.  Tell me, how do you suppose the physics of energy transfer are different on any other planet than they are here on earth?  Do you really think it matters where the energy comes from?


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So now your everchanging story is that you actually knew what the original 2001 source was, but deliberately chose to attribute it instead to a 2013 source by different authors. I don't see how that makes your story any better. Is it still your final answer, or would you like to try a new revision?



I liked the graphs better from the 2001 source which is why I used them.  You get even more pissy when you realize that you haven't actually scored a point...but have just made yourself look even dumber than we thought you were.




mamooth said:


> your devout religious faith has you believing it must be gospel truth, given that it agrees with your cult's teachings. Therefore, you don't need to know where it came from, nor do you care.



No, blind faith is is for warmist wackos.





mamooth said:


> understand it, but you don't. Your heroes are plotting NOAA data that doesn't correct for drift, different sampling platforms, differing sampling algorithms, ENSO state, anything. So, the only thing that graph proves is that you're clueless on the topic.



No, I am afraid that they aren't.  But you keep telling yourself that if it helps you preserve your blind faith.




mamooth said:


> mean another example of you being clueless, since the top line _is_ the actual observation, and not a model. The second line is the model. Both the actual observation and the model shows the dips for CO2, ozone and methane. As I directly stated before, but your brain seems to auto-ignore any info that contradicts your sacred scripture.



Of course they do you idiot...what they don't show is a difference in OLR over time...which was the whole point of the paper.




mamooth said:


> means, of course, that you'll need a new tactic to handwave away this troublesome data that disagrees with your cult. I'd suggest you switch to your standard fallback position that it's all just a big fraud.



No tactic is needed to show how stupid you are...you keep doing it yourself.






mamooth said:


> , no, sorry, not even close, but we have some lovely parting gifts for you. You had the source right, but seemingly refused to read it. You think that graph is showing a difference between two time periods, which is totally wrong. It's just comparing measurements to model predictions at a single instant in time. It's not showing any OLR differences in the real world, it's showing where the model is good and bad.



Sorry hairball, it is not showing any difference in OLR over time because there wasn't any.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.
> ...



So, you are admitting that you are operating on faith and that there is no actual scientific evidence that CO2 drives the climate and if it is good enough for creationists, that it is good enough for you.  I have been saying for years that you warmest wackos were operating from a position of faith...it is nice to see that at least one of you will admit it.


----------



## orogenicman (May 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Name a planet that has an energy budget remotely like Earth's. As far as I can tell, there is only one data point on that graph. Good luck with that. And yes it does matter not only where the energy comes from but how fast and for how long it builds up. Bubba, you need to sit down and let the scientists do their work. Obviously, you are not qualified.


----------



## orogenicman (May 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
 Silly boy.  Don't project.  It makes you look more foolish than you already are.


----------



## Crick (May 19, 2014)

Hear, hear.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So you admit that the greenhouse hypothesis is, as I have claimed for decades, an ad hoc construct custom tailored for earth and it has nothing to do with the actual physics of energy transfer.  If it did, then, like the atmospheric thermal effect posed by N&Z, you could plug the parameters of any planet with an atmosphere into it and get an accurate prediction of the temperature on that planet.  The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual physics and therefore works anywhere it is tried as the physics operate the same everywhere.  The problem the atmospheric thermal effect has is that it is not useful as a political tool.  It doesn't care what the composition of an atmosphere is beyond the atomic weight of the gasses found in it, therefore, no particular gas can be demonized for political purposes....never mind that it is very accurate and based on actual physical laws.

Nice of one of you to finally admit that the greenhouse hypothesis isn't actually science but a tool used to fool the great unwashed.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And not answering the question is an implied admission of guilt.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> Hear, hear.



Hey look pro....you have a cheer leader.  sis boom bah


----------



## Crick (May 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Pray tell, what question?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.
> ...



But your "theory" is that a 100PPM additional CO2 will increase temperature.

Easy enough to show in a lab setting


----------



## Crick (May 20, 2014)

That's why it has been shown in a lab setting - thousands of times.  Where do you think data on the absorption spectra of the various GHGs comes from?    You've been given links to articles and videos about precisely such demonstrations.  You can find them in any high school physics class.  That you choose to ignore that and continue to try to lie to us all tells us infinitely more about you than it does about mainstream science.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.
> ...



Wrong.  It's nothing like that.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



    Never been shown even once. Lots of side show trickery demonstrating various physical principles but never demonstrating that CO2 can cause a temperature increase in the open atmosphere

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




Translation: yes, I'm running on faith. Fear the power of CO2


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2014)

​


Crick said:


> That's why it has been shown in a lab setting - thousands of times.  Where do you think data on the absorption spectra of the various GHGs comes from?    You've been given links to articles and videos about precisely such demonstrations.  You can find them in any high school physics class.  That you choose to ignore that and continue to try to lie to us all tells us infinitely more about you than it does about mainstream science.



oh, oh, oh, please provide a link for me.  I've searched and searched and asked and asked and still no video to show going from 300PPM  to 400PPM will cause an inscrease in temperatures.  Hooray, someone will finally give us all one.

Thanks,


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> That's why it has been shown in a lab setting - thousands of times.  Where do you think data on the absorption spectra of the various GHGs comes from?    You've been given links to articles and videos about precisely such demonstrations.  You can find them in any high school physics class.  That you choose to ignore that and continue to try to lie to us all tells us infinitely more about you than it does about mainstream science.



So here is a Link someone presented in another message board thread.  Watch the way the experiment fails:

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/...-fair-project/

What is the temperature in the control jar? 79
What is the temperature in the Jar with CO2? 79  oops, so the man has to say, it was at 81.

LOL.  I love these links.


----------



## orogenicman (May 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What question, where?  Oh, you mean my question?  The one YOU didn't answer?


----------



## orogenicman (May 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I rest my case.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You have no case

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> I rest my case.



Of course you do.  To answer either exposes you as a fool or a bald faced liar.  That is the nature of trying to support a pseudoscientific hoax...you eventually get yourself into a place where there is no answer that leaves you looking even remotely intelligent.

Imagine trying to explain why a hypothesis that supposedly describes the energy cycle of a planet will only work on that planet.  Imagine how stupid one would look trying to explain why the physics of energy transfer are different on another planet.  

Best you rest your case instead of trying to explain that bit of lunacy.


----------



## Crick (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Rhetorical bullshit does not constitute a question.  That he wasted no time or effort attempting to answer it only shows that he's smarter than you who apparently expected him to do so.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 20, 2014)

800,000 years, but in the middle of a "global land pause" in temperature for the past 10 years. This year is a analog year within the Enso...So if we're below .64-.65c it may show that we could of cooled slightly.

This isn't convincing anyone.


----------



## orogenicman (May 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I rest my case.
> ...



 So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax?  Oh my.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Moon landings? What?

Just show us the lab experiment demonstrating a temperature increase from a 100, hell made it 200ppm increase in CO2 and we'll go away quietly.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax?  Oh my.



Of course not.  The climate is, and has always been changing.  You warmer crazies are the one who think that the climate should do something it has never done in the history of the world and remain static because we happen to be present now.  The hoax is that man is altering the global climate...there is not the first bit of actual evidence that we are altering the global climate and nothing that is happening in the climate is even remotely unprecedented or outside the bounds of natural variability.


----------



## orogenicman (May 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax? Oh my.
> ...



So, not only is it a hoax, in your view, but a global science conspiracy.  Oh my.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I can't help but notice that all your answers lately have been nothing but logical fallacies.  Making up an answer for me and then saying "oh my" hardly bolsters your case.  You are the one who said conspiracy, not me and suggesting that I did, is just plain dishonest...but then you also claim to be a geologist who doesn't know the difference between an interglacial and an ice age and who was unaware that the earth is still in an ice age so honesty really isn't your best thing, is it?

Climate science, I believe, is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade...it has happened to far more credible, and rigorous branches of science than climate science.  If you don't low what an error cascade is, look it up.

By the way, you could go a long way towards your cause simply by posting the hard evidence that man is altering the global climate.  Us skeptics keep asking and you warmer wackos keep not producing.  What should we make of that?  What passes for evidence in your minds is invariably not.


----------



## orogenicman (May 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"It's a hoax.  No wait.  It's an error cascade.  No wait.  It's, it's, it's..


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So it is your contention that climate change is a hoax in the same way that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax?  Oh my.
> ...



You say it's a hoax then you deny that you've said it's a hoax than you say it's a hoax.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.

The rate at which CO2 levels have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented since the KT Boundary incident, 65 million years ago.

The rate at which temperatures have increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented at least in the entire Holocene and quite likely since the last major deglaciation.

The ONLY workable cause for that unprecedented warming is that unprecedented rise in GHGs.  The amount of GHGs released to the atmosphere by human activities may be calculated by basic book keeping and the amount of warming it would produce, calculable from basic principles, matches the warming observed.

Hoax?  Get real.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> "It's a hoax.  No wait.  It's an error cascade.  No wait.  It's, it's, it's..



Lets call it a pseudoscientific hoax.  In any event, you are still not answering questions and a different logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> You say it's a hoax then you deny that you've said it's a hoax than you say it's a hoax.
> 
> The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.



Low levels of CO2 during an ice age...who would have thought.  The level right now is very low when compared to the time before the ice age began.



Crick said:


> rate at which CO2 levels have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented since the KT Boundary incident, 65 million years ago.



Which proxy gives you resolution down to the century level?  Answer:  None.  You are either making it up or repeating information given to you by someone else who made it up.  



Crick said:


> rate at which temperatures have increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented at least in the entire Holocene and quite likely since the last major deglaciation.



Again, what proxy can give you resolution down to the century level with accuracy down to fractions of a degree.  Answer:  None.  Again you either made it up or are repeating information given to you by someone who made it up.



Crick said:


> ONLY workable cause for that unprecedented warming is that unprecedented rise in GHGs.  The amount of GHGs released to the atmosphere by human activities may be calculated by basic book keeping and the amount of warming it would produce, calculable from basic principles, matches the warming observed.



The first order of business is to prove that the warming is unprecedented.  We know that the holocene maximum was quite a bit warmer than the present as was the minoan, the roman, and the medieval warm periods.  No proxy data can provide resolution fine enough to know how quickly the warming during those periods came on but they were warmer and no proxy can really tell us that much about atmospheric CO2....certain....problems exist with knowing exactly what the atmospheric CO2 was like at any given time.  We can know that rising CO2 follows temperature rises, but not much about the actual concentration of CO2... 

Again, made up data....either from your own ass or from someone else's ass.  In either event shit is shit.



Crick said:


> ?  Get real.



Political hoax...scientific error cascade.


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2014)

It does not require century resolution as the current process has been climbing for over a century and a half and could not possibly turn around in less than another century and a half.  And of course if, as you claim, this leap in CO2 and temperature is simply our continued departure from an ice age, there is no reason for the rate of CO2 or temperature to slow at all.  It will carry on for milennia.  Thus the requirements for resolution in paleo data come wa-a-a-a-y down.

And of course you are still faced with the problem of explaining WHY the rate of CO2 and temperature increase suddenly accelerated when it did. 

If what 97% of the world's climate scientists hold to be true is true - that AGW has been taking place - the process is explicitly unprecedented as our history lacks another instance of an industrially developed population to have produced the CO2 that we have been producing.  Your habit in this debate of ignoring the FACT that humans have produced virtually every molecule needed to have taken the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is more than a little shortsighted of you.  For you to continue to claim the process is natural and does not involve human activity is difficult to understand.


----------



## orogenicman (May 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > "It's a hoax. No wait. It's an error cascade. No wait. It's, it's, it's..
> ...



So it is not just a hoax, but a pseudoscientific hoax.  So I should take some time to reconsider?

 Erm:


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> It does not require century resolution as the current process has been climbing for over a century and a half and could not possibly turn around in less than another century and a half.  And of course if, as you claim, this leap in CO2 and temperature is simply our continued departure from an ice age, there is no reason for the rate of CO2 or temperature to slow at all.  It will carry on for milennia.  Thus the requirements for resolution in paleo data come wa-a-a-a-y down.



The claims you make certainly do require century resolution...which you can't provide leaving us again with the fact that you either made up your claims or repeated claims made up by someone else.



Crick said:


> of course you are still faced with the problem of explaining WHY the rate of CO2 and temperature increase suddenly accelerated when it did.



Actually, the problem with why belongs to you.  Most of the twentieth century warming occurred prior to 1940 when human CO2 production was small and the atmospheric levels were considered "safe".  So explain that if you like...or try and claim that most of the 20th century warming didn't happen prior to 1940.



Crick said:


> what 97% of the world's climate scientists hold to be true is true - that AGW has been taking place



The number itself is a lie...everything about AGW is a lie.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> So it is not just a hoax, but a pseudoscientific hoax.  So I should take some time to reconsider?
> 
> No point...you have already drunk to deeply of the kook aid.  Probably no help for you and when the whole house of cards falls down around you, you will still be in denial just as you have for the past 20 years.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > The only relevant question is as follows: If the U.S. shut down all of its coal-fired power plants, mothballed all of its SUV's, killed all of its farting cattle, and decreed that we all must become organic subsistence farmers, and everyone else on earth continued doing what we know they are going to do anyway, WOULD OUR SELF-IMPOSED MISERY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE FUTURE CLIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES?
> ...




No.  It wasn't and it isn't a straw man argument.  Anyway, putting your false label on it isn't the same as addressing the point.

Is it your contention that the United States or that even all the people of the world, collectively, have the slightest fucking ability to cause global warming by virtue of the "green house gasses" we emit?  Do we have the slightest damn ability to PREVENT global warming by any action we might take?  Can we stop an impending ice age, too?

Specifically, what in your grandiose imagination would all of us collectively have to do (and over what time frame) to achieve this remarkable ability to modify the planetary climate? 

Your well-grounded scientific (possibly even peer reviewed) bases for your position?


----------



## orogenicman (May 22, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...



It was a straw man argument because climate scientists aren't arguing to get rid of all fossil fuels immediately, and most recognize that fossil fuels will always be in the energy mix in some form or the other.

 To answer your questions:

 1) Yes.
 2) The amount of CO2 we have already released guarantees that we will see effects from Global warming - which, by the way, is already occurring.
 3) What impending ice age, where?
 4) Support efforts to replace the internal combustion engine with either electric or fuel cell based models.  Increase the use of solar and wind power, and other alternative energy sources.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 22, 2014)

At 10ppm/every 5 years...We will reach 500 ppm by 2064.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

And it won't make a whit of difference.  The ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 over 1000ppm.  CO2 does not and never has driven the climate.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And it won't make a whit of difference.  The ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 over 1000ppm.  CO2 does not and never has driven the climate.



The ice age started around 30 million years ago and at that time it was at over 1000ppm. Just that I believe that the reality that it dropped below that was the reason for the ice age.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Matthew said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And it won't make a whit of difference.  The ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 over 1000ppm.  CO2 does not and never has driven the climate.
> ...



Well, since temperature drives CO2,  as it got colder the CO2 was not released from the oceans and soil since it was cold and icy.  Seems you would understand that.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Both feed back on each other...


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Matthew said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


CO2 lags temperature.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

Yes it does. It also leads temperature.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yes it does. It also leads temperature.



sure!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yes it does. It also leads temperature.



Not according to the Ice core records, or is that a denier also?


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

Why does this simple point have to be so difficult?  Unless you wish to reject the greenhouse effect or reject the characterization of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you have to accept that CO2 causes warming and thus can lead temperature.  

There are two different processes taking place.  When you increase the temperature of a liquid, you decrease it's ability to hold gases in solution.  So when the world gets warmer, from an orbital change for instance, it causes dissolved gases to come out of solution in the oceans and enter the atmosphere.  Thus we see CO2 levels increase after Milankovitch orbital changes have raised the Earth's temperature.  

CO2 in the atmosphere, like all greenhouse gases, absorb infrared light.  Thus, as the level of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere increase, increasing amounts of infrared energy is trapped in the atmosphere and warms the air, the land and the oceans.

In fact, research by a number of scientists have shown that on those occasions  we see in the ice cores, where warming  causes CO2 levels to increase, the increased CO2 eventually begins to cause its own warming - via the greenhouse effect - and that greenhouse warming becomes the dominant process, causing the planet to warm significantly more than it would have had their been no greenhouse gases present.

But, in any case, the fact that increasing temperatures cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, does NOT preclude CO2 from causing increased temperatures.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Why does this simple point have to be so difficult?  Unless you wish to reject the greenhouse effect or reject the characterization of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you have to accept that CO2 causes warming and thus can lead temperature.
> 
> There are two different processes taking place.  When you increase the temperature of a liquid, you decrease it's ability to hold gases in solution.  So when the world gets warmer, from an orbital change for instance, it causes dissolved gases to come out of solution in the oceans and enter the atmosphere.  Thus we see CO2 levels increase after Milankovitch orbital changes have raised the Earth's temperature.
> 
> ...


It never stops does it.  Uses of words like significant is so outstanding with you all.  Prove it.  Prove the significant statement you use.  The heck with all of the other mumbo jumbo you wrote, it is that word that is just outstanding.  You have no evidence to support CO2 causes increases in temperature, yet here you are saying it significantly does.  "Significantly"  Now that's just funny.  One experiment that proves that, pretty please.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

*In the Earth's atmosphere*

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 400 parts per million by volume[1] (or 591 parts per million by mass). The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes). Its concentration varies seasonally and also considerably on a regional basis, especially near the ground. In urban areas concentrations are generally higher and indoors they can reach 10 times background levels. *Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.*

As of March 2014, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of approximately 400 ppm by volume.[1] Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Taking all this into account, the concentration of CO2 grew by about 2 ppm in 2009.[36] *"The main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space."[37] Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it is transparent to incoming visible light from the sun, but absorbs outgoing infrared radiation from the ground at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see Structure and bonding above). As for all gases, the absorbed energy can be redistributed by molecular collisions which heat the atmosphere.[38]*

Before the advent of human-caused release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, concentrations tended to increase with increasing global temperatures, acting as a positive feedback for changes induced by other processes such as orbital cycles.[39] There is a seasonal cycle in CO2 concentration associated primarily with the Northern Hemisphere growing season.[40]

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4&#8211;5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[41][42] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[43]

Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide.[44] It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130&#8211;230 million tonnes (145&#8211;255 million short tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Carbon dioxide is also produced by hot springs such as those at the Bossoleto site near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy. Here, in a bowl-shaped depression of about 100 m diameter, local concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals, but it warms rapidly when sunlit and the gas is dispersed by convection during the day.[45] Locally high concentrations of CO2, produced by disturbance of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37 fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986.[46] Emissions of CO2 by human activities are estimated to be 135 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes.[47]

The cement industry is one of the three primary producers of carbon dioxide along with the energy production and transportation industries. As of 2011 concrete contributes 7% to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions.[48]

References:

1)  National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) &#8211; Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), Trends in Carbon Dioxide Values given are dry air mole fractions expressed in parts per million (ppm). For an ideal gas mixture this is equivalent to parts per million by volume (ppmv).
36) "Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii". Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Retrieved 28 April 2010.
37) Jenkins, Amber. "Global Climate Change". Randal Jackson. Retrieved 10-5-13.
38) Climate Change Indicators in the United States. EPA.gov
39) Genthon, G.; Barnola, J. M.; Raynaud, D.; Lorius, C.; Jouzel, J.; Barkov, N. I.; Korotkevich, Y. S.; Kotlyakov, V. M. (1987). "Vostok ice core: climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle". Nature 329 (6138): 414. Bibcode:1987Natur.329..414G. doi:10.1038/329414a0. edit
40) Enting, I. G. (1987). "The interannual variation in the seasonal cycle of carbon dioxide concentration at Mauna Loa". Journal of Geophysical Research 92: 5497&#8211;5504. doi:10.1029/JD092iD05p05497. edit
41) "Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere". Retrieved 2007-10-10.
42) Berner, Robert A.; Kothavala, Zavareth (2001). "GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time" (PDF). American Journal of Science 301 (2): 182&#8211;204. doi:10.2475/ajs.301.2.182. Retrieved 2008-02-15.
43) "After two large annual gains, rate of atmospheric CO2 increase returns to average". NOAA News Online, Story 2412. 2005-03-31.
44) Sigurdsson, Haraldur; Houghton, B. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of volcanoes. San Diego: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-643140-X.
45) van Gardingen, P.R.; Grace, J.; Jeffree, C.E.; Byari, S.H.; Miglietta, F.; Raschi, A.; Bettarini, I. (1997). "Long-term effects of enhanced CO2 concentrations on leaf gas exchange: research opportunities using CO2 springs". In Raschi, A.; Miglietta, F.; Tognetti, R.; van Gardingen, P.R. (Eds.). Plant responses to elevated CO2: Evidence from natural springs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 69&#8211;86. ISBN 0-521-58203-2.
46) Martini, M. (1997). "CO2 emissions in volcanic areas: case histories and hazards". In Raschi, A.; Miglietta, F.; Tognetti, R.; van Gardingen, P.R. (Eds.). Plant responses to elevated CO2: Evidence from natural springs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 69&#8211;86. ISBN 0-521-58203-2.
47) "Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview". US Geological Survey. Retrieved 2013-02-26.
48)  Navdeep Kaur Dhami; Sudhakara M. Reddy; Abhijit Mukherjee. "Biofilm and Microbial Applications in Biomineralized Concrete". p. 142.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

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

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]

Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]

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%[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.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[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]

Earth&#8217;s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[11]







Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in wavelengths (12-15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the &#8220;window&#8221; through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[23]

********************************

The data in the graph above is a measure of solar energy - by wavelength - absorbed by CO2 and water vapor.  Experiments measuring solar energy absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been conducted since the mid 1800s.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

Matthew said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And it won't make a whit of difference.  The ice age we are presently exiting began with CO2 over 1000ppm.  CO2 does not and never has driven the climate.
> ...



Look further back...previous ice ages began with CO2 above 2000ppm and above 4000ppm.  CO2 doesn't drive the climate.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Why does this simple point have to be so difficult?  Unless you wish to reject the greenhouse effect or reject the characterization of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you have to accept that CO2 causes warming and thus can lead temperature.



The greenhouse effect has never been either remeasured or quantified.  It is an ad hoc construct based on a flawed mathematical model...never demonstrated to be real.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere
> 
> *In the Earth's atmosphere*
> 
> ...



He asked for some actual physical evidence and you provide a wiki article?  Are you one of those goofs who believe the output of computer models is physical evidence as well?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Why does this simple point have to be so difficult?  Unless you wish to reject the greenhouse effect or reject the characterization of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you have to accept that CO2 causes warming and thus can lead temperature.
> 
> There are two different processes taking place.  When you increase the temperature of a liquid, you decrease it's ability to hold gases in solution.  So when the world gets warmer, from an orbital change for instance, it causes dissolved gases to come out of solution in the oceans and enter the atmosphere.  Thus we see CO2 levels increase after Milankovitch orbital changes have raised the Earth's temperature.
> 
> ...



Oh, so that's why there's not one single lab experiment that shows a temperature increase from an additional 100PPM of CO2!


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> It never stops does it.  Uses of words like significant is so outstanding with you all.  Prove it.  Prove the significant statement you use.  The heck with all of the other mumbo jumbo you wrote, it is that word that is just outstanding.  You have no evidence to support CO2 causes increases in temperature, yet here you are saying it significantly does.  "Significantly"  Now that's just funny.  One experiment that proves that, pretty please.



The problem isn't my use of the word "significant", it's your use of the word "prove".  

Can I ask you how old you are and how much science education you've completed?  I'm 60 years old and have a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering.  That involved a fair bit of science classes but I'm still no scientist.  However, the number of people that think that people studying the natural sciences PROVE things is disconcertingly high.  

Can you prove that every atom in the universe is composed of electrons, protons and (aside from hydrogen) neutrons?  To PROVE it, you would have to examine every atom in the universe.  So, can you do that?  No.  Could you instead show that the mechanisms that lead to the existence of atoms can only lead to atoms composed of those particles?  Well, you could try.  You could put it out as a theory and you could test the theory.  You could try to think of as many ways as possible to check it - experiments that should fail if our theory about atoms were false.  They call that "falsification".  That's what scientists do.  Read some real science.  You'll run into words like significant and likely and probably and majority and a hundred more.  You won't run often into "prove".


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why does this simple point have to be so difficult?  Unless you wish to reject the greenhouse effect or reject the characterization of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you have to accept that CO2 causes warming and thus can lead temperature.
> ...



Of course not.  None of it is real.  And when it was developed: "_The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]_  the computers they ran those "flawed mathematical models" on were really sloppy and inaccurate.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Quaint unproven, unobserved, unmeasured, unquantified 19th century science...that's what you have...nothing more nothing less.  Wouldn't you think that before spending billions, perhaps trillions of dollars, someone would have first actually tried to measure and quantify the greenhouse effect?  It hasn't been done and it can't be done.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

I have to give you credit for realizing that you'll never reject AGW without rejecting the greenhouse effect.  But if it ever troubled you to pit yourself against 97% of the world's active climate scientists, the idea of rejecting a physical process that is probably accepted by more than 99% of ALL scientists has to give you some reason to pause.

But apparently not.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

This is the list of references for Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect.  I see quite a bit of work here SIGNIFICANTLY more recent than the 19th century.

 "Annex II Glossary". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."
Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.
E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.
A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse". Philosophical Magazine 17: 319&#8211;320. doi:10.1080/14786440208636602. "When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 °C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other because it transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate." "it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped."

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305&#8211;7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. "... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling)."

"NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"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.

"Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97

The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden (Nov 2000). "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (Annual Reviews) 25: 441&#8211;475. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441.

John Tyndall, Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (500 pages; year 1863, 1873).

Bell, Alexander Graham, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1921&#8211;1930 (Volume XV), University of Toronto and Université Laval, 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2013.

Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Morgan Wesson. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997, p. 274, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1.

Grosvenor and Wesson, 1997, p. 269.

"The HITRAN Database". Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Retrieved August 8, 2012. "HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

"Hitran on the Web Information System". Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA; V.E. Zuev Insitute of Atmosperic Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia. Retrieved August 11, 2012.

Mitchell, John F. B. (1989). "THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE". Reviews of Geophysics (American Geophysical Union) 27 (1): 115&#8211;139. Bibcode:1989RvGeo..27..115M. doi:10.1029/RG027i001p00115. Retrieved 2008-03-23.

"Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SOURCE)". NASA.Gov. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. 6 April 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197&#8211;208. Bibcode:1997BAMS...78..197K. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0197:EAGMEB>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477. Archived from the original on 2006-03-30. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

"NASA: Climate Forcings and Global Warming". January 14, 2009.

"Enhanced greenhouse effect &#8212; Glossary". Nova. Australian Academy of Scihuman impact on the environment. 2006.

"Enhanced Greenhouse Effect". Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (p. 5)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" Chapter 7

"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Mauna Loa". NOAA.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

Hansen J. (February 2005). "A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference"?". Climatic Change 68 (333): 269&#8211;279. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0.

"Deep ice tells long climate story". BBC News. 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2010-05-04.

Hileman B (2005-11-28). "Ice Core Record Extended". Chemical & Engineering News 83 (48): 7.

Bowen, Mark; Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains; Owl Books, 2005.

Temperature change and carbon dioxide change, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Brian Shmaefsky (2004). Favorite demonstrations for college science: an NSTA Press journals collection. NSTA Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-87355-242-4.

Oort, Abraham H.; Peixoto, José Pinto (1992). Physics of climate. New York: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-88318-711-6. "...the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection"

McKay, C.; Pollack, J.; Courtin, R. (1991). "The greenhouse and antigreenhouse effects on Titan". Science 253 (5024): 1118&#8211;1121. doi:10.1126/science.11538492. PMID 11538492. edit

"Titan: Greenhouse and Anti-greenhouse :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth". Astrobio.net. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Pluto Colder Than Expected". SPACE.com. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Kasting, James F. (1991). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus.". Planetary Sciences: American and Soviet Research/Proceedings from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Workshop on Planetary Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS). pp. 234&#8211;245. Retrieved 2009.

Rasool, I.; De Bergh, C. (Jun 1970). "The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere". Nature 226 (5250): 1037&#8211;1039. Bibcode:1970Natur.226.1037R. doi:10.1038/2261037a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16057644. edit


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff.  Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references.  Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit.  ANYONE.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > It never stops does it.  Uses of words like significant is so outstanding with you all.  Prove it.  Prove the significant statement you use.  The heck with all of the other mumbo jumbo you wrote, it is that word that is just outstanding.  You have no evidence to support CO2 causes increases in temperature, yet here you are saying it significantly does.  "Significantly"  Now that's just funny.  One experiment that proves that, pretty please.
> ...



I'm not sure what my age has to do with anything, or in that fact anyone's age.  Do you feel insecure? Are you afraid of someone at any age showing you up?  I'm 58.  So what?

I'm a Telecommunication Engineer.  I'm not a scientist.  I do use procedures and work with real live customers who expect proof when the observed does not equal our theory.  Which means we do lab experiments to prove out our theory.  So, I've been groomed in my background to expect proof.  You nor anyone has given any.  Sorry, I don't accept your theory, since I don't see evidence in the climate that agrees with your science.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

It's not my theory.  It's the theory that 97% of the world's active climate scientists accept.  They don't seem to be worried about proof.  They seem to be satisfied with overwhelming evidence.

I asked about your age because your unfamiliarity with science basics led me to think you might be young and still in school.

Just out of curiosity, what theories do you prove with what laboratory experiments?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> This is the list of references for Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect.  I see quite a bit of work here SIGNIFICANTLY more recent than the 19th century.
> 
> "Annex II Glossary". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
> 
> ...



And nowhere in all that is there the smallest bit of hard physical evidence that any amount of CO2 can alter the global temperature

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

You must really, really, really want people to think you're stupid.

Or you just really are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> I have to give you credit for realizing that you'll never reject AGW without rejecting the greenhouse effect.  But if it ever troubled you to pit yourself against 97% of the world's active climate scientists, the idea of rejecting a physical process that is probably accepted by more than 99% of ALL scientists has to give you some reason to pause.
> 
> But apparently not.



Who the fuck cares about 97% of the AGWCultists?? You had the same Consensus that the Earth was a flat plane help on the back of a Giant Turtle. In fact, he Giant Turtle Theory makes more sense than your "Wisp of CO2 will cause Cat 5 hurricanes" theory


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 22, 2014)




----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > It never stops does it.  Uses of words like significant is so outstanding with you all.  Prove it.  Prove the significant statement you use.  The heck with all of the other mumbo jumbo you wrote, it is that word that is just outstanding.  You have no evidence to support CO2 causes increases in temperature, yet here you are saying it significantly does.  "Significantly"  Now that's just funny.  One experiment that proves that, pretty please.
> ...



Ever hear of company and place called Fermilabs?  See they test atoms there.  TEST.  See they operate from a position that one needs to prove something before actually releasing a statement of fact. Top notch Scientists work there. Does an MRI machine sound familiar to you?


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> It's not my theory.  It's the theory that 97% of the world's active climate scientists accept.  They don't seem to be worried about proof.  They seem to be satisfied with overwhelming evidence.
> 
> I asked about your age because your unfamiliarity with science basics led me to think you might be young and still in school.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what theories do you prove with what laboratory experiments?



equipment at times fails and causes outages in telecommunicatons network.  We find root cause of the outage.  We theorize based on observed logs what may have happened and go to the lab to prove the theory in simulations.  It should be what all of your 97% you love to boast about ought to be doing.  To date, zero proof.  ZERO again.

One more thing, what do you mean it isn't your theory.  Sure it is.  You have nothing but that that you're arguing.  So therefore it's your theory.  So prove it.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff.  Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references.  Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit.  ANYONE.


Ah, the old invite trick.  How about, instead, you provide evidence of your claim.  Let's start there first eh?


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2014)

While you're at it, would you also like evidence for the round earth theory?

So what do you hope to accomplish by denying century-old physics?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff.  Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references.  Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit.  ANYONE.



It may come as a surprise to you, but as smart as I am, I didn't come up with my position regarding energy transfer within the atmosphere.  I have shifted over the years from actually believing in the greenhouse effect as described by climate science for a very short while (see, at one time I was as gullible as you...I grew out of it) to where it is now based mainly on the writings of physicists..  It became evident quite early that climate scientists as a group aren't particularly well educated...being a soft science and all.

At this point, I believe that Dr's Nikolov and Zeller have come the closest to what actually happens to energy in the atmosphere.  They swayed me because when put to the test, their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here with constant tweaking.  It doesn't even bear consideration.  

In real science, one failure is enough to legitimately disregard a hypothesis and return to the drawing board...the greenhouse hypothesis, via the models based on it has failed spectacularly over and over and over.  It remains alive due to politics...not science.  If you care to look at Nikolov and Zeller's work, it can be found here.

Unified Theory of Climate

Unified Theory of Climate accompanying documentation

Then you might take a look at these....they include actual observed evidence of the failure of the greenhouse effect...CAUTION:  ACTUAL SCIENCE

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/19/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-19.pdf

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/22/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-22.pdf

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/25/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-25.pdf

Summary: ?The physics of the Earth?s atmosphere? Papers 1-3 | Global Warming Solved


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff.  Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references.  Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit.  ANYONE.
> ...



Interesting.  I have noticed that all the AGW Faither peer reviewed alarmist "science" starts with, is premised upon, inevitably reaches the conclusion that and is utterly dependent upon the proposition that increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cause of and proof of AGW.

Without the pre-supposition that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 cause global warming (and/or "climate change), we might not have such shrill alarms ringing about the alleged increase in those atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  It might be more of an interesting side-note:  "Hm.  How about that?  It appears that there is a slight increase in the already bare trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere."  

Then someone might wonder if that observed increase has any impact on the Earth's global climate changes over time?

THEN someone might try to honestly set about the task of attempting to find out if there is any actual correlation.

But that's not how it "works" with present day "climate scientists."

No no.  NOWADAYS, even suggesting that the basic premise of the AGW Faith is subject to testing via the scientific method is condemned.  Heretic.  Denier!  SKEPTIC!


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> While you're at it, would you also like evidence for the round earth theory?
> 
> So what do you hope to accomplish by denying century-old physics?



That century old physics can't explain millions of year old climate.  And that you have no evidence to support your claim on your post. Zip, zero nadda!!!!

That's what I accomplished.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > This is the list of references for Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect.  I see quite a bit of work here SIGNIFICANTLY more recent than the 19th century.
> ...






You are an ass you give skeptics a bad name your pompous and incorrect statements give warmers a reason to ignore everything we say.

Of course CO2 affects surface temperatures surface temp is the equilibrium between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation cO2 disperses 15 band IR it makes a difference period I certainly don't think it makes as big of change to the equilibrium as the warmers claim but its effect is undeniable. 

You believe that pressure is the only worthwhile variable. While I consider it important as well for initial conditions, it is quite static and unable to explain ongoing changes of the order of tenths of a degree. I have begged you to clarify your position but you duck hard questions just like the warmers do.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And nowhere in all that is there the smallest bit of hard physical evidence that any amount of CO2 can alter the global temperature








_Atmospheric absorption and scattering at different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves. The largest absorption band of carbon dioxide is in the infrared._

You are so-o-o-o-o-o stupid.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

IanC said:


> Of course CO2 affects surface temperatures surface temp is the equilibrium between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation cO2 disperses 15 band IR it makes a difference period I certainly don't think it makes as big of change to the equilibrium as the warmers claim but its effect is undeniable.



You say it as if it were true...even though that undeniable effect has never been either measured or quantified.



IanC said:


> believe that pressure is the only worthwhile variable. While I consider it important as well for initial conditions, it is quite static and unable to explain ongoing changes of the order of tenths of a degree. I have begged you to clarify your position but you duck hard questions just like the warmers do.



And when I directed you to the sources that I believe have come closest to accurately describing what is happening in the atmosphere, you had no interest in reading the material.

You believe in the magic also ian, the only difference between you and the hysterical hand wavers is that you don't believe the magic is as strong as they do.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And nowhere in all that is there the smallest bit of hard physical evidence that any amount of CO2 can alter the global temperature
> ...




This may come as a surprise to you but absorption and emission do not equal warming.  I am sure that in your little mind it does, but alas, it does not.  It merely proves that the gasses in question absorb and emit...a fact that I agree with wholeheartedly.  

If absorption and emission were sufficient to cause warming, then experiments could be performed that would show x amount of warming for y increase in CO2 and the alleged greenhouse effect could be quantified.  It doesn't and hasn't.


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> At this point, I believe that Dr's Nikolov and Zeller have come the closest to what actually happens to energy in the atmosphere.  They swayed me because when put to the test, their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here with constant tweaking.  It doesn't even bear consideration.



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

Even most of the other deniers consider the Dragon Slayers to be pariahs, that's how crazy that bunch is. To get banned at WUWT, a denier has to be entirely off the rails, but the Slayers managed it.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > At this point, I believe that Dr's Nikolov and Zeller have come the closest to what actually happens to energy in the atmosphere.  They swayed me because when put to the test, their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here with constant tweaking.  It doesn't even bear consideration.
> ...




N & Z aren't slayers you idiot.  One would think that every once in a while, you would actually try to learn something before you speak.  And the fact remains that their hypothesis accurately predicts the temperature of every planet and moon in the solar system that has an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works on earth with constant tweaking.


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> This may come as a surprise to you but absorption and emission do not equal warming.  I am sure that in your little mind it does, but alas, it does not.  It merely proves that the gasses in question absorb and emit...a fact that I agree with wholeheartedly.



Except in your whackaloon world, an unexplained mystery force guides molecules to emit only towards cooler objects. That's one reason why everyone correctly defines you as a barking loon. Most people think "AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS!" is not good science, but it's the basis of your science.



> If absorption and emission were sufficient to cause warming, then experiments could be performed that would show x amount of warming for y increase in CO2 and the alleged greenhouse effect could be quantified.  It doesn't and hasn't.



Another reason you're considered a loon is that you think the earth can be simulated perfectly in a test tube.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Of course CO2 affects surface temperatures surface temp is the equilibrium between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation cO2 disperses 15 band IR it makes a difference period I certainly don't think it makes as big of change to the equilibrium as the warmers claim but its effect is undeniable.
> ...




.......still ducking and dodging I see.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2014)

I had forgotten SSDD's bizarre version of radiative transfer.  I guess the package is complete.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That's your thing ian...not mine.  That giant ball of fire in the sky drives our climate and more and more research is showing that very small changes in its output result in significant changes in our climate.  Pressure and solar input rule here, and everywhere else.  CO2 is irrelevant beyond the weight that it adds to the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Except in your whackaloon world, an unexplained mystery force guides molecules to emit only towards cooler objects. That's one reason why everyone correctly defines you as a barking loon. Most people think "AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS!" is not good science, but it's the basis of your science.



Tell me if you don't mind...what mystery force causes electrons to flow in only one direction along a wire?  What mystery force causes the air in a punctured balloon to try and exit but keeps air on the outside from trying to enter?  What mystery force causes a dropped stone to always fall down?  Can you explain the precise mechanism for any of them?



mamooth said:


> reason you're considered a loon is that you think the earth can be simulated perfectly in a test tube.



You think the entire earth has to be simulated in order to show that an increase of X amount of CO2 will result in an increase of Y degrees of warming?....and you think I am stupid?  I am laughing in your face hairball.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> I had forgotten SSDD's bizarre version of radiative transfer.  I guess the package is complete.



Maybe you would like to answer the same questions I asked mammoth.  Can you describe the precise mechanism that causes electrons to move in one direction only along a wire?  Not the why, but the precise mechanism that causes it.  Or the precise mechanism that causes a dropped rock to fall down rathe than try to fall up.  We know gravity, but can you describe the precise mechanism that causes gravity to happen?  I am sure that there is a nobel in it for you if you can do either.  A million dollars for simply stating what you claim to know already.


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2014)

Fields are defined by the direction of force they apply to affected entities

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> Fields are defined by the direction of force they apply to affected entities
> 
> see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)



And the precise mechanism that causes that force?  

Face it...we don't know.  

What we do know is that the second law says that energy can't move from a cooler object to a warmer object and we also know that such energy movement from cool to warm has never been observed.  We can't explain that mechanism any more than we can explain the mechanism of gravity.


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2014)

What we know is that in regard to basic thermodynamics, you are a complete imbecile.


----------



## G.T. (May 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Fields are defined by the direction of force they apply to affected entities
> ...



Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2014)

G.T. said:


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


Do you have papers on the experiments that show that CO2 can cause temperature increases?  Say 100PPM increase and degree increase in temperature?


----------



## G.T. (May 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



you and francis.....read this

its so basic y'all deserve to donkey punch yourselves

CHAPTER 7 - STUDY GUIDE

once you have a thorough understanding of that, we can continue


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> What we know is that in regard to basic thermodynamics, you are a complete imbecile.



I can 't help but notice that you didn't describe that basic mechanism...and you don't have the first bit of actual empirical evidence to show that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause warming.  What you have is faith...bolstered by pseudoscience.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2014)

G.T. said:


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



Of course CO2 absorbs energy which it then emits.  You seem to think that absorption and emission equals warming.  Can you show any actual measured observation to prove that assumption?


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2014)

G.T. said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Which part of that do you construe as actual evince that the greenhouse hypothesis is correct?  We are asking for some actual evidence that an increase of X in atmospheric CO2 will translate to Y warming.  Surely if it is happening, it has been observed....measured...quantified....  Lets see the evidence.  Simply saying a thing is so and fabricating an ad hoc computer model that says so also hardly rises to the level of actual evidence.


----------



## G.T. (May 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



sure


they measure these things in waves

solar energy (which increases temperature) leaves the atmosphere at a lesser rate at the frequency of greenhouse gasses

it's not that complex

the only ones "demanding" a study of co2 in a lab increasing temperature are the ones incredibly inept at BASIC BASIC earth science


----------



## G.T. (May 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I linked you to what....30-50 papers which showed you that

you're just to stupid to read and understand them

they're not in "lamen's terms."


----------



## G.T. (May 23, 2014)

Any scientist would stand over your shoulder and giggle in amusement as you did this experiment, [MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION]

It would be fun/funny as hell to watch you do it. 

http://www.starhop.com/library/pdf/studyguide/elementary/GloJar-7.pdf


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Any scientist would stand over your shoulder and giggle in amusement as you did this experiment, [MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION]
> 
> It would be fun/funny as hell to watch you do it.
> 
> http://www.starhop.com/library/pdf/studyguide/elementary/GloJar-7.pdf



and where are the test results?  Let's see those 30-50 papers. Hey Lucy, you do the claiming, you do the proving.  Let's see the experiment.  Let's see that video that demostrates the details you just provided.  And how about the results of the test with a jar with CO2 added against a control jar and regulate the amount of CO2 as to show that as you add CO2, the temperature goes up.  As explained by more than me on here.  Yet, you can't.  It's simply amazing to me how fnn convinced you all are and you have zilch as evidence.  zip, nadda.

BTW,  think it would be funny as well to watch as the unexpected happens, that temerature didn't go up when CO2 increased.  I'm the one laughing.


----------



## G.T. (May 23, 2014)




----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2014)

G.T. said:


>



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........................


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2014)

Willing to wake up and admit you were mistaken there JC?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Any scientist would stand over your shoulder and giggle in amusement as you did this experiment, [MENTION=40906]SSDD[/MENTION]
> 
> It would be fun/funny as hell to watch you do it.
> 
> http://www.starhop.com/library/pdf/studyguide/elementary/GloJar-7.pdf



how dumb do you have to be to realize that's NOT your theory?


----------



## G.T. (May 23, 2014)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa


Wowow this is greatness


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> how dumb do you have to be to realize that's NOT your theory?




Why don't you explain AGW theory to us Frank.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2014)

G.T. said:


> aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa
> 
> 
> Wowow this is greatness











G.T. said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Think is your description of the greenhouse effect isn't the same as the climate science version. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Think is your description of the greenhouse effect isn't the same as the climate science version.



Would you like to try that again in English?


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2014)

Here's an interesting post



orogenicman said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UatUDnFmNTY


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > how dumb do you have to be to realize that's NOT your theory?
> ...



AGW Theory: Point to the Weather Channel and say, "See That!? ManMAde Global Climate Change Disruption"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 24, 2014)

AGW Theory: a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise Earth temperature by 2-5 degrees and cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes, floods and droughts


----------



## Crick (May 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Yeah... that's about what I thought we'd get from you.


----------



## Crick (May 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGW Theory: a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise Earth temperature by 2-5 degrees and cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes, floods and droughts



Perhaps you should start with the A in AGW.  What word does that A stand for Frank?  And what does that word mean Frank?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGW Theory: a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise Earth temperature by 2-5 degrees and cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes, floods and droughts
> ...



Perhaps YOU ought to contemplate the fact that CLAIMING the "A" in "AGW" doesn't make it so.

They call it a theory for a reason, you hapless uneducated dipshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGW Theory: a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise Earth temperature by 2-5 degrees and cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes, floods and droughts
> ...



It means your theory is false and must be discarded.

Mankind does not control the climate. There's a lonnnnnng line of nutburgers including Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite who had similar degree of control over their mindless sheep followers and it always ends badly for the sheep. 

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Crick (May 26, 2014)

What it means is that you are at the very least as ignorant as we've been saying you are - likely worse.


----------



## orogenicman (May 26, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



So you will be borrowing from the creationist playbook?  Oh my.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 26, 2014)

Will I see the highest in 15 million years?


----------



## Crick (May 26, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



I know what the word theory means.  You seem a little weak on the term "accepted theory".  And manners.  Asshole.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 26, 2014)

The Warmer Cult embarrasses themselves every time they try to post something resembling science. 

One of Einstein theories held that gravity could bend light. That was the THEORY. He never said the science was settled or that he had consensus, that's not science that's a game show.

The AGWCult can't even begin to put their theory into words...it just feels right

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I'm sorry, but I can't just read this and not post.  Well if you knew what the word theory was, then where is the experiment that proves the theory you so religously post about here?  Still haven't seen it. And manners?  you're as far from those like you miss the facts about the globe.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Warmer Cult embarrasses themselves every time they try to post something resembling science.
> 
> One of Einstein theories held that gravity could bend light. That was the THEORY. He never said the science was settled or that he had consensus, that's not science that's a game show.
> 
> ...


And still no experiment!


----------



## G.T. (May 27, 2014)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmer Cult embarrasses themselves every time they try to post something resembling science.
> ...



good luck, morons.......




Equipment and Materials
A large glass vessel. We have found that a one gallon jar is satisfactory. These can usually be obtained from a restaurant or other food service facility. A small aquarium could also be used. 
A small glass vessel. A beaker or even a drinking glass will be satisfactory, assuming it will fit in the large glass vessel 
A laboratory thermometer 
A heat lamp or equivalent 
Aluminum foil 
Alka-Seltzer tablets 
A balance capable of measuring to the nearest milligram (0.001 gm). If not available, measuring to the nearest 0.01 gm will suffice. 
A watch capable of measuring in seconds 
Graph paper



Procedure

You will treat the air in the large glass vessel as a model of the atmosphere. The vessel will be covered and heated by the "sun" (the heat lamp) until the temperature rises to 15 degrees C above the ambient (surrounding) temperature. The heat lamp is then turned off ("nighttime"), and the air allowed to cool naturally. Temperature readings are taken at definite time intervals and plotted on graph paper. This will show the rate of heat loss from "normal" air. Then, the CO2 concentration of the air will be increased and the experiment repeated. The results will demonstrate the effects of increased CO2 on the rate of heat loss from air. You will then evaluate claims that increasing carbon dioxide will significantly increase the temperature of the atmosphere, and thus lead to climate change, in your lifetime.


PART A: DETERMINING CO2 CONCENTRATIONS

 When Alka-Seltzer dissolves in water, a gas is released. This gas is CO2, so Alka-Seltzer tablets serve as a convenient source of this gas. The determination of the amount of CO2 released is an interesting laboratory procedure in itself, and we recommend that high school students be involved in this portion of the experiment .

 The first step is to determine the volume of the glass vessel. If a gallon jar is used, use the conversion factor

1 gallon = 3.785 liters.

If some other sized vessel, such as an aquarium, is used its volume can be measured by filling with water using a pint jar as a measuring vessel. The relationship of 

1 gallon = 8 pints

can be combined with the conversion factor above to calculate the volume of the vessel in liters. The remainder of this procedure will be described assuming you use a gallon jar.

 The next step is to calculate the mass of the air in the vessel. The true density of air is dependent on the amount of moisture present in the air (the humidity) and on the barometric pressure. There are tables and equations which allow a precise computation of the density of air under any set of conditions. These tables can be found in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. This calculation is rather complicated; thus for the purposes of this demonstration/experiment, the density of dry air at a pressure of 760 mm of Hg will be assumed. This density is:


 0.0012 gm/milliliter.

Since there are 1000 milliliters in 1 liter, the gallon jar contains

3.785 liters X (1000 milliliters/liter) = 3785 milliliters.

The mass of air in the jar can be calculated from the density:

3785 milliliters X (0.0012 gm/milliliter) = 4.542 gm

At this point, assume you wish to determine the rate of heat loss from an atmosphere in which the CO2 concentration has doubled, e.g. which contains 700 ppm CO2. The air in the gallon jar should contain:

4.542 grams X (700/1,000,000) = 0.0032 gm CO2

Thus, we will need to add an additional 0.0016 gm of CO2 to the air in the vessel.

 The CO2 will be obtained from the solution of Alka-Seltzer in water. We have performed the following simple test to determine how much CO2 is released from an Alka-Seltzer tablet:
1.A glass vessel containing 75 milliliters of water is weighed to the nearest milligram. 
2.An Alka-Seltzer tablet is weighed to the nearest milligram. 
3.The tablet is dropped into the water and allowed to dissolve. 
4.After 10 minutes, the vessel, water and dissolved Alka-Seltzer is reweighed. 
5.The initial weight of the vessel plus water is added to the weight of the Alka-Seltzer tablet (Add values from steps 1 and 2). Then the weight of the vessel, water and dissolved Alka-Seltzer is subtracted from this sum (Subtract value of step 4 from the sum of 1 and 2). The difference is the weight of the CO2 that was released from the Alka-Seltzer. 

A typical determination gave the following values:


 Weight of vessel plus water  122.37 gm 
 Weight of Alka-Seltzer tablet  3.35 gm 
 Total weight  125.72 gm 
 Weight of vessel, water, and Alka-Seltzer  125.09 gm 
 Weight of CO2 released  0.63 gm 


This information can now be used to determine the amount of Alka-Seltzer necessary to give the 0.0016 gm of CO2 which must be added to the air in the jar to give a concentration of 700 ppm CO2:

 (3.25 gm Alka-Seltzer/0.63 gm CO2) X 0.0016 gm CO2 

= 0.0083 gm Alka-Seltzer 

This is equal to only 0.25% of one Alka-Seltzer tablet (a quarter of 1%); this is a very small amount.


PART B: EFFECT OF CO2 CONCENTRATION ON HEAT LOSS OF AIR

 I. Measurement of heat loss for today's "normal" air:
1.Place the small glass vessel filled with water along with the thermometer in the gallon jar and cover the jar loosely with aluminum foil.

2.Heat the air in the jar using the heat lamp "sun" until the temperature is raised by 15 degrees C.

3.Remove the heat lamps to simulate "night". Record the temperature each minute until the temperature returns to ambient.

4.Using graph paper, plot temperature on the Y-axis versus elapsed cooling time on the X-axis.


II. Measurement of heat loss from tomorrow's air containing increased CO2:
1.Crush up an Alka-Seltzer tablet and weigh out the amount needed to increase the CO2 concentration to the desired value. Remember, this will be a very small amount of Alka-Seltzer. 

2.Drop the Alka-Seltzer into the water in the small glass vessel inside the large jar. Immediately cover loosely with foil.

3.Allow 10 minutes for all of the CO2 to be released.

4.Repeat steps I-2, I-3, and I-4 above. Plot your results on the same piece of graph paper as above.


Interpretation of your results:

 Using the outcome of your experiment, answer the following questions.
1.Which stayed warm longer, the "normal" air, or the air with increased CO2? After cooling for five minutes, what was the difference in their temperatures?

2.Did increasing the CO2 content increase the heat capacity of the air in the jar?

3.Does this experiment indicate that increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere would cause the climate to get warmer?

4.Explain your answer to question number 3.



5.If the climate does get warmer, explain what may happen to the ice in the glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland. Most of the fresh water on Earth is in these ice sheets.



6.Nearly all of the large cities of the United States are seaports; most U.S. citizens live within 75 miles of the ocean. Using your answer to question number 5, explain the possible economic impacts on the inhabitants of these coastal cities.



7.Corn and wheat, like all plants, need the proper temperatures and amounts of water to grow. Explain the possible economic impact on U.S. farmers and consumers if rainfall should decrease in the Midwest due to a temperature increase. This scenario has been hypothesized by many scientists.



8.List, and explain, three other impacts on your life that an increase in atmospheric CO2 could cause.



9.List at least three ways that we can decrease the amount of CO2 that people add to the atmosphere.


----------



## mamooth (May 27, 2014)

You're wasting your time. Frank and jc have mounted their goalposts on motorized platforms, the more easily to move them about.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> You're wasting your time. Frank and jc have mounted their goalposts on motorized platforms, the more easily to move them about.


Your what hurts?  Where have I moved anything, I have and will remain consistent.  To date, there has not been one video experiment that shows increasing CO2 will cause an increase in temperature.  I have not wavered from that so any goal posts I have are firmly buried in the ground.  Now you?


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Again, let's see the video of your experiment.  I expect you did it, since you're advertising it. Come on big boy let's have the video. Ah, just as expected don't have one right?  And as was pointed out by Frank, a kiddie experiment to prove a life threatening claim. Sorry dude but that quicksand is at your waste now.


----------



## G.T. (May 27, 2014)

Listen dipshit

The point is...the experiment is / has been done so often and is so easily accessible that claiming thaglt it doesnt exist for certain lends to the appearance of retardation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Listen dipshit
> 
> The point is...the experiment is / has been done so often and is so easily accessible that claiming thaglt it doesnt exist for certain lends to the appearance of retardation.



you're doubling down on Alka-Seltzer?

Billion spend on "Climate research" and the best you came up with is .25% of an Alka-Selter tablet?


----------



## G.T. (May 27, 2014)

Your stupidity is showing.

When isnt it though


----------



## G.T. (May 27, 2014)

I though the next post would be somthing like "but but there was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat!"

/derp


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



An accepted theory is still just a theory you idiot.

And I'll take a lesson from a pussy like you in "manners" the day you start demonstrating any hint of having any decent manners, you hypocritical and ignorant poseur bitch.

I have a newsflash for you.  ACCEPTED theory does not equal established fact.

"Consensus" in science is less valid than "majority rule" in a representative Constitutional Republic.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> I though the next post would be somthing like "but but there was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat!"
> 
> /derp



And the ending phase of the pattern is met. Congrats, you have succeeded in cookie cutting the warmest theory, hope the quicksand finds you warm, you sank!! bloop............... blooppppppp..............

Oh, and still no video. LOL..BTW, I didn't expect you'd have one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> I though the next post would be somthing like "but but there was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat!"
> 
> /derp



So to run your experiment using a single alkaseltzer tablet would require a 400 gallon tank

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## mamooth (May 27, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Where have I moved anything, I have and will remain consistent.  To date, there has not been one video experiment that shows increasing CO2 will cause an increase in temperature.  I have not wavered from that so any goal posts I have are firmly buried in the ground.  Now you?



I see you're a proud liar, along with being a goalpost mover. Well done. With that attitude, you'll move up far in your cult.

The rest of the world will be laughing at you, of course. I hope the warm fuzzies you get from your cult membership are worth the lifetime of humiliation it's earned you.

By the way, what's your exit plan? Even you clearly see how your cult is collapsing, hence your shrill tone. Will you ride that sinking ship to the bottom, or jump off early with the other rats?


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Listen dipshit
> 
> The point is...the experiment is / has been done so often and is so easily accessible that claiming thaglt it doesnt exist for certain lends to the appearance of retardation.



What your experiment demonstrates is the heat of compression, not that a wisp of additional CO2 can cause warming.


----------



## Political Junky (May 27, 2014)

"Science is right, whether you believe it or not."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Actually, satellites tell us that outgoing LW is increasing....precisely the opposite of what you claim.


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




So you still have no actual argument in defense of your position...oh my..oh my...oh my...oh my.  Does saying oh my make me sound smart?  Of course it doesn't...and it doesn't make you sound very bright either...oh my.


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Will I see the highest in 15 million years?



The earth is exiting an ice age....of course it will increase.  CO2 follows temperature therefore it must increase.  It will make it back to 1000ppm and perhaps more with or without us.  Our meager contribution to atmospheric CO2 isn't even enough to sway the natural variation from year to year.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> "Science is right, whether you believe it or not."
> - Neil deGrasse Tyson



Yes, your faith in AGW has warmed the planet. Go now and Warm no more


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Well, clearly the satellites are Deniers


----------



## orogenicman (May 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Will I see the highest in 15 million years?
> ...



The ice age ended over 11,000 years ago.  Take a look at this portion of the graph from the OP:








 Why would it take 11,000 years for the temperature to increase substantially, and suddenly?  Your argument doesn't hold water, bubba.


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> The ice age ended over 11,000 years ago.  Take a look at this portion of the graph from the OP:
> 
> Why would it take 11,000 years for the temperature to increase substantially, and suddenly?  Your argument doesn't hold water, bubba.



You are certainly no geologist...and the more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you have any education of any sort.  The earth is presently in an ice age.  The last glaciation ended about 11,000 years ago, not the ice age.  The ice age is still in progress and will be for some time to come.  

And what is 11,000 years in earth history?  The holocene optimum, the minoan warm period, the roman warm period and the medieval warm periods all came on at least as fast, if not faster than the 20th century warm period and got warmer than the present...the roman and holocene optimum considerably warmer.  

Aside from that, a fraction of a degree, mostly due to poor station sitting and data tampering over the course of a century does not constitute a substantial or a sudden increase in anything other than the chutzpa of climate science.


----------



## orogenicman (May 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The ice age ended over 11,000 years ago. Take a look at this portion of the graph from the OP:
> ...



So I take it that you aren't going to actually answer my question, but instead rant on about irrelevant, stupid bullshit like station placement and non-existent data tampering.  God' you are dumb.


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

Considering SSDD's "ideas" regarding radiative heat transfer and quantum mechanics, much less his rejection of both the greenhouse effect and global warming, the idea of accepting his opinion as to someone else's - ANYONE else's - qualifications in any branch of science, go well beyond the absurd.


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Actually, satellites tell us that outgoing LW is increasing....precisely the opposite of what you claim.



This is what GT was talking about when he described the ineptitude of your BASIC Earth science know-how.

Didn't it ever occur to you that outgoing LW radiation would increase from a planet that was getting warmer?  Or how about that the true measure of what's happening in this regard isn't the absolute measure of energy in one direction but the ratio of incoming to outgoing?  That would be the measure by which satellite data show that more and more energy is being trapped on our toasty little planet?

My god, what a dimwit.

You know, I have no doubt that you could grasp basic science if you wanted to.  It's just that for reasons unknown (likely to you as much as anyone else) you've decided you'll look better rejecting mainstream science than going along with it.  I suspect that the people you hang with have little to no grasp of any of these topics and so hold an unfriendly and somewhat suspicious view of science.  So when you whip out a few high-falutin' factoids and polysyllabic terms and then use those to treat the views of mainstream science with feigned disgust, they're impressed: Like Matt Damon in the bar in Good Will Hunting, showing up the smart college kids for his blue collar buddies.  Or at least you think they're impressed.  I would strongly suspect deep down they know that mainstream science is right about most things and thus they they know almost precisely how full of shit you are and hold that you're as much a jerk as we do.


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Till you grasp that the earth is still in an ice age, your question is meaningless...and once you grasp that the earth is in an ice age, you would have to be really stupid to still ask it.

And if you think station placement is irrelevant then you are even more stupid than I had thought and if you are under the impression that there has been no data tampering even with the overwhelming evidence of it that has been presented on this board, then there just are no adequate words for the level of your ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Considering SSDD's "ideas" regarding radiative heat transfer and quantum mechanics, much less his rejection of both the greenhouse effect and global warming, the idea of accepting his opinion as to someone else's - ANYONE else's - qualifications in any branch of science, go well beyond the absurd.




And yet, the claimed geologist is unaware that the earth is still in an ice age.  Guess you are as dumb as he is.


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, satellites tell us that outgoing LW is increasing....precisely the opposite of what you claim.
> ...




Sorry, climate science claimed that the level of outgoing LW would decrease...resulting in warming.  Instead, it has increased...probably due to the radiative properties of CO2 moving the energy out into space at a more rapid pace


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



How did the "Ice age end" if temperature today are 8 degrees HIGHER than they were 11,000 years ago?

Does sock posting fuck up your thinking?


----------



## jc456 (May 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Where have I moved anything, I have and will remain consistent.  To date, there has not been one video experiment that shows increasing CO2 will cause an increase in temperature.  I have not wavered from that so any goal posts I have are firmly buried in the ground.  Now you?
> ...


Holy crap.  Dude, I asked you a question; Where have I moved anything?  If I have been moving goal posts, that would infer that I changed my position. I have not.  I am quite confident in my position and feel no stress as a result of my position.  On the other hand however, your consistent babbling about my attitude which has been unwaivered, indicates you sir are panicing.  Perhaps your ship is sinking.  Staying focused must be difficult these days with nothing going as planned.

Me I'm fine pointing out your fallacies and inconsistent data and lack there of.

Nope not waivered a bit.  

Oh and exit plan?  Why would I need an exit plan? I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## jc456 (May 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So, I'm still confused with these warmers, they keep claiming that CO2 levels have doubled.  Doubled from when?  If CO2 was once 1000PPM, how is 400PPM doubled?  Wouldn't it instead be 2000PPM?


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, satellites tell us that outgoing LW is increasing....precisely the opposite of what you claim.
> ...



Abe has been shown where the satellite data is 'precise' but the absolute values are unknown. the amount of energy going into the heatsink of Earth, or perhaps even leaving, is unknown. the supposed 0.85W/m2 is artificially set to match the computer models, not by actaul results. yet he continues to claim the figure comes from the satellite data. and he accuses us of dishonesty. it is one thing to state something emphatically when youu dont know any better. it is another thing to continue to repeat it once you have been shown that it is false or distorted.


----------



## polarbear (May 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hey thanks for posting that graph. I got some new data  from the antarctic research (German)vessel "Polaris"which was  published very recently:
Anstieg des Meeresspiegels nach Eiszeit durch Gletscher in Antarktis - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> Vor 19.000 bis vor 9000 Jahren entließen Gletscher in acht Phasen  ungewöhnlich viele große Eisberge. Das Maximum fiel in die Zeit vor  14.600 Jahren
> Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass damals ungewöhnlich warmes  Wasser zur Antarktis strömte und die Gletscher zum Kalben brachte.  "Ein ungewöhnlich starker Zustrom von warmem Wasser in die Antarktis  könnte diese Ereignisse ausgelöst haben", sagt Axel Timmermann von der  University of Hawaii in Manoa.


Translation:
Antarctic glaciers released extraordinary amounts of ice in 8 phases between 9000 and 1900 years ago.
The maximum of amount of ice broke loose and melted 14600 years ago due to unusually warm water currents in the antarctic.

So  now looking at the graph you posted it`s pretty clear that CO2 hat sweet f@ck all to do with it what happened in the antarctic 14600 years ago.

the "average" global temperature was at a minimum 14600 years ago and so was CO2 :


> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


So why does the AGW occult* still go on with linking CO2 to ice calving off polar glaciers ?*
*How much more obvious can it get that there is no correlation between CO2 and ice volume?
*


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2014)

polarbear said:


> So  now looking at the graph you posted it`s pretty clear that CO2 hat sweet f@ck all to do with it what happened in the antarctic 14600 years ago.





Careful, you are questioning their faith with facts....we aren't supposed to do that.  gaia will smite you for sure.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 29, 2014)

Required:

One flat plate.

One Alka Seltzer Tablet.

One standard size Ice Cube.

Method:

In the lab (which must be kept at a temperature above 32 degrees F) put down the plate on the lab bench.

Place the Alka Seltzer Tablet on the center of the plate.

Place the Ice Cube on top of the tablet of Alka Seltzer.

Observe and record results over time.


Hypothesis:

The mere presence of and proximity to CO2 (the Alka Seltzer) will CAUSE the ice cube to melt!


Conclusion:

Someday we will WISH we were in a friendlier planetary atmosphere, like that of Venus.  We are DOOMED.  Alert the IPCC.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Required:
> 
> One flat plate.
> 
> ...



I have peer reviewed this experiment and find it is 100% accurate out in the Six Sigma Column and accurately depicts the Consensus regarding the phenomenon known as Global Cooling Climate Warming Disruption Change.  Indubitably!


----------



## Crick (May 29, 2014)

What this shows is that you and Ilar don't have the faintest fuck of an idea how science works.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> What this shows is that you and Ilar don't have the faintest fuck of an idea how science works.



It shows he understands the mentality of the AGW cult and its quackologists.


----------



## orogenicman (May 29, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What this shows is that you and Ilar don't have the faintest fuck of an idea how science works.
> ...



Oh gee, the obscene finger-bird boys returns.  How quaint.  You know that posting that image online for the entire world to view is child abuse, right?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Pre-industrial times around 1750???


----------



## polarbear (May 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So  now looking at the graph you posted it`s pretty clear that CO2 hat sweet f@ck all to do with it what happened in the antarctic 14600 years ago.
> ...



Is that the goddess "Ixchel" that the IPCC`s  executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres was talking about?






> "Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a  tapestry is the result of the skilful interlacing of many threads," said  Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in  Spanish before switching to English. "I am convinced that 20 years from  now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and  think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.


Remember that dip shit high priestess of the AGW occult  who says we should ride to work on bicycles made out of bamboo...which would no doubt please the AGW goddess Ixchel


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2014)

Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What this shows is that you and Ilar don't have the faintest fuck of an idea how science works.
> ...



None of the criticism that any of you deniers have brought to the experiments presented here have been valid.  Not one.

Your complete oblviousness to the meaning of radiophotometrically measured absorption spectra further undermines any contention that you people know what you're talking about.

SSDD's insane comments on half a dozen topics don't bode well for your group leaders but, for this purpose, his contention that absorption and emission are not related to warming - you people are either so stupid you cannot comprehend the basics or so stupid you choose to reject them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.



...and you have a lab experiment that shows how a doubling of CO2 will raise temperature?

What? No, you don't? 

That's odd.

If it works as you theorize, why can't you show us how it works?


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point.  That you would *LIE* and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.

It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands.  The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name.  We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to *LIE*.

I guess we failed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point.  That you would *LIE* and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.
> 
> It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands.  The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name.  We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to *LIE*.
> 
> I guess we failed.



i must have missed them.

Can you please repost any one of them?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point.  That you would *LIE* and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.
> 
> It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands.  The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name.  We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to *LIE*.
> 
> I guess we failed.



Well, yes you have failed. You've failed to post a single experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

Step right up Folks!  ANOTHER LIAR MAKES HIS APPEARANCE!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2014)

180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.
> ...



Seems like old rocks got his old rocks in a vice.  Has cricket responding for him.

Hey old rocks, I'm here most any day, you give me the experiment that shows 120PPM increases temperatures, and I'll apologize to each and every one of you.  But now, you are just an old rock!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Step right up Folks!  ANOTHER LIAR MAKES HIS APPEARANCE!



^ Not a lab experiment


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.



That's not "Science", Dear.

Have another crack at it


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew, don't confuse poor JC. He really doesn't know anything. Everyone knows that the pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm. And present levels are about 400 ppm. So doubling will be about 560 ppm. But poor ol' JC is so damned dumb that he can't differentiate that the doubling is just a marking point for estimation of what the affect of continual addition of GHGs will be. And it was first used in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.


Hey old rocks, I'm here most any day, you give me the experiment that shows 120PPM increases temperatures, and I'll apologize to each and every one of you. But now, you are just an old rock!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.



Wait. You can raise temperature with a 100, not a 120PPM, Increase?

Wow!

Get to it, man!


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point.  That you would *LIE* and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.
> 
> It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands.  The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name.  We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to *LIE*.
> 
> I guess we failed.


So again, your what hurts?  I'll tell you what, give us the experiment that shows the 120PPM increases temps, then we can discuss further, to date, you've shown failed attempts to just show global warming let alone an increase of 120PPM causes a temperature increase.  So, one who is cackling, don't look in the mirror!


----------



## orogenicman (May 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown multiple experiments that demonstrate precisely this point.  That you would *LIE* and continue to claim no such experiments exist is precisely what it was predicted you would do.
> 
> It's why we have been so reticent to accede to your demands.  The unique pleasure of stuffing the truth down your throat was overwhelmed by our desire that you not further denigrate your own good name.  We hoped to keep from you further opportunities to *LIE*.
> 
> I guess we failed.



Experiments have been shown that demonstrate one thing or another, but none of them have demonstrated that adding a bit of CO2 in the open atmosphere will result in warming.  The fact that you think that is what they show only exposes your ignorance and explains why you have been so completely duped by the AGW hoax.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 180 ppm CO2, continental glaciers, 280 ppm CO2, interglacial. Repeat several times, an adaquete experiment on a planetary scale.




1000ppm the earth begins decent into a deep ice age.  Your thinking is flawed....If 280ppm is enough to melt glaciers, how did the earth begin to cool enough for them to form with CO2 over 1000ppm?


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Damn but you are gullible.  That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all.  It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression.  That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open.  If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.

What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming.  Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)

here's a cool one from MIT, Frank's superiors at: everything,


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



you're an idiot.

the bottle is capped to represent our atmosphere, my-fuggin-gaaawd your Neanderthals are dumb


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)




----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)




----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)




----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2014)

G.T. said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are aware, aren't you, that there is a difference between a closed system and an open system?  Exactly where should I look in the sky to see the cap?  Matter and energy can enter and exit our atmosphere....in that experiment, matter can't leave the bottle which is why the CO2 builds up pressure and warms...see the ideal gas laws.


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

G.T. said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I



Knowing the argument is everything.  In this video, they state they increase the CO2 up to 380PPM and during each increment, the temperature remained at 1% C above the one with the control.  Remained is the big word here.  Again, prove that 120PPM causes an increase in tempertature is the argument.  We've already been throuh this one experiment it busts your theory.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



c02 doesn't just freely leave the atmosphere dunce, hence the closed system. It takes close to 2 years.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
> ...



watch it again dipshit

the experiment doesn't begin until they reach 380ppm

they don't then continue to increase the c02

jesus christ


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 30, 2014)

G.T. said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



But it does get incorporated into those big wet things we like to call oceans and seas.

How long does it take to get absorbed into the liquids and solids of planet Earth?  What effect does this have on the overall system?  What time periods are involved?  The oceans also release much CO2, more-so under certain specific conditions.  What is the difference in the rates of absorption versus the rate of release by the Oceans of CO2?

Gravity may sort of kind of act a little bit like the cap on a bottle, but the analogy is poor.  What if the bottle material itself absorbed CO2?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 30, 2014)

Oceans May Absorb More Carbon Dioxide - Scientific American


----------



## mamooth (May 30, 2014)

Given that the oceans won't absorb 120 ppm in a few minutes, all of that whining has jack to do with the experiments. The reasons denier use to explain why the experiments didn't actually show what they showed keep getting every more desperate.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)

Not even sure what oceans absorbing c02 has to do with ATMOSPHERIC c02 and its measured increase since the ind. Revolution


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Given that the oceans won't absorb 120 ppm in a few minutes, all of that whining has jack to do with the experiments. The reasons denier use to explain why the experiments didn't actually show what they showed keep getting every more desperate.



manboob doesn't deny that oceans will absorb much CO2, but pretends that it has to all be accomplished in "minutes."

Where did that urgent time requirement come from?

A warming planet may be expected to yield greater microbial life in the oceans.  The planktons and so forth gobble up CO2.

Some studies show that about half of all of human-kinds CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution HAVE been absorbed by the oceans.

Sometimes the oceans release the stuff, sometimes it absorbs the stuff.

It's almost like the basis for a system of sorts.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 30, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Not even sure what oceans absorbing c02 has to do with ATMOSPHERIC c02 and its measured increase since the ind. Revolution



That's right.  You aren't sure.  You are, in fact, fairly clueless.


----------



## mamooth (May 30, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> manboob doesn't deny that oceans will absorb much CO2, but pretends that it has to all be accomplished in "minutes."
> 
> Where did that urgent time requirement come from?



How long it takes to run the experiment. Remember the experiment, the topic under discussion?



> Some studies show that about half of all of human-kinds CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution HAVE been absorbed by the oceans.



Is there any point to your rambling?



> Sometimes the oceans release the stuff, sometimes it absorbs the stuff.
> 
> It's almost like the basis for a system of sorts.



Oh, that's your point. You're pushing the Gaian hypothesis, the self-regulating earth. Prior to deniers embracing so fervently, you only saw it coming from the most addleheaded hippie treehugger types.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)

I think its fairly clear who is clueless. The side who thinks a world wide conspiracy of fake science is taking place and their misnomer data proves the science wrong!!

No, clowns.

Also if the water were able to absorb some of that bottles c02 that quicky....and the temperature STILL increased? What do ya reckon that derp hickup....means? Derp.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 30, 2014)

G.T. said:


> I think its fairly clear who is clueless.



So you AGREE that you are clueless? Because that is increasingly clear.



G.T. said:


> The side who thinks a world wide conspiracy of fake science is taking place and their misnomer data proves the science wrong!!



No, silly lad.  The contention of all of those who question your FAITH is that the "science" you purport to "show" is not actual science.  



G.T. said:


> No, clowns.



No, said the clown.  About what?  About your false claim about what your opponents contend?



G.T. said:


> Also if the water were able to absorb some of that bottles c02 that quicky....and the temperature STILL increased? What do ya reckon that derp hickup....means? Derp.



Well, Derpy, you git, it would LIKELY mean that the bottle is not a good analog for the planet anymore than that a bottle cop is a good analog for the gravity that keeps our atmosphere from sliding off into the vacuum of space.

There is such a thing as a greenhouse effect.  We see it in greenhouses all the time.

It's nowhere near established that our planet's atmospheric and climatic systems act like the glass walls of a greenhouse, however.


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

Idiot.  Complete idiot.


----------



## polarbear (May 30, 2014)

G.T. said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are the one who is the idiot here. No matter how often it`s pointed out how and from where CO2 absorbs IR you keep coming back here with CO2 in a bottle which is directly irradiated with a heat lamp.

How many times have I told you now (???) that no skeptic with a science background ever disputed that CO2 absorbs IR at the 15 µm "window"hich is the only spectral region where the other IR absorbers do not absorb.

The entire argument since AGW has been studied is not* if *CO2 absorbs IR !!!....which is the only thing any of these bottled up CO2 under a heat lamp are addressing. 
Why is it that they even bother. We (analytical Chemists) have known that long before any of these stupid CO2 in a bottle experiments were done.

The argument is if there is a net gain of energy ...and *exact numbers by how much *...if sunlight first has to make it through the entire atmosphere (which does absorb IR) and then, if what is left of the energy, mostly in the visible and UV range is actually converted to long wave IR.
No skeptic disputes that stage of the process either.
*But that`s where the disagreements are already starting.*
*And for good reasons*
Because that *varies wildly from place to place* due to albedo, angle of incidence etc. and* (exactly) how much *of the incident sunlight is *actually converted *to IR in the 15 µm spectral region by the surface.

Again *nobody* with a background in science "denies" that CO2  absorbs IR from that  portion and re-radiates some of it back down.

The question is *exactly how much energy* that would be.
Why "exactly" ?...*because we do need exact numbers if we want to predict temperature increase over long time periods.*

*Only total dimwits like you would now cite CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations to answer to how much that would be exactly.

*And that is the reason why nobody associated with any of the computer  models the IPCC is using,  *makes any reference to any of these childish greenhouse gas demonstrations you keep posting here
*
What they do in any of these computer model simulations is at first they calculate the energy total a black body generates at 15  µm.
In order to do that you would first have to know the *exact temperature *of that black body.

And that is where skeptics also are not convinced that the models are correct....why not?
Because as with the first stage this temperature *also varies wildly from place to place and with time.*

*Nothing could be easier* than proving the IPCC models, their calculations and the numbers they come up with as "settled science" to be *woefully wrong*.
It requires no effort from skeptics *to prove that*, all it takes is one look at the results of these calculations and how much they diverge from reality.
*Everybody who is involved in these complex calculations is aware of this fact*...*and are trying their best to solve this problem

**Only total morons like you **would conclude* that kiddie experiment demonstrations how CO2 gets warmer in a bottle under a heat lamp solve the problems that *experts in the field with a huge budget have not been able to solve.*


.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2014)

Oh herdeeederr

Garsh


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

Polar Bear, doesn't your theory, that none of the energy absorbed by CO2 ever reaches the Earth's surface required that the CO2 never reradiate the energy it has absorbed?

Now SSDD claims that this happens because SSDD claims that cold surfaces simply do not radiate towards warm surfaces - not that the balance of radiative transfer will always be from hot to cold, but that a completely unknown and apparently unknowable magical mechanism PREVENTS cold surfaces from radiating towards warmer surfaces.  Are you with SSDD or not?

Now I'm not sure what SSDD (or you) think happens to the CO2 in the upper atmosphere that you believe is absorbing all the sun's energy in those two bands.  I would think that in your world they would quickly get very hot.  And then, being very hot, that even in SSDD's world, they would be able to reradiate in all directions.

What do you think?  

1) Do you believe CO2 can reradiate heat energy it has absorbed?
2) Do you believe it can reradiate it downward??

And if you answered yes to both those questions, please explain again how it is that that absorption doesn't warm the atmosphere and the planet underneath it.

As to heat of compression, what would be causing the CO2 bearing bottle to get more compressed than the one without?  Could it be the additional thermal energy absorbed?  Could it be that the increase in pressure in all the experiment's bottles would be precisely proportional to their absolute temperatures?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Idiot.  Complete idiot.



Pricky, while I admire your willingness to admit that you are fucking stupid, you still need to face facts: 

You aren't smart enough to be a complete idiot.


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

It's becoming difficult to keep saying it.  You're smart enough to know how often you've been wrong here.  So is everyone else.  Continuing to pretend otherwise doesn't help.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> It's becoming difficult to keep saying it.  You're smart enough to know how often you've been wrong here.  So is everyone else.  Continuing to pretend otherwise doesn't help.



LOL

That's it?

You're too smart for us?

LOL.

And I thought Wry Catcher was Freddo


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

Try to follow the basics.  I didn't say anything about myself, did I.  I was talking about the lovely Ilar.  It would apply equally as well to you though.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Try to follow the basics.  I didn't say anything about myself, did I.  I was talking about the lovely Ilar.  It would apply equally as well to you though.



Sure, Freddo.

How's the Casino business?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Odd that they STILL haven't provided that one experiment that shows how a 100-120PPM in CO2 will raise temperature let alone cause flood, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.


----------



## orogenicman (May 30, 2014)

G.T. said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



He is, isn't he?


----------



## orogenicman (May 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a couple of tablets of alka seltzer reacting in a closed vessel can raise the air temperature in the vessel by 9 degrees? In 45 minutes? It's an easy enough thing to weed out.  Just place another bottle with the alka seltzer reacting in water in a closed vessel away from the light source in a constant temperature environment and see if the air temperature inside rises 9 degrees in 45 minutes?  I eagerly await your results (this should be good).


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

G.T. said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Lets see if we can make this even more simple for you since it is obvious that you lack even the basic knowledge required to understand what is happening in that bottle.  Forget the thermometer for a minute.  Replace the thermometer with a pressure gauge.  Repeat the experiment.  The pressure in the bottle with the CO2 increases.  

Now refer to the ideal gas law....PV=nRT.   Increase pressure while everything else remains the same and the temperature will increase.  The bottle with the CO2 gets warmer because of pressure, not because CO2 absorbs and emits IR.  Put a vent in the bottle so the pressure doesn't increase and the temperature in the bottle will not increase.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The very idea that you have any formal education in any science is absolutely laughable.  Are you even aware of the ideal gas laws?  What do you think happens to the temperature of a gas under pressure?


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Try the experiment with any gas that is heavier than air under pressure whether it is a so called greenhouse gas or not.  Pressure is causing the difference in the temperatures in the bottles, not specifically CO2.

Familiarize yourself with the term...heat of compression, then perhaps you will understand what the experiment is demonstrating.


----------



## orogenicman (May 31, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You really should re-read my previous post:



> Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a *couple of tablets of alka seltzer* reacting in a closed vessel *can raise the air temperature in the vessel by 9 degrees*? *In 45 minutes*? It's an easy enough thing to weed out. Just place another bottle with the alka seltzer reacting in water in a closed vessel away from the light source in a constant temperature environment and see if the air temperature inside rises 9 degrees in 45 minutes? I eagerly await your results (this should be good).


 
 That is your claim (the bolded).  You really need to try to back up your silly claims with verifiable facts.


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2014)

I have a couple points for you SiD.  

The heat of compression occurs only _as_ the pressure is raised. * After that is accomplished, that heat radiates away and is not renewed*.  Any increased temperature discernible after a reasonable amount of time has passed is NOT due to compression.

Thinking that "heat of compression" (or any of the ideal gas laws) is some sort of advanced or arcane bit of science that we have overlooked - much less the hundreds of thousands of scientists that fully accept the greenhouse effect - is truly ignorant.  That compressing a gas raises its temperature is something taught in the 7th grade.  Failing to understand that it does not apply to this situation is either a surprising ignorance or a choice to reject the mainstream whether supported by the facts or not.  Take your pick.

And, yes, the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law and all of thermodynamics is statistics


----------



## polarbear (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> Polar Bear, doesn't your theory, that none of the energy absorbed by CO2 ever reaches the Earth's surface required that the CO2 never reradiate the energy it has absorbed?
> 
> Now SSDD claims that this happens because SSDD claims that cold surfaces simply do not radiate towards warm surfaces - not that the balance of radiative transfer will always be from hot to cold, but that a completely unknown and apparently unknowable magical mechanism PREVENTS cold surfaces from radiating towards warmer surfaces.  Are you with SSDD or not?
> 
> ...



It`s not "my theory"...!!!
First off I`m a chemical engineer and have done IR, UV and atomic absorption spectroscopy and just about any trace analysis you care to name while most of you were still in diapers.
So *I do know  how absorption works.*
It`s not a theory anyway but has been a confirmed physics law long before I was born.
Over and over again I have said here that there is no question* if *CO2 absorbs IR at very specific wavelengths.
There is also no question *if *it re-radiates  either .
Also there is no question *if *a warm object cools at a slower rate if it is shielded in any way, no matter if it`s shielded by a solid, a liquid or a gas.
The question is* by how much* !...in terms of watts per ppm CO2 per path length and atmospheric pressure.
All of that has been determined and we do know the exact molar extinction rate for CO2 at every wavelength it can absorb....but there is no way you can determine that with bottled up CO2, a heat lamp  and a thermometer in other words if it`s done properly adhering to A.S.T.M with a Parr calorimeter or "DTC" (differential thermal calorimetry).
It takes a high end IR spectrophotometer with a cuvette of a precise pathlength to do a quantitative analysis for a gas for starters.
Cuvettes like these:
Infrared Grade Quartz Cells and Cuvettes | FTIR Liquid Transmission Cells




To get the exact molar extinction rate you also have to know the gas pressure in that cuvette accurate *at to least to within 1 Torr* and also the precise temperature the gas is at.
Why?
Because the molar extinction depends on how many CO2 molecules were in the path of the "analytical beam".
Gas expands when it gets warmer and if you allow for expansion then you have less molecules per volume in that cuvette.
That`s why* everybody* who does a quantitative IR spectroscopic gas analysis uses cuvettes that have a gas inlet and an outlet and the gas which is measured flows through.
That flow has to be carefully controlled so that the cuvette does not build back pressure which would increase % absorption.
How would I know?
Because I was the one who had to calibrate these instruments in the lab near the North Pole.
I posted these pictures already here over a year ago when people just like you kept posting the same CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations.







(In the lab on the left side of the bench , that`s a "GLC" (= gas- chromathograph) and the IR spec. is at the far end of the lab )

And this is the building where it`s at:






Anyway if you don`t believe me then Google how these labs do CO2 by quantitative IR spectroscopy.
Feeding the gas into the cuvette is a major problem, because it`s pumped from the sample container and that pump is a peristaltic pump.
That`s a set of rollers which squeeze a plastic tube....and the IR detector at the other end can register even these minute pressure pulses.
H2O vapor is another major error source even at the so called 15  µm "window". That`s why everybody who does this analysis passes the gas through a moisture trap before measuring %absorption (or the log function of it, the absorbance) per ppm molar.

All these factors have been taken in consideration and we do have precise numbers.
*The problem is how to use these numbers *in a computer model that can calculate for different atmospheric pressures and temperatures from the molar extinction rates to get an accurate overall energy budget for radiative cooling *for the entire planet.*
You are aware how the IPCC computer models attempt to do that or are you not ?
They all use *moisture free average molar ppm at standard pressure,* and *then* plug in the molar extinction rate for* molar ppm* and with that they calculate the radiative energy budget *for the entire planet.*

*And this is what the entire scientific debate is all about*.

Because in the real world outside the lab barometric pressure humidity etc etc varies all over the place and varies significantly.

The other thing that varies significantly is surface temperature which is the infrared light source that the CO2 near the surface absorbs.

Imagine if you can how frustrating it would be if you are supposed to determine IR absorption with a spectrophotometer if the infrared source of your instrument is not a constant.
It`s called "lamp drift" and has to be  painstakenly compensated for.

If you understand all of what I have been saying here and what I have been saying over and over again before then you may understand how difficult the task is to write the algorithms for a climate computer model that does not fail miserably....as all the ones we do have to date have failed.

If you still think that a demonstration with CO2 in a bottle and a heat lamp  can furnish data for a better and more accurate set of calculations in any of the program lines then go ahead and tell the IPCC.

*These class room demonstrations serve no other purpose *than to demonstrate to school children *who have no idea whatsoever* what infrared light is, how it`s absorbed and what happens if it is absorbed.

*They are of no interest or in any way useful for any scientists* pro- or con- the energy budget and the numbers  *the IPCC chose to use*.


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2014)

I agree with polarbear's reasonable description of lab procedures and mechanisms for testing. You don't have to go to the far north to check it out, your local hospital lab will tell you the same thing.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 31, 2014)

> If you are out at a beach one fine day tossing bread crumbs up at the seagulls, and then some asshole tosses an Alka Seltzer tablet at the diving throng of birds, a poor seagull might very well swallow the tablet whole.
> 
> Birds apparently cannot fart.
> 
> ...



-- excerpt from a new Presidential Advice Memo?


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2014)

Umm... your lab building appears to be a good ways north, but it is not, as you stated, near the North Pole.  It's just a little too dry.

I doubt you were doing this work while I was in diapers.



polarbear said:


> It`s not "my theory"...!!!



That no IR penetrates past the uppermost layers of the atmosphere due to CO2 absorption?  I'd say it was.



polarbear said:


> First off I`m a chemical engineer and have done IR, UV and atomic absorption spectroscopy and just about any trace analysis you care to name while most of you were still in diapers.



Yesterday you were an analytical chemist.  Close, but not quite the same thing.  What degree do you have?



polarbear said:


> So *I do know  how absorption works.*



But I've gotten the impression you believe the people doing the research being used by the IPCC DON'T know how absorption works.  Is that an accurate statement? 



polarbear said:


> It`s not a theory anyway but has been a confirmed physics law long before I was born.



How about spelling out preciselly what we're talking about here, because I thought we were talking about the contention that NO IR reaches the surface of the Earth and that would be something NOT confirmed by physics long before you were born.



polarbear said:


> Over and over again I have said here that there is no question if CO2 absorbs IR at very specific wavelengths.



I think you know specifically what's being addressed here.  How many times have we seen "temperature leads CO2" and "CO2 cannot control climate" and a dozen other worthless diatribes along these lines.  The point under debate is whether or not the greenhouse effect is correctly understood and is therefore responsible for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. 



polarbear said:


> There is also no question if it re-radiates  either.
> Also there is no question if a warm object cools at a slower rate if it is shielded in any way, no matter if it`s shielded by a solid, a liquid or a gas.



I was hoping you'd directly address SSDD's understanding of radiative heat transfer, but this will do for the purposes of this conversation.  There was no question that I was aware of concerning shielding, but whether an object of some given temperature radiates towards an object of a higher temperature.



polarbear said:


> The question is by how much!...in terms of watts per ppm CO2 per path length and atmospheric pressure.



The molar absorbance of CO2 is, as you've noted, a known value.  So the question is not how much for CO2 but how much takes place in our atmsosphere.



polarbear said:


> All of that has been determined and we do know the exact molar extinction rate for CO2 at every wavelength it can absorb....but there is no way you can determine that with bottled up CO2, a heat lamp  and a thermometer in other words if it`s done properly adhering to A.S.T.M with a Parr calorimeter or "DTC" (differential thermal calorimetry).
> It takes a high end IR spectrophotometer with a cuvette of a precise pathlength to do a quantitative analysis for a gas for starters.



You're being ridiculous.  The purpose of the experiments shown was simply to demonstrate that the presence of CO2 - in the range it exists in our atmosphere - can cause added warming.



polarbear said:


> Cuvettes like these:



Very impressive.  



polarbear said:


> To get the exact molar extinction rate you also have to know the gas pressure in that cuvette accurate *at to least to within 1 Torr* and also the precise temperature the gas is at.



But that wasn't the purpose of the experiments shown.



polarbear said:


> Why?



No one cares. 



polarbear said:


> Because the molar extinction depends on how many CO2 molecules were in the path of the "analytical beam". Gas expands when it gets warmer and if you allow for expansion then you have less molecules per volume in that cuvette. That`s why everybody who does a quantitative IR spectroscopic gas analysis uses cuvettes that have a gas inlet and an outlet and the gas which is measured flows through.



Well, then, if "everybody" does it, there's no problem with the data everyone's currently using, is there.



polarbear said:


> That flow has to be carefully controlled so that the cuvette does not build back pressure which would increase % absorption.
> How would I know?



Seriously.  No one cares.



polarbear said:


> Because I was the one who had to calibrate these instruments in the lab near the North Pole.



As we've heard over and over and over again.  Really.



polarbear said:


> I posted these pictures already here over a year ago



Yes you did.  And we saw them then.  And they haven't changed.



polarbear said:


> when people just like you kept posting the same CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations.



Then perhaps you should have told your denier brethren to stop insisting that no experiment existed which would demonstrate CO2's ability to increase temperature through IR absorption.  You obviously knew those statements to be false, yet I have not ONCE seen you voice the SLIGHTEST opposition.  Why not?



polarbear said:


> Anyway if you don`t believe me then Google how these labs do CO2 by quantitative IR spectroscopy.



I did it myself back in school.  But I'd like to make a point here.  One does NOT conduct quantitative IR spectroscopy in order to measure the absorption spectra or the molar extinction coefficients of CO2 or any other gas.  IR spectroscopy USES known values for those parameters to do spectroscopic analysis of samples - identifying the components of unknown mixtures or samples.



polarbear said:


> Feeding the gas into the cuvette is a major problem, because it`s pumped from the sample container and that pump is a peristaltic pump.



Really, again, no one cares



polarbear said:


> That`s a set of rollers which squeeze a plastic tube....



Really?  Wow.  



polarbear said:


> and the IR detector at the other end can register even these minute pressure pulses.
> H2O vapor is another major error source even at the so called 15  µm "window". That`s why everybody who does this analysis passes the gas through a moisture trap before measuring %absorption (or the log function of it, the absorbance) per ppm molar.



And, again, you say everyone does it - no one makes this plebian mistake.  So this isn't a problem with the data being used by the world's researchers.  Excellent.



polarbear said:


> All these factors have been taken in consideration and we do have precise numbers.



Bravo.



polarbear said:


> The problem is how to use these numbers in a computer model that can calculate for different atmospheric pressures and temperatures from the molar extinction rates to get an accurate overall energy budget for radiative cooling for the entire planet.



Yes.  And this question involves climate modeling: a topic about which you and I have NO expertise.



polarbear said:


> You are aware how the IPCC computer models attempt to do that or are you not ?
> They all use moisture free average molar ppm at standard pressure, and then plug in the molar extinction rate for molar ppm and with that they calculate the radiative energy budget for the entire planet.



I would very much like a link inside IPCC.CH demonstrating this contention to be true.



polarbear said:


> The other thing that varies significantly is surface temperature which is the infrared light source that the CO2 near the surface absorbs.  Imagine if you can how frustrating it would be if you are supposed to determine IR absorption with a spectrophotometer if the infrared source of your instrument is not a constant. It`s called "lamp drift" and has to be  painstakenly compensated for.



I think you have overstretched the analogies between your lab experience and the science of creating accurate climate models.  Again, I would like to see some good evidence that what you are saying about the climate models upon which the IPCC relies is true.  Without it, I find it difficult to believe such factors are not accounted for.



polarbear said:


> If you understand all of what I have been saying here and what I have been saying over and over again before then you may understand how difficult the task is to write the algorithms for a climate computer model that does not fail miserably....as all the ones we do have to date have failed.



I do understand everything you've said.  I do not yet believe everything you've said, but you can cure that with the right evidence.  As to the success of the models, their failure to predict the hiatus is not grounds for thowing them all out.  Their hindcasting has been excellent as have their forecast aside from that single flaw - and it is a flaw from which they ALL suffer.  Besides, there is still NO climate model that can recreate the behavior of our climate for the last 150 years that does not assume global warming from the greenhouse effect expressed on human GHG emissions.  None.  
That tends to make your complaints about their accuracy more of a political whine than a meaningful observation.



polarbear said:


> If you still think that a demonstration with CO2 in a bottle and a heat lamp  can furnish data for a better and more accurate set of calculations in any of the program lines then go ahead and tell the IPCC.



Who the fuck ever said it would?  The demonstration was for idiots like Skookerasshole, jc456, CrusaderFrank and SSDD who have claimed - with NO opposition from you - that it was impossible to demonstrate any warming from CO2.  How about SSDD reliance on the "heat of compression"?  Were you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense?  If not, why not?



polarbear said:


> These class room demonstrations serve no other purpose than to demonstrate to school children who have no idea whatsoever what infrared light is, how it`s absorbed and what happens if it is absorbed.



I agree that the target there, as well as here, was those with a schoolchild education.  But the demonstrations in every case involved the interaction between IR and CO2.  You cannot deny that the effect demonstrated was caused by the presence of the gas.



polarbear said:


> They are of no interest or in any way useful for any scientists pro- or con- the energy budget and the numbers the IPCC chose to use.



Again, no one suggested any, fucking, such thing.  When you take this tack, all I can conclude is that you have no valid criticisms.


What a surprise.

*QUESTIONS*



polarbear said:


> 1) First off I`m a chemical engineer...


 
Yesterday you were an analytical chemist.  Close, but not quite the same thing.  What degree do you have?

2) But I've gotten the impression you believe the people doing the research being used by the IPCC DON'T know how absorption works.  Is that an accurate statement? 

3) How about spelling out precisely what we're talking about here, because I thought we were talking about the contention that NO IR reaches the surface of the Earth

4) How many times have we seen "temperature leads CO2" and "CO2 cannot control climate" and a dozen other worthless diatribes along these lines.

5) Then perhaps you should have told your denier brethren to stop insisting that no experiment existed which would demonstrate CO2's ability to increase temperature through IR absorption.  You obviously knew those statements to be false, yet I have not ONCE seen you voice the SLIGHTEST opposition.  Why not?

6) I would very much like a link inside IPCC.CH demonstrating this contention (constant, dry conditions assumed) to be true.

7) Again, I would like to see some good evidence that what you are saying (that IPCC models do not take surface temperature into account regarding IR reradiation) about the climate models upon which the IPCC relies is true.

8) How about SSDD's reliance on the "heat of compression"?  Were you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense?  

8a) If not, why not?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> Umm... your lab building appears to be a good ways north, but it is not, as you stated, near the North Pole.  It's just a little too dry.
> 
> I doubt you were doing this work while I was in diapers.
> 
> ...



I wonder if the asshole known as Abe/prick realizes that it is self defeating to post a wall of words like that?

Who the fuck bothers reading all of that mess?

It's not as though it's a textbook with anything worth reading.

It's just abe/prick bleating and braying.


----------



## polarbear (May 31, 2014)

IanC said:


> I agree with polarbear's reasonable description of lab procedures and mechanisms for testing. You don't have to go to the far north to check it out, your local hospital lab will tell you the same thing.



I knew that you would also dismiss these CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations as irrelevant.
None of these yield any useful data and the only purpose they serve is to show the general public that CO2 does absorb IR. 
They all fail to demonstrate the most important part of the process which has to be quantified, namely how CO2 re-radiates the IR it did absorb when it is not bottled up in a container...especially not in containers, like ordinary glass which absorbs IR
There is one demonstration that comes close, but unfortunately they did not quantify the CO2 but used a shot of pure CO2 from a fire extinguisher.
Nevertheless it does reveal something very interesting:
3.3-How CO2 traps the sun's warmth on Vimeo
Here is the instrumentation they set up:





Its a HP dual beam IR spectrophotometer that can be used not just in absorption mode, but also in emission mode...which is the mode we want if we want to see how much IR CO2 *re-radiates*...(we all know already that it absorbs)
So it`s in emission mode and is looking at the sky through a reflector telescope.
Here is what it "sees".





This is down dwelling IR and at the far end you can see where and how much IR CO2 amongst other ghg`s re-radiates back down.
CO2 is where the "notch" is....which indicates that CO2 is not just absorbing up dwelling IR, *but does the same to down dwelling IR.
*Of course it would, because at this point we are dealing with a much longer path length than  just 10 meters which is where the current levels of CO2 absorbs all it can from the up-dwelling IR which is emitted by the surface.
...and that`s the part,  which can and does re-radiate back down to the surface.
So what happens if we increase ppm CO2 in the region within these first 10 meters:





That* reduced *the amount of *down dwelling IR from the sky above dramatically:*





The IR spec is still in *emission mode measuring down dwelling IR
*
Too bad they did this experiment so crudely with an arbitrary amount of CO2. Else they could have determined  how much *extra* heat/*down dwelling IR *we get with x-ppm CO2 and *correct* that amount by subtracting how much more down-dwelling IR from the sky above the 10 meter envelope is *missing* as we increase ppm CO2.
*There is no question that the first 10 meters re-radiate *1/2 of what was absorbed there back down to the surface, but it is equally as important to know *how much IR from above this 10m envelope* never even makes it down to the surface to warm it. 
At the least that would be one problem with the global energy budget that could be solved...the rest of it these huge variations in barometric pressure, surface temp, albedo , overcast etc. etc will still remain unless we dedicate *way more computing power and data collection *than we have so far.
P.S.
I have done a much cruder experiment with a 6 inch reflector telescope and a sensitive thermistor in the focal point.
If you double the ppm CO2 inside the telescope`s tube the temperature of course *does go up*...but if you increase CO2* outside* of the telescope tube it *drops.*..just like they also have shown a drop in IR which the detector registered when they increased CO2.


----------



## polarbear (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> Umm... your lab building appears to be a good ways north, but it is not, as you stated, near the North Pole.  It's just a little too dry.


It`s not near the pole?
I wonder why where that lab is at CFS Alert is called the world`s most northerly station *NEXT TO THE POLE*:








> but *it is not,* as you stated, *near the North Pole*.  It's just *a little too dry*.



Show me any land closer to the North Pole than where that lab is...it`s at the northern most tip of Ellesmere Island.
*The entire  region  is classified as an arid zone:*


> About one third of the land surface of the world is arid  or semi-arid. This includes much of the polar regions where little  precipitation occurs and which are sometimes called "cold deserts".



Man how much more stupid can you get?
And you are trying to lecture me? That`s a laugh !
It`s not even worth it to read the rest of the crap you just posted.
You don`t have the slightest clue about spectroscopy or anything else discussed here.

By the way how did you manage to re-register here with a new username after you got banned as "Abraham3" and incessantly spam 24/7 every thread with your garbage?


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2014)

I will have to remember that the way to win an argument about facts is to simply not respond.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> I will have to remember that the way to win an argument about facts is to simply not respond.



And which of the incessant spam you keep dumping in this forum is a fact?
It`s *you *who does not respond when confronted with facts.
You either change the subject and make childish attempts to goat others into some stupid argument to deflect from the subject at hand.
Like:


> Who the fuck ever said it would?  The demonstration was for idiots like  Skookerasshole, jc456, CrusaderFrank and SSDD who have claimed - with NO  opposition from you - that it was impossible to demonstrate any warming  from CO2.  How about SSDD reliance on the "heat of compression"?  Were  you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense?  If not, why not?


Okay then I`ll tell you why not.  I see no reason to come to your aid, firstly *because it is way too amusing *to watch how lame and impotent your response to any of the above is.

Secondly because you richly deserve it when they get under your skin.
..and what`s your response? You whine to the moderators and try to get them banned like for posting a Youtube video that you say was a threat against you


Third, when it comes to who wins the Pinnochio awards you and Liberals in general are the un-disputed winners.

Do any of you ever argue with MSNBC or  such and nonsense bloggers like Cook ? Of course not.

It bugs the hell out of you what the people you are whining about have been posting because they tarred and feathered you while the rest of the readers are watching with delight.

No matter how many posts you make every day all day long you aren`t making any converts amongst the thousands of readers who show up in the stats for the environment threads.

So why do you keep doing it even after you got banned as Abraham3 ?
What`s the matter?
Is it that the emergency services in your town are fed up because you dial 911 every time a piece of ice breaks off a glacier?
Is it that you have no place else left to go that is willing to post the incredible amount of gibberish you produce every day all day long?
Alarmists like you are quite welcome at Cook`s "skepticalscience.com" so why don`t you post there?
Ahh, I almost forgot, that won`t work because they would set up a  spam filter just for you.


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2014)

And, of course, still no meaningful response.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> And, of course, still no meaningful response.



And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.  You'll get a response once you provide the experiment.   Otherwise you get jack and like it.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2014)

Sucks to be a denier. The world is now just ignoring them. So they scream louder, and they still get ignored, and so they declare it's all a vast conspiracy against them. No, it's just the world ignoring crazy people.

I think we're watching the death rattles of the denier cult. Sure, we'll have stupid individuals for a long time, but the organized denier movement is flailing.


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And, of course, still no meaningful response.
> ...



And they claim they've not been shown something they've been shown repeatedly.  Their's a name for that jc.  They call it "LYING".


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2014)

Crick said:


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



All you have shown abe is how easily you are fooled.  Linking to papers that you claim support your position and then not being able to point to any part of them that prove anything.


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> And, of course, still no meaningful response.


This should suffice your needs:


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Sucks to be a denier. The world is now just ignoring them. So they scream louder, and they still get ignored, and so they declare it's all a vast conspiracy against them. No, it's just the world ignoring crazy people.
> 
> I think we're watching the death rattles of the denier cult. Sure, we'll have stupid individuals for a long time, but the organized denier movement is flailing.


You're denying hands-on chemical analysts by hyperventilating them into something you call "the organized denier movement?"

This be thee, silly fellow:​ ​ 

 ​ Fortunately, you may or may not be able to grow out of it if your mommy removes the headgear. ​


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Look all you lying dumb fucks, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;
> 
> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA
> 
> ...



"*the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago*"

 So you admit that CO2 levels are not in any way anthropogenic after all, hm.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2014)

Crick said:


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


So friend, since you wish to go down this road, then please highlight just one of what it is you think I'm missing.  I'm happy to see the results you choose to present.  Not a link, not a paper, highlighted video or observations that can actually prove that CO2 drives climate.  A graph with unsubstantiated data is not welcomed.  You provided many links, pull the exact section from one and highlight the proof.  That's all!  I supposed I need it pointed out to me. I'm obviously missing what you want me to see.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


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



He wants you to see that shiny silk suit that the emperor is wearing.  He sees it as clearly as can be and is flummoxed by anyone who does't see it.  In his eyes, the emperor's clothes are beautiful...all the greens, and blues of nature interwoven into a fabric that represents nirvana.  

How, he wonders, can anyone not see something so beautiful?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Jeez, we all must have missed it.

Where did you post it again?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



If they had any such evidence you better believe that they would be slapping us down with it on every post. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2014)

Now TWO  liars.  Anyone else want to climb on this bandwagon?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Now TWO  liars.  Anyone else want to climb on this bandwagon?



And still not a hint of the evidence you claim to have provided.  You are a larger liar than any of us skeptics...not only do you lie to us...you lie to yourself...and apparently believe your own lies.  How sad is that?


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2014)

For those readers new to this discussion, please review the Two Theories thread - post by GT in particular - for discussion of a simple experiment to demonstrate greenhouse warming of CO2 at levels similar to those in our present day atmosphere.

Or go read any text book or reference on the greenhouse effect.

And then think back on the claims of SSDD, jc456, CrusaderFrank and all the others that discussed those experiments and now claim they never saw such things.  Try to imagine the level of honesty such behavior requires.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

They're called "deniers" for a good reason.

I think China signing on to emissions reductions broke their sanity and caused them to drop their last pretense at being honest. The US and China were the big holdouts, and suddenly both moved to the light side. The other holdouts were just waiting on the US and China, so they'll join in quickly. The deniers are seeing their whole world collapsing.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> For those readers new to this discussion, please review the Two Theories thread - post by GT in particular - for discussion of a simple experiment to demonstrate greenhouse warming of CO2 at levels similar to those in our present day atmosphere.
> 
> Or go read any text book or reference on the greenhouse effect.



Those experiments don't show what you claim.  The do demonstrate how easily you have been fooled by county fair trickery.



Crick said:


> then think back on the claims of SSDD, jc456, CrusaderFrank and all the others that discussed those experiments and now claim they never saw such things.  Try to imagine the level of honesty such behavior requires.



Of course we discussed them.  We told you what they were demonstrating.  You denied the actual science in favor of what you chose to believe.  On top of that, none of them even came close to demonstrating your theory that a 100ppm increase in CO2 could do anything at all.  It was also pointed out to you that most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when, according to your side, CO2 was safe.  What small remainder of the warming that happened after 1940 happened during the much larger increase in CO2 and over the past 2 decades CO2 has increased steadily while warming has flatlined.  Your hypothesis is a failure and you continue to deny it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> They're called "deniers" for a good reason.



I suppose anything that would allow you to attempt to disparage those who can't see the emperors clothing while never having to provide a sample of the material would be a good reason for you.  In real science, you provide proof to support your claims...in religion, you attack the heretics rather than provide proof to support your beliefs.


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

In denierism you make non-stop accusations, pretending all along that they have some basis in reality, in the hopes that in the flood of venom no one will notice the complete and utter absence of evidence, logic or reason.


----------

