# Two Theories



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.
> 
> Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.
> 
> ...



Exact amundo!!!


----------



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

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature? 

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> 
> cuz it has been reproduced in a lab
> 
> and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature



Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> 
> cuz it has been reproduced in a lab
> 
> and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature


It has?  hmmm... let's see the experiment!


----------



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

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> ...



I doesn't have to be those exact numbers, dipstick


----------



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

jc456 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> ...



there are hundreds


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> ...



That dude just walked himself right into quicksand! Let's see how fast he can stay afloat, any theories?  I say he sinks on his next post!


----------



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

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You both are retards to the n-th degree dude, and I don't say this "lightly."

Here are directions to do the experiment YOURSELF! (imagine that??!?!?!?!) as given to some elitist "college" students.

Is the Earth Warming?


----------



## mamooth (May 27, 2014)

I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.

Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.

Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.


----------



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

mamooth said:


> I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.
> 
> Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.
> 
> Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.



its so "mysterious!!!" to frank, this missing experiment! he's been looking for it for years! smoking gun!

(no, you're just an idiot frank. poor guy)


----------



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

do this on video franky so we can ensure you did it all correctly hun,

Equipment and Materials
&#8226;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. 
&#8226;A small glass vessel. A beaker or even a drinking glass will be satisfactory, assuming it will fit in the large glass vessel 
&#8226;A laboratory thermometer 
&#8226;A heat lamp or equivalent 
&#8226;Aluminum foil 
&#8226;Alka-Seltzer tablets 
&#8226;A balance capable of measuring to the nearest milligram (0.001 gm). If not available, measuring to the nearest 0.01 gm will suffice. 
&#8226;A watch capable of measuring in seconds 
&#8226;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.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.
> 
> Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.
> 
> Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.



Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.

Maybe that's why you can never find an experiment that shows warming from that level of increase?

If you had experiments showing increase in temperature when you increase CO2 by 120PPM, they'd be all over the Internet


----------



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

But yo....tel us more about einstein bro


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


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



And there he is sinking in the quicksand as predicted.  I love those words, "there are hundreds"  Yet can never produce one.  Still waiting!  See you just proved the point, and I know you won't understand it, you're blind to the reality of it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> do this on video franky so we can ensure you did it all correctly hun,
> 
> Equipment and Materials
> &#8226;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.
> ...



No video.

Billions spent in Climate research, and the best you come up with is .25% of an Alka-Seltzer tablet?



Oh wait, you were serious???


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> do this on video franky so we can ensure you did it all correctly hun,
> 
> 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.
> ...



Great, let's see the test results of the experiment run.  Video please! I don't believe anything you all put in writing, so video is required.  Since there are hundreds you know.


----------



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

Umm yea its pretty basic.

Hence why youre retarded.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > do this on video franky so we can ensure you did it all correctly hun,
> ...


This stuff just cracks me up.  the other day here in Chicago the temperature during the day was close to 88 degrees and when the sun went down it dropped to 50 degrees.  Needed to turn the furnace back on.  So technically I could have had the air on during the day and the furnace on at night.  Yet all that CO2 up there is supposed to keep us warm when the sun goes down.  Ain't working

Edit: and I live in the Northern Hemisphere where the PPM is over 400 now.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Umm yea its pretty basic.
> 
> Hence why youre retarded.



You searched Goggle and that's what you found. You didn't find NASA, APS, IPCC or NOAA showing their experiment demonstrating the temperature increase, correct?

Know why?

Because the experiment showing a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2 does not exist. Instead you have Mann's Tree Rings.

You've been played


----------



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

Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat fuck mouth and bitch and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.

Sad, really.


----------



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

There is a graph somewhere that shows a correlation between how depraved a hate/spite filled partisan mind is.......and how many threads they make in assumption they are "sew smawtt" and everyone else has been "duped!"


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat fuck mouth and bitch and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.
> 
> Sad, really.


And he sinks further in the sand.  Yep can't prove it so get ugly.  That's expected. But no proof just seems utterly ridiculas to me, since that is what is needed to provide a theory.  So if the theory is there, then the evidence to reach said theory is expected.  Video please!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat fuck mouth and bitch and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.
> 
> Sad, really.



Until 2008, I was only peripherally interested in climate "science". I was on another Broad and one of the early AGWCult members was carrying on about a new paper that showed mankind was responsible for Global Warming (that's before it changed to Climate change or Climate Disruption.)

I downloaded and read the paper by Scarfetta and West and what I learned was that it was long on conjecture and very short on any experiments backing up the theory. Form memory I think they said the Sun was only 30% responsible for Global Warming (remember, that's before it changed to Climate change or Climate Disruption). When I looked for the methodology by which they assigned the various percent I came up with "well, it kind of feels right" as their reasoning. That's not exactly what they said but that's the impression I got. No science, no experiment, just a punt

That's when I knew the AGWCult was scamming us.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> There is a graph somewhere that shows a correlation between how depraved a hate/spite filled partisan mind is.......and how many threads they make in assumption they are "sew smawtt" and everyone else has been "duped!"


Wow, and the sink continues.  correlation is not causation.  See, you like all your brethern still haven't learned what the definition of cause is.  It is not correlation. Video please! Convince me with one of those hundred experiments.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> There is a graph somewhere that shows a correlation between how depraved a hate/spite filled partisan mind is.......and how many threads they make in assumption they are "sew smawtt" and everyone else has been "duped!"



Look, you got punked by the AGWCult. They know it's fake and they're laughing at how they took you in and duped you. Stop playing along with them


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Seriously, GT, your posting Alka-Seltzer tablets!!


----------



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

Your problem is that you dont understand.

Its clear cut and dry. 

Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.


----------



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

CrusaderFrank said:


> Seriously, GT, your posting Alka-Seltzer tablets!!



This is more an iteration of just how stupid you really are. Wow


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat fuck mouth and bitch and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.
> ...



For me, it was merely where I lived, that didn't match up to any of what was being advertised.   went to the internet and started researching, went to couple of message boards and well all of the searches and discussions and papers have told me one thing, it is just mumbo jumbo.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Your problem is that you dont understand.
> 
> Its clear cut and dry.
> 
> Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.



Yet, you still can't find a single experiment that shows warming from an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Your problem is that you dont understand.
> 
> Its clear cut and dry.
> 
> Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.


Wow, he went quick in that quicksand didn't he? That took less than an hour.


----------



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

A random science professor at a random university shows the internet how clear cut and easy it is to measure the effects of co2 concentration on temperature.....

And the response is...

Hahaha alka seltzer!YOU gotta be kidding me! (No youre right....its much more likely he was paid to propel the conspiracy further by letting the kids see for them fuckng selves!! Its genius!)


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is that you dont understand.
> ...


They all use the same talking points and follow the same pattern when put on the spot.  It's effin hilarious.

And you offered him a branch and he went down instead. LOL


----------



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

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is that you dont understand.
> ...



Are you really this daft? In real life....or just play it on the internet?

The dataset is for any ppm concentration you need to find. Youre problem is....you dont kow what the fuxk youre looking at. Im sorry. For ya.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> A random science professor at a random university shows the internet how clear cut and easy it is to measure the effects of co2 concentration on temperature.....
> 
> And the response is...
> 
> Hahaha alka seltzer!YOU gotta be kidding me! (No youre right....its much more likely he was paid to propel the conspiracy further by letting the kids see for them fuckng selves!! Its genius!)


Professor?  So you're a professor and you have no video feed of an experiment you boast about.  Prove it and show the video.  Your students just accept stuff eh? Liberal academics.


----------



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

Do you ever say anything relevant?

Im not a professor. The experiment i posted is what i was referring to idiot. Wow


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Do you ever say anything relevant?
> 
> Im not a professor. The experiment i posted is what i was referring to idiot. Wow



Well then you did a terrible job of explaining that point.  I see you never look in a mirror eh?
Nothing is ever your fault.  Ok, so my comments still don't change, wouldn't you think that a professor would video his/ her experiments?


----------



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

Fuck you need a video for? Are you going to contest a facet of the experiment with specifics or.......





Exactly.


----------



## konradv (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> ...



Easily done.  If you put 280 ppm CO2 in a spectrophotometer, it will absorb IR radiation.  If you put in 400 ppm, it will absorb more.  It's simple logic.  You're being disingenuous because you've been told this many times, but pretend to have never heard it before.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Fuck you need a video for? Are you going to contest a facet of the experiment with specifics or.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, with no video it's hard to contest anything except your claim, that isn't proven.


----------



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

Without a video you cant read the scientific means throughout the experiment and tell us which you take issue with?

Tell us more, bro. 

This is great.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 27, 2014)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



.04percent.

Out of every million molecules of atmosphere, 400 parts are CO2 in our latest worst case present day set of values.  

Because CO2 absorbs the IR radiation, it is considered the most important greenhouse gas.

Of course, the same molecules of CO2 that absorb IR also re-emit IR.

So what is the net effect of this trace atmospheric element in terms of the hypothesized "greenhouse" effect?

And where are the tests that demonstrate this?

What are the other forces within the climate "system" that offset any (alleged) increase in temperature?  For, after all, a "system" does often have a mechanical way of offsetting factors that throw it out of "balance."  Have our greenhouse global climate change cooling heating gurus done ANY appreciable amount of work calculating what forces might serve to offset the increasing temperature?

Why haven't we seen a massive increase in global temperature in the past 19 or 20 years?  All that added CO2 emission shit in the atmosphere would be expected to have noticeably pumped up the temperature over that period of time.  Right?

Is something offsetting the expected increase?  IF so, what?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Your problem is that you dont understand.
> 
> Its clear cut and dry.
> 
> Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.



Remember when Einstein called relativity "settled science"?

You got played G.T.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

The people running the scam must laugh themselves to sleep every night. They rebrand it weekly and the AGWCult never even asks why

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


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



Every example posted in this forum has turned out to be riddled with experimental error.


----------



## mamooth (May 27, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Out of every million molecules of atmosphere, 400 parts are CO2 in our latest worst case present day set of values.



Fallacy, that a small amount can't have an effect.



> Of course, the same molecules of CO2 that absorb IR also re-emit IR.



Fallacy, that the IR is reemitted only back out to space.



> So what is the net effect of this trace atmospheric element in terms of the hypothesized "greenhouse" effect?



The same effect as putting a thicker blanket around yourself. You get warmer.



> And where are the tests that demonstrate this?



Many examples have been posted here. Pretending the last century of physics doesn't exist only makes a person look delusional. Try not to emulate Frank/jc levels of cult brainwashing.



> Have our greenhouse global climate change cooling heating gurus done ANY appreciable amount of work calculating what forces might serve to offset the increasing temperature?



Yes, they constantly look at all factors. You seem to be assuming everyone else is as intellectually blinded as your own side. That's not the case.



> Why haven't we seen a massive increase in global temperature in the past 19 or 20 years?



But we have (though "massive" is your strawman, so we need not address it.) The models have been spot on correct, despite what lies you may have been told otherwise.



> All that added CO2 emission shit in the atmosphere would be expected to have noticeably pumped up the temperature over that period of time.  Right?



And it did. The cultists like to pretend the air temps haven't risen, and that the oceans don't exist at all. It's impossible to take anyone seriously if they spout nonsense of that magnitude.


----------



## mamooth (May 27, 2014)

jc456 said:


> This stuff just cracks me up.  the other day here in Chicago the temperature during the day was close to 88 degrees and when the sun went down it dropped to 50 degrees.  Needed to turn the furnace back on.  So technically I could have had the air on during the day and the furnace on at night.  Yet all that CO2 up there is supposed to keep us warm when the sun goes down.  Ain't working



Do you have any concept of how retarded your reasoning is?

You don't, of course, because you're an idiot. Look up Dunning-Kruger, you'll find your picture there as an example. That is, you're too stupid to be capable of understanding how stupid you are.

Rest assured that the normal people do understand how stupid you are. That accounts for the laughter that the whole planet is directing your way.


----------



## mamooth (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.



But there was observable warming, so you just look like a dishonest kook for claiming otherwise.

Now, try to locate your balls and tell us what data would falsify your relig ... I mean, theory. 

As it currently stands, your refusal to do so confirms what everyone already knows, that you're spouting cult pseudoscience. Science can be falsified. Denialism is a religion, hence there is literally nothing that can falsify it in the minds of those who believe in that religion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

The models that show warming, cooling, floods, droughts, hurricanes, locusts, still air, etc support the AGWCult theory.

Science is skepticism and rigorous testing; AGWCult, not so much. It sounds more like religious fanaticism


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.
> ...



There was?  Where? Can you point to one experiment that shows that??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

What's it called when you think somethings there, like an experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 increases temperature, but it's never there?

Delusional?


----------



## polarbear (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



That bozo experiment does not have any numbers period !
So do tell us then what the temperature difference was after letting it cool for 5 minutes...how many deg C ?
And would there be a temperature difference in the rate of cooling if you do it without the aluminum foil ?
How would you know..fact is you don`t !..else you would not have picked that b.s as proof....because there is no temperature difference if you take the cover off !!!
This setup, the glass container covered with alu-foil  is about as far as it can get from demonstrating how much heat can be *radiated* away at 15  µm, the wavelength where CO2 re-radiates, because 15 µm IR is not transmitted through glass.


> [SIZE=+1]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) [/SIZE]


Why is it that everybody who is posting these kiddie experiments has no clue whatsoever how AGW is supposed to work?
But this one is even dumber than any of the other ones that have been posted.
Since you can`t specify a number for delta T after 5 minutes of  cooling I`ll let you pick one and then I`ll let you do the math if there would be a temperature difference after 1 hour...I`ll even let you keep the tin foil on top of the jar for that.


> [SIZE=+1]Interpretation of your results:
> 
> Using the outcome of your experiment, answer the following questions.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=+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?[/SIZE]


Aside from the 2 polar circles where on earth do you have a situation where the "heat lamp" is off for only 5 minutes ?


> [SIZE=+1]The heat lamp is then turned off ("nighttime"), and the air allowed to cool naturally.
> ...[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]After cooling for five minutes, what was   the difference in their temperatures?[/SIZE] [/SIZE]


*In less than 10 minutes there won`t  be any difference in T even with the foil cover and 700 ppm CO2.*
So do explain how this bozo experiment is supposed to be proof of CO2 AGW with 350  ppm CO2 if there isn`t any additional heat left the next day?

How would 300 to 400 ppm CO2  build up heat over decades?
*And there is your problem...it has not !...* except for a few minutes in covered glass jars with twice the CO2 concentrations as we do have.


----------



## Crick (May 27, 2014)

Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643

My GOD are you people just *flabbergastingly* stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crusader Frank
> JC456
> PolarBear
> BriPat9643
> ...



Yeah, tell me more about your AGW Theory.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Crick: I can't put the AGW Theory into mere words! It's too, too, settled! We have Consensus, ya know! Not even Einstein had consensus! He had to do experiments! Bleh! Idiots!


----------



## Crick (May 27, 2014)

My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation.  I think no thread in years has so clearly shown the willful ignorance of the deniers here.  Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts on their side and which has discarded honesty and integrity in order to try to hold an absolutely unsupportable position for reasons having NOTHING to do with the science or the facts, need do NOTHING more than read this thread.  It could not be illustrated any more clearly.  Again, GT, thank you.


----------



## Crick (May 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick: I can't put the AGW Theory into mere words! It's too, too, settled! We have Consensus, ya know! Not even Einstein had consensus! He had to do experiments! Bleh! Idiots!



Tell us about the experiments Einstein conducted.  Please.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation.  I think no thread in years has so clearly shown the willful ignorance of the deniers here.  Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts on their side and which has discarded honesty and integrity in order to try to hold an absolutely unsupportable position for reasons having NOTHING to do with the science or the facts, need do NOTHING more than read this thread.  It could not be illustrated any more clearly.  Again, GT, thank you.



LOL!!! Seriously!! LOL

We ask you for evidence, we get nothing.
We ask you to tell us your "theory" we get insults!
LOL

You're being played!

Any second now Ashton Kutcher jumps out and tell you the Warmers have been Punked! I mean didn't you realize it when they keep changing the name? LOL


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crusader Frank
> JC456
> PolarBear
> BriPat9643
> ...



That appears to be the list of people who have correctly identified you as a moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick: I can't put the AGW Theory into mere words! It's too, too, settled! We have Consensus, ya know! Not even Einstein had consensus! He had to do experiments! Bleh! Idiots!
> ...



Other people did the experiments.  Einstein's theories have been validated over and over and over again.  In fact, our GPS system depends on relativity being correct.  The system wouldn't operate otherwise.


----------



## Crick (May 27, 2014)

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.



Who does the experiments is irrelevant.  Don't confirm the fact that you're a moron.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


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



Several problems with the experiment outlined. First, you were asked to show an experiment where CO2 concentrations went from 280 PPM to 400 PPM, this experiment would change from ambient to 700 PPM. Secondly, the questions at the end are biased bullshit from a book with an agenda.
Yes a great deal of fresh water is contained in ice sheets, but as we've seen recently, ice sheets melt and return, Your ice free arctic predictions still are bullshit. All that aside, melting the ice sheets wouldn't cause lower rainfall, but more than likely it would increase rainfall because the oceans would have more surface area from which water vapor could evaporate.
Corn in stead of yielding less, would yield more due to increased rainfall AND increased CO2.

Science has no agenda, no vested interest in the outcome and does not label and demean dissent.
What you and the author of your little exercise in indoctrination have done is akin to a "scientist" hired by a sugar company feeding a lab rat a pound of saccharine a day and determining that there is a health risk to humans that use a gram a day to sweeten their coffee.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.
> 
> Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.
> 
> Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.



"Denialism" LO fucking, L. So now the AWG cult is calling anyone not down with group think, heretics.


----------



## freedombecki (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crusader Frank
> JC456
> PolarBear
> BriPat9643
> ...



Hardly. But by saying so you revealed a lot more about yourself than the brilliant people of mathematics, science and letters whom you attacked.


----------



## Dot Com (May 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.
> 
> Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.
> 
> Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.



^ that

all deniers seem to do is attack the research of 96% of scientists


----------



## freedombecki (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Fuck you need a video for? Are you going to contest a facet of the experiment with specifics or.......
> Exactly.



This is a science board, not the black board jungle, G.T.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.



Experiments for gravity lensing were performed after his death. So he never knew the feeling of having consensus or settled science. 

So what's your theory of agw

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.
> ...



Research you say maybe you can find the experiment that shows a temperature increase from raising CO2 from 280 to 400

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2014)

G.T. said:


> are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> 
> cuz it has been reproduced in a lab
> 
> and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature









Actually, the only thing that has been shown in a lab, is that CO2 is indeed a GHG.  That's all.  There has been NO work that shows how effective it is.  There has been NO work that demonstrates that a 100ppm increase will have any effect whatsoever.  

By all means feel free to trot out one of those innumerable youtube experiments, just realize that what they are demonstrating are actually the Ideal Gas Laws.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.



Einstein theorized the existence of black holes which were only confirmed after his death. So again no consensus and no settled science. We recently created a black hole in a lab how come the AGWCult can't create an atmosphere of 400ppm CO2 in a lab

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Ernie S. (May 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.
> ...



And then observable cooling after even higher concentrations of CO2.

You people are desperate. Your high priests know they are loosing the battle but yet they march you onward confident that if they can convince enough of you by reconfiguring their data and computer models, to vote against your own self interests they can bring about those "fundamental changes" your Lord and Savior spoke of 5 days before his ascension... err election.


----------



## polarbear (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation.  I think no thread in years has so clearly shown the willful ignorance of the deniers here.  Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts on their side and which has discarded honesty and integrity in order to try to hold an absolutely unsupportable position for reasons having NOTHING to do with the science or the facts, need do NOTHING more than read this thread.  It could not be illustrated any more clearly.  Again, GT, thank you.



How much more retarded can it get?
*What kind of experimental proof is an experiment that does not even state a result ?*
..*.but asks* how much warmer is it with 700 ppm CO2 after 5 minutes of cooling.
*and all the while the CO2 inside that foil covered glass jar is totally irrelevant*
because the *glass walls absorb way more 15  µm IR than CO2* can and the foil on top reflects it back down into the jar.

Whatever cooling you get now *is not by heat radiation, but by heat conduction* to the glass and from there to the ambient air.
Retards like you first of all assume that with the extra CO2 it stayed warmer after 5 minutes elapsed because CO2 does indeed absorb IR.
*Nobody ever disputed that CO2  absorbs IR* !!!

I guess I have to lead you by the hand because you are just way too obtuse to understand what I said in my previous post about this utterly stupid experiment.
This bozo first heats that jar with a heat lamp till the air inside is 15 deg hotter.
That won`t take  long, *but it would take a lot longer till the mass of the glass is also 15 deg hotter*and it won`t be.
Now switches off the heat lamp and notes the temperature after 5 minutes.
*Because the glass is still cooler, it will therefore drop faster than  the second time around* when he adds 1.6 milligrams of Alka Seltzer.
(B.t.w. I`ld like to see him do that...how he says to do  that, *no Chemist would even try to do it like that*
But never mind, after the 5 minute cooling time he adds the Alka Seltzer and turns on the heat lamp again.
*It doesn`t dawn on you that the second time around the glass is now way warmer than the first time, does it?*
Of course the air inside will be warmer after 5 minutes of cooling because of that and would be even if he did not add any CO2.
*So all he demonstrated is that a glass jar full of air stays warmer if the glass was warmer than before* he added Alka Seltzer
But you and the idiot who posted that crap never realized that.

*Nowhere does he say that he let the glass cool down for x- amount of time till it was at ambient temperature before he turned on his heat lamp again.
*
No wonder he does not publish any numbers because the results would be ridiculous.
*He is telling you to do it, that`s all and never even bothered to state a result.*
This does not even qualify as a  "thought experiment" and peer review is impossible
*Pardon me, there are a few morons here who passed it and approved the results, without even knowing the results:*


> My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation...
> Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts
> It could not be illustrated any more clearly.  Again, GT, thank you.


You retards clamor to anything, even the dumbest crap you can find on the internet.
It illustrates clearly that you are still the same idiot before when you called yourself "Abraham3" and pretty soon you`ll have to change your name again


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat fuck mouth and bitch and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.
> 
> Sad, really.



Your goofy experiment demonstrates a phenomenon known as the heat of compression, not that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.  There are all sorts of experiments online that claim to show the warming properties of CO2, but they all, without a single exception demonstrate something other than the claim that a small increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause warming.  

It is easy to be fooled by experiments if you don't have a limited knowledge base.  My worry is whether or not the supposed scientists who are doing these experiments are deliberately deceiving or if they actually believe they are demonstrating the claimed warming property of CO2.


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

konradv said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




Really?  The absorption bandwidth changes with the concentration?  Are you sure about that?  And is the radiation emitted at the same frequency as it was absorbed?  Is it emitted in a frequency that can be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crusader Frank
> JC456
> PolarBear
> BriPat9643
> ...



Seriously, in your own words, without getting to elaborate, can you describe how you believe the greenhouse effect works?


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

SSDD said:
			
		

> Seriously, in your own words, without getting to elaborate, can you describe how you believe the greenhouse effect works?



Why waste my time?  The problem doesn't lie in the science and it doesn't lie in the explanations.  It lies in you and your choices.


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.
> ...



You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.
> ...



I'm not the one spouting unsupportable nonsense, am I.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Yes you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Why don't you explain what he got wrong?


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


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



It would be quicker to explain what he got right.

"   "

This Einstein conversation is simply a way for the lot of you to run away from what has to be an extraordinarily embarrassing conversation about your reaction to a clear and simple experiment demonstrating precisely what you all said couldn't be demonstrated and which you have all fallen over each other dissembling, prevaricating, feigning blindness and just outright lying in a wasted attempt to convince yourselves and the world that we didn't read what we just read.

The greenhouse effect is real and it is precisely as effective as modern science says it is.

The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly  be experiencing for the next several hundred more.

Humans are, by far, the primary source of that additional CO2.

The decision to deny those point - YOUR decision to deny those points can only be the result of ignorant prejudice.

Clear enough?

BTW, you might want to look up what Einstein thought of Schwarzchild's work.

And Einstein's discovery of relativity, both special and general, whether correct or not, did not make it accepted science.  It became accepted science when it was ACCEPTED by the majority of the experts in the field.  

Sometimes I wonder if any of you speak English.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 28, 2014)

You know, sometimes you don't really need to do experiments.  It is enough just to read that the AGW proponents agree that their climate models haven't produced a great deal of accuracy yet.  But never fear.  They will.  At least they will if the government keeps funneling billions of dollars into their bank accounts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Uh huh. Can you point out the error of my ways? Consider it a "teaching moment"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



"The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly  be experiencing for the next several hundred more."

That's your Theory! That's not a "Fact"

You've never shown us how this works in a laboratory setting, not even one time. For all the billions spend on "Climate research" there's not a single experiment you can show us that demonstrates a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2.

Why is that?


----------



## freedombecki (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


You are when your answer to someone's request for supporting your case for greenhouse gas effect is "why waste my time."


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly  be experiencing for the next several hundred more..




There is a glaring flaw in your reasoning and it renders your hypothesis failed.  

While CO2 levels were 280ppm 150 years ago, they had only climbed to about 310 in 1960 and most of the 20th century warming occurred prior to 1940.  So most of the warming in the past 150 years happened with an increase of CO2 from 280ppm to 310ppm.   In 1998 they were about 360ppm and since 1998 they have increased to 400 (give or take) but no warming has occurred since they were 360...and again, most of the 20th century warming was prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were at 310ppm or below.  

Those facts are enough to invalidate your CO2 hypothesis alone...never mind the near endless stream of other failures.


----------



## jc456 (May 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Just so I have it right, during that 150 years, was there ice melting at the poles?  Because if there was, then the loss of ice volume could be a valid reason why temperatures were warmer.  I only point to this past winter in Chicago where the Great Lakes were covered in ice, and we were told by the Meterologists that we would have a cooler spring due to the volume of ice that needed to melt influencing temperatures in our area!!!!!!!! So less ice would mean it would be warmer.  When I drink a glass of water with ice, as the ice melts in the glass, the water isn't as cold any longer.  Meaning the water is warmer.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Out of every million molecules of atmosphere, 400 parts are CO2 in our latest worst case present day set of values.
> ...



SOMETIMES small amounts of things CAN have significant effects.  But YOU folks have failed to demonstrate that the trace amounts of atmospheric CO2 is one of those things.



mamooth said:


> > Of course, the same molecules of CO2 that absorb IR also re-emit IR.
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy, that the IR is reemitted only back out to space.



Patently untrue.  In fact, there is NO evidence to support the proposition that such re-emission is "only" back out into space.

I didn't REALLY ask for a generally ignorant child like manboob to simply re-state the unestablished (A)GW hypothesis.


----------



## jc456 (May 28, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> You know, sometimes you don't really need to do experiments.  It is enough just to read that the AGW proponents agree that their climate models haven't produced a great deal of accuracy yet.  But never fear.  They will.  At least they will if the government keeps funneling billions of dollars into their bank accounts.



This is very true, yet those same proponents aren't willing to drive for new models, instead stay infatuated with them so that over time they can be right.  Hence for me, the need for the experiment that will actually either, validate their assertions and hypothesis or for once demonstrate the fallacy of the models.

See we all have the actual temperatures from 1940 to 1970 where the temperatures actually went down in that 30 year cycle while CO2 was at 310 PPM .  The scramble from the warmers is that other factors were involved.  Ya think?  And for me why banking only on CO2 as an only factor in temperatures is obsurd.

Oh and the last fifteen years haitus doesn't help them either as you so correctly pointed out.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.

It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.

what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

IanC said:


> Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.
> 
> It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.
> 
> what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.



So my suspicion is that they've tried these tests and it fails their Theory, that's why they never ever show the results


----------



## elektra (May 28, 2014)

CO2, the rant goes on, literally. 

If CO2 is the problem why do AGW activists demand the increase in use of fossil fuels. 

Why do AGW activists demand that Heavy Industry be expanded.

Why do AGW activists turn a blind eye and deny thier contribution to the rise of CO2.

Nothing in California has created as much CO2 as the construction of our largest structures, Solar Panels and Wind Turbine plants. 

Largest in the World they brag.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.
> ...



that is my belief as well. failed experiments are supposed to be available as well but in climate science there is a bias "not to give fodder to the skeptics", so negative or equivical results get put in the round filing cabinet. the recent refusal to publish that Scandinavian's critique of climate sensitivities is a case in point.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

elektra said:


> CO2, the rant goes on, literally.
> 
> If CO2 is the problem why do AGW activists demand the increase in use of fossil fuels.
> 
> ...



lol. are you taking too much medication? or too little?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 28, 2014)

The AGW Faith crowd OUGHT to be DEMANDING nuclear power, to be consistent with their fear, loathing, disdain for (and did I mention fear of?) atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Mustang (May 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.
> 
> Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.
> 
> ...




There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that means is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.


----------



## jc456 (May 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


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



Dude, as asked for more than 20 times on here, you have walked into a prove it scenario.  If your claim is that CO2 is a causal influence, then our position is and has been show us the experiment that proves that.  Why oh why if this is so simple is this the most difficult task on the planet at this time for you all?  Just show us the support video that demonstrates what you just wrote and repeated. I will Repeat!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


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



"Because I say so" Does not make it a "Fact"

Get your lab coat on and run the experiment showing us how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature


----------



## elektra (May 28, 2014)

G.T. said:


> do this on video franky so we can ensure you did it all correctly hun,
> 
> Equipment and Materials
> &#8226;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.
> ...



Uh, Alka Seltzer? Who's idiotic idea is that, a person who is not a Scientist. 

1. If the person who came up with this had even a basic knowledge of Science, like a 1st grade level of Science they would use sodium hydrogen carbonate and acetic acid as the source of CO2.

2. The use of a heat lamp destroys the validity of the experiment. The claim is cosmic radiation causes the C02 in the atmosphere to vibrate thus giving off heat. Cosmic radiation striking/colliding with CO2 is claimed to be sufficient enough to raise the temperature by 1 degree thus this will be easily demonstrated, if true, factual.

3. Unless I missed something, you need two of everything except the source of CO2, you would need a second atmosphere, a "control atmosphere", with less CO2, like 280 ppm or less. 

Of course bottles full of gas are about the same as the Global Warming Activists, irrelevant as far as the science goes. 

The use of Alka Seltzer by these Scientists is a trick, Alka Seltzer must be dissolved in WATER, with all that bubbling and fizzing going on the contained atmosphere will increase in humidity, H2O. You will thus be measuring the effect of a heat lamp on water. 

H2O, the heat lamp will cause the humidity to be higher, longer. 

It is a settled science that H2O has the greatest effect on our earth's temperature, that is why Alka Seltzer and Water is used, it increases both. 

This experiment does prove two things

1. Idiots are easily fooled.

2. Scientists are liars


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

Einstein used a thought experiment to demonstrate that gravity could bend light, the proof had to wait 60 years after. Until then, no genuine scientist ever claimed the "Science was settled" or there was "Consensus"

Where's the Warmers proof, why are they jumping to consensus?


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


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



you are the one who is confused. CO2 retards longwave radiation, not solar shortwave.

if anything CO2  increases evaporation at the surface boundary which causes clouds to form earlier in the day which then increases the albedo and therefore increases the solar shortwave that escapes. the CERES data would seem to agree that SW has replaced LW to a small extent at the top of the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Einstein used a thought experiment to demonstrate that gravity could bend light, the proof had to wait 60 years after. Until then, no genuine scientist ever claimed the "Science was settled" or there was "Consensus"
> 
> Where's the Warmers proof, why are they jumping to consensus?



actually Einstein's theory was proved by Eddington in the early 30's when he made accurate measurements during a solar eclipse. the experiment was pepared well in advance, specifically to prove one way or the other if Einstein was right. he was, and it made the front headlines in many newspapers.


----------



## polarbear (May 28, 2014)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You nailed it!
Case in point is what just happened to Lennart Bengtsson.


> Dear Professor Henderson,
> I have been put under such an enormous  group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become  virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be  unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my  health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than  resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide  pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my  active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues  are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
> I see no limit and end to what will  happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I  would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful  community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent  years.
> Under these situation I will be unable to  contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I  believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board  at the earliest possible time.
> ...



The only thing Bengtsson was guilty of was that he confirmed the errors in the IPCC climate models he was working on while he was at the Max Planck Institute. So what were the zealots afraid of?
That somebody like the GWPF would fund him to come up with a more accurate computer model?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It's Scientific Fascism, or more accurately Fanaticism.  It's not Science


----------



## Mustang (May 28, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why do you think it's called the greenhouse effect?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Um, because it causes Global Cooling Warming Climate Change Disruption?


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



I think you would find 'consensus' in climate scientists that the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an apt description because the atmospheric effect is based on radiation while actual greenhouses are based on suppression of convection.


----------



## jc456 (May 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Oh please, give me your definition.  Let's see what it is you think CO2 can do!


----------



## polarbear (May 28, 2014)

IanC said:


> Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.
> 
> It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.
> 
> *what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money* than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.



Yeah, how much could it cost to run a* controlled experiment* like so many other (quite trivial) ones that have been carried out on the ISS ?

That would be the best place to do it.
In a 1g environment convection interferes and if we want to determine how much heat is prevented from escaping* by radiative transfer alone* then it would be better to conduct such experiments* first without convection.
*None of these experiments that have been tried so far allow convection either because they have been carried out in small containers with some sort of lid on top. So in all fairness we would need one where a gas with precise CO2 concentrations is not bottled up and heated in a small 1 gallon vessel.
(...And in vessels that hinder long wave IR radiation)
There is no problem at all to control how much ambient CO2 is in any of the much larger ISS compartments.
Also they don`t have any problems to get their hands on lenses that do not absorb long wave  IR the way ordinary glass does as in these childish experiments that are on the internet.
On the ISS it would be easy to pass sunlight through a path length of air+CO2 *which simulates* how much IR the atmosphere strips out *before* sunlight hits the earth surface and warms it.
*And after that* it`s quite easy to measure how warm objects of a known composition, mass, albedo and reflectivity  get if they have to radiate through various concentrations of CO2.
Like You and I keep saying, nobody sane disputes *that CO2 does  absorb IR.* Matter of fact we do now *exactly how much* with any decent IR spectrophotometer...and we also do know that the relationship between % absorption and concentration* is logarithmic.*
The prize question is not how much it absorbs, but (exactly) how much  warmer an object gets if it gets heated with a light source which has the *same spectral composition as sunlight that** already passed through known concentrations of CO2 in air.*
Conducting this experiment on the ISS would be the best way to get *accurate numbers for the radiative transfer process*.
Nailing down *accurate numbers for convection* and H2O evaporation  is easy enough to do later in a 1g environment in any physics lab.
*But as long as it is politically incorrect to scrutinize AGW there won`t be any chance that any such experiment will be conducted on the ISS.
*However, if you would want to know what happens to   "Silly Putty" in a micro gravity environment they oblige, no problem:
Students' Silly Putty Experiment Goes to Space - Schools - Santa Monica, CA Patch


> *Students' Silly Putty Experiment Goes to Space*
> 
> The kids want to  know if Silly Putty  manufactured in near-zero-gravity has a different  physical structure than Silly Putty mixed together on Earth. The project  is in the Hawthorne-made rocket and craft launched at NASA's Cape  Canaveral.


----------



## whitehall (May 28, 2014)

The AGW theory suggests that the world was created in the late 1800's when modern instruments were used to record weather and that evidence of the ice ages and the mini ice ages should be disregarded.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 28, 2014)

The calmest most reflective AGW Faith-based proponent will respond to the fact that ice ages occurred and warming periods ensued long before humankind created the first CO2 emitting industry on the face of the Earth with the following:

"but but but 


CO2!"


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2014)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.
> ...





Great idea! But they probably know the results would be less than spectacular. That's why there are no terrestial experiments that are highlighted as proof in an analytical fashion.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 28, 2014)

I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.

CO2 causes ice to melt.


----------



## mamooth (May 28, 2014)

elektra said:


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



Say what?

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


----------



## mamooth (May 28, 2014)

I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.

We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".

So we give them the most basic setup possible, and they squeal "it's too simple!".

Way to cart those goalposts back and forth, deniers. As is clearly illustrated by denier behavior here, denialism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of those who hold faith in it, and thus clearly falls in the realm of pseudoscience.


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



I already have.  You missed it.


----------



## Crick (May 28, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> The calmest most reflective AGW Faith-based proponent will respond to the fact that ice ages occurred and warming periods ensued long before humankind created the first CO2 emitting industry on the face of the Earth with the following:"but but but CO2!"



Are you really unable to see how flawed is that logic?


----------



## HelenaHandbag (May 28, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.
> 
> CO2 causes ice to melt.


So, the evil genius behind disruptive global climate denialism is...


----------



## polarbear (May 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.
> 
> We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".
> 
> ...



*You consider that a "scientific paper" ?*

Is the Earth Warming?


> *[SIZE=+3]IS THE EARTH WARMING?
> [/SIZE]*
> *[SIZE=+1]Level: Senior high (and junior high for Part B)[/SIZE]*[SIZE=+1]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
> 
> ...


So why don`t you and "Crick", aka prophet Abraham the 3rd tell the IPCC or wikipedia that you peer reviewed it and see if they publish it as a *"scientific paper"* or if any of the 97% consensus scientist will use it as a "scientific paper" for a reference.Maybe they would also " like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, " which according to you guys proves what none of the billion  $ computer climate models could do quite as "excellent"
That`s why I like looking into this forum there  is always something in here which appeals to my sense of humor.
I wonder what`s next


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.
> 
> We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".
> 
> ...




You give us flawed paper after flawed paper describing flawed experiment after flawed experiment and for that you congratulate yourself.  It is your basic misunderstanding of the science that causes you to be fooled by all these flawed experiments.  You don't have a clue what they are actually showing...you see warming and assume that in the open atmosphere warming is occurring.....because you are ignorant.


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I could have predicted that answer.  None of you guys want to state your hypothesis because you all have different hypotheses about how AGW is supposed to work.  I have asked 3 warmers recently to describe how they believe AGW works and none of them has described the "official" version of the hypothesis...

So again, lets here your personal version.  Or are you to embarrassed over it to actually speak it in public?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I'd also like to thank GT for the excellent experiment, followed by a double-facepalm after watching the deniers react to it.
> 
> We give them paper after paper, and they squeal "it's too complicated!".
> 
> ...



LOL.  manboob would like to thank gitty, but it would have to be disingenuous.

Not that this would deter manboob.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 29, 2014)

Crick said:


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



prickabe's fundamentally dishonest way of talking almost hides his actual answer.

In short CF, that's a "no."  He can't.  He certainly won't.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > The calmest most reflective AGW Faith-based proponent will respond to the fact that ice ages occurred and warming periods ensued long before humankind created the first CO2 emitting industry on the face of the Earth with the following:"but but but CO2!"
> ...



Actually, you mental pygmy, the post of mine you just quoted was derisive and mocking of the claims of you hapless AGW Faith cultist hacks.

Are ou truly as stupid as you would have to be to miss that point, you idiot?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 29, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.
> ...



^ the preceding post has been PEER REVIEWED and found to be 100% perfect in every imaginable way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2014)

In the Sherlock Holmes story "Silver Blaze" a key piece of evidence is a dog that didn't bark in the night. The dog didn't bark because there was no stranger to set it off; the dog was very familiar with the nighttime visitor

In much the same way, the lack of any true experiments by the AGWCult betrays a deeper truth: they offer no evidence of temperature from a 120PPM increase in CO2 because there is no increase! They've tried the experiments but because they know the experiment falsifies their Theory, they never offer it up.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> In the Sherlock Holmes story "Silver Blaze" a key piece of evidence is a dog that didn't bark in the night. The dog didn't bark because there was no stranger to set it off; the dog was very familiar with the nighttime visitor
> 
> In much the same way, the lack of any true experiments by the AGWCult betrays a deeper truth: they offer no evidence of temperature from a 120PPM increase in CO2 because there is no increase! They've tried the experiments but because they know the experiment falsifies their Theory, they never offer it up.



That amounts to scientific dishonesty!

Someone should tell the IPCC about this!


----------



## mamooth (May 29, 2014)

Denier kooks, what's the problem with using alka-seltzer as a CO2 source there?

Y'all won't answer that, being you tend to be stupid and cowardly. You can't address the issue, so you're deflecting again, like you always do. Sucks to be a denier. All the data and logic always disagrees with them, so they constantly have to think up new and ever more creative ways to handwave reality away.

And why are you all pissing yourselves over the simple experiment? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't disprove denialism. You'd be far more sensible to take the lukewarmer position, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but doesn't have that much of an effect. If you go that way, you can still invoke the great socialist conspiracy. However, you won't be required to declare the past century of phsyics is a hoax, and thus appear as total barking loons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Denier kooks, what's the problem with using alka-seltzer as a CO2 source there?
> 
> Y'all won't answer that, being you tend to be stupid and cowardly. You can't address the issue, so you're deflecting again, like you always do. Sucks to be a denier. All the data and logic always disagrees with them, so they constantly have to think up new and ever more creative ways to handwave reality away.
> 
> And why are you all pissing yourselves over the simple experiment? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't disprove denialism. You'd be far more sensible to take the lukewarmer position, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but doesn't have that much of an effect. If you go that way, you can still invoke the great socialist conspiracy. However, you won't be required to declare the past century of phsyics is a hoax, and thus appear as total barking loons.



Hey Admiral, you Warmers collected billions for your research and all you have to show for it is Alka-Seltzer?

How come you still haven't found that one experiment that shows a warming from a 120PPM increase in CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2014)

"ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURES WERE WARMER IN THE 1800&#8242;S AND 1940&#8242;S

Date: 28/05/14 The Hockey Schtick
A new paper published in the Annals of Glaciology shows Antarctic air temperatures were warmer during the early 1800&#8242;s and 1940&#8242;s in comparison to the end of the 20th century. The authors find evidence of a quasi-periodic climate cycle lasting 30-50 years, with at least 5 climate shifts over the past 350 years, the last beginning during the 1970&#8242;s."

Antarctic Temperatures Were Warmer In The 1800?s And 1940?s | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

USS AGWCult struck amidship, listing badly to port!  Mayday!


----------



## Foxfyre (May 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Denier kooks, what's the problem with using alka-seltzer as a CO2 source there?
> ...



Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.  And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics.  According to a recent Rasmussen Poll - Environment Update - Rasmussen Reports? -  a substantial number of Americans do believe in global warming but less than a majority believe it is a serious problem or are willing to pay more to fight it.  But in a separate poll, a majority of Americans believe scientists have not been 100% honest in promoting AGW, and I think if the media had been as competent to report that as they have been to promote AGW, public perception would be very different than what it is.  Most folks say they believe it is happening, but are obviously not worried enough about it to change their lifestyles.

But according to a USA Today article this week - Poll questions shift public views on global warming - who you ask and how the questions are asked can radically change the poll results.

So we are back to the basics.  When the climate models again and again prove ineffective in predicting or identifying real time climate conditions, and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it, those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


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



The scary thing is that the Warmer Cult fights like a Nazi Blitzkrieg against any legitimate scientists who dares to question them. If they had any real confidence in their theory, they would welcome the skeptics.

Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world | Mail Online


----------



## Foxfyre (May 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes, that is something else the critical thinkers take note of:  that no arguments questioning the AGW dogma or proposing other theories are permitted in the debate in any significant way.  That alone should give pause for thought.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Right. But you said "For thought" and that's the first thing to go when you join a cult.


----------



## Crick (May 29, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.



No, they are not.  Those capable of critical thinking accept AGW as a valid description of climate behavior.  There are no huge holes in AGW and there is no AGW religion.

If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim.  A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".



Foxfyre said:


> And little by little, those who take the time to really look at the propaganda are becoming skeptics--not deniers but skeptics.



Again, what evidence do you have that those who have become skeptics have taken the time to "really look at the propaganda"?  You have none whatsoever.  For that matter, what evidence do you have that evidence supporting AGW is propaganda?  Again, you have none.  



Foxfyre said:


> According to a recent Rasmussen Poll -



Rasmussen polls might as well be conducted by the editorial staff of Fox News.  No offense, but they are crap.  The CONSISTENTLY show greater support for conservative positions than ANY OTHER POLLING organisation.



Foxfyre said:


> a substantial number of Americans do believe in global warming



Those must be the people incapable of critical thinking, who have not taken the time to really look at the propaganda.  Right?

And I find it more than a little amusing after FCT (and IanC) has attempted to rake me over the coals for the quality of the surveys showing majority support for AGW among climate scientists, that he wouldn't raise the slightest peep over a survey  asking whether or not "Americans do believe in global warming".  What do you mean Ms Fyre?  Was this a poll asking whether or not they believed the world was getting warmer or whether or not human activity had anything to do with it?  Their really aren't a lot of folks who reject the FACT that the world has gotten warmer - some... some here.  But out in the real world, not many at all.  It's sort of a nutcase, flatEarther position.



Foxfyre said:


> but less than a majority believe it is a serious problem or are willing to pay more to fight it.



And, of course, the general public are the experts.  And they have so consistently shown a willingness to PAY for fending off complex and difficult-to-discern problems decades away.  This is certainly hard proof that human have had nothing to do with global warming and that there is nothing to worry about.  Or perhaps even that there is no warming taking place at all.  Right?



Foxfyre said:


> But in a separate poll, a majority of Americans believe scientists have not been 100% honest in promoting AGW



How much less than 100% do they believe they have been?  Have they been 99% honest?  1% honest?  Something in between?  And what is it they've been dishonest about?  There are a lot of scientists on Earth and they have told us a great many different things.  Here's another survey that all my experience informs me FCT would speak out against.  Yet not a peep.  Not a single peep.  



Foxfyre said:


> and I think if the media had been as competent to report that as they have been to promote AGW, public perception would be very different than what it is.  Most folks say they believe it is happening, but are obviously not worried enough about it to change their lifestyles.



How many times, in discussions about consensus views, have deniers brought up that a majority of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System, thought diseases were caused by demons, thought the stars were attached to crystal spheres?  From these sorts of points, we can only assume that they believe scientists are idiots and fools and their opinion on just about anything should not be taken.  But are we then to take the opinion of the far less educated general public?  And not their consensus opinions - not that of some overwhelming majority of the public rejecting AGW, but that support among them for the AGW theory is something less than a strong consensus - on THAT they argue we should reject the overwhelming support it gets from the true experts in the field. 



Foxfyre said:


> But according to a USA Today article this week, who you ask and how the questions are asked can radically change the poll results.



Really?  Are you certain?  That is AMAZING!



Foxfyre said:


> So we are back to the basics.  When the climate models again and again prove ineffective in predicting or identifying real time climate conditions



So, we are back to the basics.  When the deniers think that simply repeating their falsehoods will convince the public - as polls show they have - to doubt science and to doubt scientists when they talk about global warming and human's role in the process...



Foxfyre said:


> , and when there is apparently no research done to support the theory that it human caused CO2 will endanger civilization as we know it



And when deniers take advantage of their willingness to lie about just about anything



Foxfyre said:


> those capable of critical thinking are paying attention to that.



Is that you?  Do you believe yourself to be capable to a superior degree of critical thinking?  Is this post evidence of that?  Is it?

Amazing.  FCT, Ian, do you see nothing wrong in this lady's post?  Do you see no flaws in the logic displayed here?  Do you see no problem with the surveys she mentions?  Are you REALLY okay with arguments such as those she's made here?  Do you believe them to be as valid as necessary to form an informed opinion?  Eh?  I'd really like to hear your HONEST opinions.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 29, 2014)

Sorry Crick.  I don't chop up posts like that to respond and I don't read those others chop up.  Just a personal preference.  Thanks for understanding.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 29, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> I put ice into my carbonated seltzer water and, wouldn't you know it, the ice melted.
> 
> CO2 causes ice to melt.



Well heck.  Next time use frozen CO2 instead of H20 ice and you'll get better results.  

About the only place on Earth that gets cold enough to make it naturally though is Antartica, and there is so little of it in the atmosphere that at most you might find a trace of CO2 frost.


----------



## Crick (May 29, 2014)

This was great fun.  We got to watch as your most fundamental claim was completely and totally refuted - and then enjoyed the added entertainment of watching you all falling all over each other in an absolutely PATHETIC attempt to say it wasn't so.  

It really was fun.


----------



## SSDD (May 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim.  A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".



Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 was supposedly at "safe" levels.  Co2 has increased half as much since 1998 as it did from 1940 to 1998 and there has been no warming at all.  The "CO2 as climate control knob simply doesn't stand up to the facts.

A single failure of a hypothesis is justifiable reason to disregard it and go back to the drawing board...the fact that most of the 20th century warming occurred prior to 1940 and the fact that there has been no warming for almost 2 decades now while atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased represent 2 failures of the hypothesis.  

How many failures would cause you to acknowledge that it has been falsified?


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.
> ...





do you not see your double standard when it comes to polling? Rasmussen was judging public opinion and Im sure they added the boilerplate of adding theuncertainty of the answers, and the caveat of 19 times out of twenty. why do you get to choose which polls are right and which ones are wrong? the skeptical side has indeed criticized past papers that put forth the 97% consensus meme. they have specific complaints which have not been addressed. often the data is hidden away to thwart scrutiny, such as in the latest Cook/ U of Queensland fiasco.

but you cannot see that point of view, can you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> This was great fun.  We got to watch as your most fundamental claim was completely and totally refuted - and then enjoyed the added entertainment of watching you all falling all over each other in an absolutely PATHETIC attempt to say it wasn't so.
> 
> It really was fun.



Er, sorry, when did I miss the experiment you posted showing a temperature increase by increasing CO2 by 120PPM?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 30, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You have no clue what point of view I can or cannot see and I made no comment on what polls are right or wrong.  I do know how Rasmussen does his polling, and it is perhaps the most respected in the country by both left and right.   If you look at the data he compiles, you will see that it supports your point of view as much as anybody elses.  But your knee jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was making about the warmers being incapable of critical thinking.  So thanks for the illustration.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



are you addressing me or crickham? I was addressing crickham as the quote clearly shows.


----------



## mamooth (May 30, 2014)

Deniers, what does Occam's Razor tell you concerning your theory? That is, which would be more probable:
1. That the whole planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy.
2. That you screwed something up.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, what does Occam's Razor tell you concerning your theory? That is, which would be more probable:
> 1. That the whole planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy.
> 2. That you screwed something up.



Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?

The bureaucracy formed at that time, as well as groupthink, has made it difficult to back down from the catastrophic predictions made. No one likes to lose face over being found out that they made a mistake and jumped to erroneous conclusions.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 30, 2014)

IanC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ah yes, I did misread who was quoting whom.  I was addressing him in the erroneous assumption he was addressing me.  So just ignore it.  My bad.


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If you disagree, show us some evidence of your claim.  A poll of the general public is hardly evidence concerning the choices of "those capable of critical thinking".
> ...



I see as, they think they are right, so therefore, they are right and nothing, I mean nothing will ever convince them otherwise.  They have no eyes or reason.  They are just right!  So, they think they are gods!!!!! That's why they believe they get to choose what data to use, instead of ones that mother nature provides them, why they get to release peer papers only, count which polls are most accurate and on and on, etc'era, etc'era.

Nice post by the way!


----------



## mamooth (May 30, 2014)

IanC said:


> Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?



Um ... what?



> The bureaucracy formed at that time, as well as groupthink, has made it difficult to back down from the catastrophic predictions made. No one likes to lose face over being found out that they made a mistake and jumped to erroneous conclusions.



A fine history of the denier movement. Instead of admitting they messed up, they instead choose to dig ever deeper into the conspiracy hole.


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



it happens


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Little by little, the people who are still capable of critical thinking are seeing the huge holes in the whole AGW religion.
> ...



What a hoot, and does not compute! You're wrong, even if you posted this another hundred/ thousand times, you ....... are......... wrong!!!!!!!!


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...









No problem. I assumed it was just a mixup.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?
> ...





No conspiracy, at least on our part. The climategate emails do make your side look bad though. Mann' sequestered emails would be even worse.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Warmers, what does Occam' Razor tell you? Was the coincidental warming of the '90's enough to prove your theory? Do we just throw away all the other data?
> ...



The Decline Hider weighs in

Tell us about Mann's "Nature" Trick

Hey anyone else remember East Angelia?


----------



## elektra (May 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



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


How does increasing the carbon dioxide level cause global warming



> In more detail:
> The greenhouse effect has kept the earth warm for millions of years. The natural carbon cycle of the earth keeps a steady amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some of the sun's infrared radiation is reflected back into space, and some is trapped by greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, in the earth's atmosphere. This is good, because this keeps the earth's temperature at one we can live in, and not too cold.
> 
> Because the radiation is trapped, it is absorbed by the double bonds of carbon dioxide molecules, which transfer the radiation to kinetic energy as the bonds stretch and vibrate. The energy is then re-emitted at heat energy, which causes the atmosphere to warm up. If extra carbon dioxide appears, this warming will happen more, and the atmosphere will heat up too much.
> ...


----------



## mamooth (May 30, 2014)

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

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

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


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Cosmic radiation would be the extremely high energy particles and photons coming from outside our solar system.
> 
> Elektra, however, seems to think cosmic radiation is the same as infrared radiation.
> 
> That's not the worst blunder I've seen here, but it's up there.



And again, the experiment that prvoes your hypothesis to theory? You know, the one that proved the hypothesis so one could call it a theory.

Oh that's right, you ain't got one.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Cosmic radiation would be the extremely high energy particles and photons coming from outside our solar system.
> 
> Elektra, however, seems to think cosmic radiation is the same as infrared radiation.
> 
> That's not the worst blunder I've seen here, but it's up there.



Speaking of blunders...you are a f'ing idiot admiral hairball...

What is cosmic radiation? Is it dangerous?



> Cosmic radiation is a collection of many different types of radiation from many different types of sources. *When people speak simply of 'cosmic radiation' they are usually referring specifically to the cosmic microwave background radiation. This consists of very, very low energy photons (energy of about 2.78 Kelvin) whose spectrum is peaked in the microwave region and which are remnants from the time when the universe was only about 200,000 years old. *There are also very old remnant neutrinos in the cosmic radiation. Neutrinos pass through just about everything with no effect so they are harmless. The photons are too low in energy to be dangerous.
> 
> On top of these there are higher energy particles that are being created constantly by all luminous objects in the universe. Photons of all different energies/wavelengths are being created by our sun, other stars, quasi-stellar objects, black-hole accretion disks, gamma-ray bursts and so on. These objects also produce high-energy massive particles such as electrons, muons, protons and anti-protons. These higher energy particles are potentially dangerous, but most of these particles never make it to the earth. They are deflected by magnetic fields between us and the source, or they interact with other particles, or they decay in flight.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (May 30, 2014)

Go type "cosmic radiation" into wiki, and you'll get the same page as "cosmic rays".  The two terms are basically interchangeable.

What SSDD is rambling about here is  .... well, some of it is about "cosmic background radiation", a rather different thing. And some is just him getting hysterical. The basic point is that he doesn't know what he's talking about either.


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

*Cosmic ray*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*(Redirected from Cosmic radiation*)
"Cosmic radiation" redirects here. For some other types of cosmic radiation, see cosmic background radiation and cosmic background (disambiguation). For the film, see Cosmic Ray (film).

*Cosmic rays are immensely high-energy radiation, mainly originating outside the Solar System*.[1] They may produce showers of secondary particles that penetrate and impact the Earth's atmosphere and sometimes even reach the surface. Composed primarily of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei, they are of mysterious origin. Data from the Fermi space telescope (2013)[2] have been interpreted as evidence that a significant fraction of primary cosmic rays originate from the supernovae of massive stars.[3] However, this is not thought to be their only source. Active galactic nuclei probably also produce cosmic rays.

The term ray is a historical accident, as cosmic rays were at first, and wrongly, thought to be mostly electromagnetic radiation. In common scientific usage[4] high-energy particles with intrinsic mass are known as "cosmic" rays, and photons, which are quanta of electromagnetic radiation (and so have no intrinsic mass) are known by their common names, such as "gamma rays" or "X-rays", depending on their frequencies.

Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 1020 eV,[5] about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.[6] At 50 J,[7] the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball. As a result of these discoveries, there has been interest in investigating cosmic rays of even greater energies.[8] Most cosmic rays, however, do not have such extreme energies; the energy distribution of cosmic rays peaks at 0.3 gigaelectronvolts (4.8×10&#8722;11 J).[9]

Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements.[10] A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons. The precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research. An active search from Earth orbit for anti-alpha particles has failed to detect them.


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

They're ALL idiots but SSDD  _S H I N E S_ in this regard.  Notice the CMB is not mentioned once.

ps: the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law and all thermodynamics IS statistics.


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2014)

I have never heard ANYONE use the term cosmic radiation to refer to the CMB.  Never.  Where do you  get that crap?


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, what does Occam's Razor tell you concerning your theory? That is, which would be more probable:
> 1. That the whole planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy.
> 2. That you screwed something up.



Apply Occam's razor to the facts we know regarding the climate and CO2.  Most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were supposedly safe...the small bit of warming that happened after 1940 stopped around 1998 while CO2 levels have continued to rise.  Further, we know that CO2 follows temperature and we know that the present ice age began with CO2 levels above 1000ppm.

Which is more likely?  CO2 drives the temperature, or CO2 does not drive the temperature and correlation is being construed as causation?


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Go type "cosmic radiation" into wiki, and you'll get the same page as "cosmic rays".  The two terms are basically interchangeable.
> 
> What SSDD is rambling about here is  .... well, some of it is about "cosmic background radiation", a rather different thing. And some is just him getting hysterical. The basic point is that he doesn't know what he's talking about either.




Wiki???  I am laughing in your face again.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Cosmic ray*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> *(Redirected from Cosmic radiation*)
> "Cosmic radiation" redirects here. For some other types of cosmic radiation, see cosmic background radiation and cosmic background (disambiguation). For the film, see Cosmic Ray (film).
> ...




Oh look...another wikidiot.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> ps: the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law and all thermodynamics IS statistics.



Really?  You think a branch of mathematics is an actual mechanism, or is it a means to attempt to describe a mechanism?

Think carefully.  Perhaps you need a definition of the word mechanism. " the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished."  You think mathematics is the actual force that causes energy to behave in one way or another?  

You lost this discussion when you were abraham and you are losing it again.  Congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> I have never heard ANYONE use the term cosmic radiation to refer to the CMB.  Never.  Where do you  get that crap?




Unlike you, I do not turn to dubious sources like wiki when I want to learn something.  I referred to Physlink.com.  Doubt that you have ever heard of them...they aren't your sort of people, no agenda.



> The PhysLink.com is a comprehensive physics and astronomy online education, research and reference web site. In addition to providing high-quality content, PhysLink.com is a meeting place for professionals, students and other curious minds.


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2014)

The text you quoted was the answer from " Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley"  to a question posted by another reader.  The source for the Wikipedia comment I posted came from :  Sharma (2008). Atomic And Nuclear Physics. Pearson Education India. p. 478. ISBN 978-81-317-1924-4.

Personally, I'll take the word of a textbook over the word of a student, any day.

No one was talking about the CMB.


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2014)

Statistical Mechanics is a junior-year class for physics majors. That's where you learn how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics.

To SSDD, however, the century-old field of Statistical Mechanics is some kind of socialist plot. Quite of bit of the past century of physics is considered to be a vast conspiracy by the Sky Dragon Slayer kooks. Crafty, how all those physicists over all those years were part of the conspiracy, one just coming to fruition now. Illuminati, maybe?

The conclusion: SSDD is a bitter cult retard. And he can't be saved. He's too deeply entrenched in his hatred of rational people, so he'll go to his grave a bitter cult retard.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> The text you quoted was the answer from " Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley"  to a question posted by another reader.  The source for the Wikipedia comment I posted came from :  Sharma (2008). Atomic And Nuclear Physics. Pearson Education India. p. 478. ISBN 978-81-317-1924-4.
> 
> Personally, I'll take the word of a textbook over the word of a student, any day.
> 
> No one was talking about the CMB.



Because no student has ever taught a professor?

And because no textbook has ever contained "information" that turned out, upon further research, to have been in error?

Face facts, pricky, you use wiki because you cannot possibly comprehend any source that might have genuine science in it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Statistical Mechanics is a junior-year class for physics majors. That's where you learn how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics.
> 
> To SSDD, however, the century-old field of Statistical Mechanics is some kind of socialist plot. Quite of bit of the past century of physics is considered to be a vast conspiracy by the Sky Dragon Slayer kooks. Crafty, how all those physicists over all those years were part of the conspiracy, one just coming to fruition now. Illuminati, maybe?
> 
> The conclusion: SSDD is a bitter cult retard. And he can't be saved. He's too deeply entrenched in his hatred of rational people, so he'll go to his grave a bitter cult retard.



^ Classic projection from a Cult member. This is what a cry for help looks like


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The text you quoted was the answer from " Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley"  to a question posted by another reader.  The source for the Wikipedia comment I posted came from :  Sharma (2008). Atomic And Nuclear Physics. Pearson Education India. p. 478. ISBN 978-81-317-1924-4.
> ...



Tell you what Swifty, here's a little challenge.  Why don't we each go looking for OTHER sources - NAMED SOURCES that back up our contentions?  Let's see if you can find another physics reference source that says the terms "cosmic radiation" or "cosmic rays" most commonly refer to the cosmic background radiation.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 31, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Oooh.  Pricky has come up with a withering new moniker alteration:  "Swifty."

Impressive.  

Now, that aside, why would I elect to go on a search mission to satisfy your curiosity?

You have Google and you have wiki.  So you're all set, little boy.

Go spend your days in that intelligent effort.

Get back to us in a few months.


GO!


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2014)

http://three.usra.edu/concepts/SpaceRadiationEnviron.pdf

NRC: Glossary -- Cosmic radiation

Cosmic Rays - Introduction

Cosmic Radiation During Flights | RadTown USA | US EPA

cosmic ray: Definition from Answers.com (This gives four separate answers from four different encyclopedias)

Cosmic Rays

Space radiation hits record high - space - 29 September 2009 - New Scientist

Cosmic rays | Define Cosmic rays at Dictionary.com

CosmicRay.com

In three pages of results from searching ixQuick with "cosmic radiation, cosmic rays", the ONLY response that did not support my position was the one you used.  EVERY other result understood the terms cosmic radiation and cosmic rays to refer to high energy particles, NOT to the CMB.

Fucking idiot.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 31, 2014)

> Are Cosmic Rays Electromagnetic Radiation?
> On one of your web pages it is stated that "Particles and high-energy light that bombard the Earth from anywhere beyond its atmosphere are known as cosmic rays." Yet on one of the linked pages it is stated that "For some time it was believed that the radiation was electromagnetic in nature (hence the name cosmic "rays"), and some textbooks still incorrectly include cosmic rays as part of the electromagnetic spectrum." I would like to know if some cosmic rays consist of high energy electromagnetic radiation (or are they all particulate?).
> 
> Some people still call high energy photons (x-rays and gamma rays) cosmic rays, and you'll still see that in some textbooks. The more common usage (at least in scientific circles) is to call particles cosmic rays, and to call photons either x-rays or gamma rays.
> ...


 -- NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us -- Cosmic Rays

I hope you do realize, pricky/abe, that people sometimes do speak with a level of imprecision that doesn't amount to actual ignorance of the subject matter.

Nah.  A tool like you would never admit the obvious if it doesn't suit your hackneyed agenda.


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2014)

If you don't want me to come back at you so hard, don't be so quick to insult me.

However, I am will to offer a truce.  No more names.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Statistical Mechanics is a junior-year class for physics majors. That's where you learn how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics.
> ...



The thing is, it seems to be the warmers who reject concepts of statistical mechanics?

Albert Einstein once said that of all his contributions to science, he though his theories in statistical physics were probably the ones that would endure because the only logical assumptions were assumption based on large numbers.

But Ludwig Boltzmann, the father of statistical mechanics in the 19th century, was definitely a scientific pioneer swimming against a huge consensus of 'settled science' that rejected faith in or study of aggregate behavior in any system.  But as Boltzmann's theories gradually gained credibility, a whole new field of science was born and now the concept is so widely accepted, it is a component of almost all advanced curriculum in engineering and Earth sciences.

So perhaps the skeptics who are looking at the big picture of aggregate influences on Earth's climate are more reasonable than those who are determined to make CO2 a primary villain in climate change


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2014)

They Mythbusters "Experiment" was, um , not really clear on the amounts of CO2 in the tanks, were they?

It might have been none in one and 380PPM in the second, but we have no way of knowing.

All we know is that the CO2 tank was only 1 degree above the control tank.

Weird.


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> The thing is, it seems to be the warmers who reject concepts of statistical mechanics?



Nope. It's only SSDD and the "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!" crowd who deny that the Second Law is based on statistics, and other basics of Statistical Mechanics.

Albert Einstein once said that of all his contributions to science, he though his theories in statistical physics were probably the ones that would endure because the only logical assumptions were assumption based on large numbers.



> But Ludwig Boltzmann, the father of statistical mechanics in the 19th century, was definitely a scientific pioneer swimming against a huge consensus of 'settled science' that rejected faith in or study of aggregate behavior in any system.  But as Boltzmann's theories gradually gained credibility, a whole new field of science was born and now the concept is so widely accepted, it is a component of almost all advanced curriculum in engineering and Earth sciences.



Just like how global warming science slowly changed the consensus. Why? Because it got correct results.

Denialism could change the consensus ... if it could get correct results. So far, it doesn't.



> So perhaps the skeptics who are looking at the big picture of aggregate influences on Earth's climate



The mainstream scientists, in other words. Where on earth did you get the crazy idea that scientists don't look at aggregate influences?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (May 31, 2014)

The AGW Faith crowd have NOT gotten diddly dick correct.

Yet they STILL claim to have the "science" on "their" "side."

Poor deluded lot.  They still value an alleged 'consensus' as though that had diddly dog to do with the scientific method OVER actual science.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, it seems to be the warmers who reject concepts of statistical mechanics?
> ...



How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns that are far more likely to be primary drivers of climate change than is the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?  Have you EVER considered data presented by a skeptic as valid?  Have you EVER protested the fact that skeptics are not even allowed to participate in the discussion, their research is not included in any significant way, and some in the AGW circles go out of their way to demonize anybody who doesn't toe the politically correct AGW line?

Now tell me which mainstream scientists are looking at aggregate influences?


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns



Given AGW types wrote those studies, of course they're interested.



> that are far more likely to be primary drivers of climate change than is the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?



Not according to the evidence.



> Have you EVER considered data presented by a skeptic as valid?



Considered it, yes. But once I saw that pseudoskeptic theories were contradicted by the observed data and our knowledge of physics, I was forced to discard them as invalid.



> Have you EVER protested the fact that skeptics are not even allowed to participate in the discussion, their research is not included in any significant way, and some in the AGW circles go out of their way to demonize anybody who doesn't toe the politically correct AGW line?



I don't humor people when they put forth paranoid victimhood fantasies. Doing that just encourages more of the same.



> Now tell me which mainstream scientists are looking at aggregate influences?



All of them. Was that supposed to be a difficult question? Shall I point you to the IPCC AR5 table that lists all the aggregate influences?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns
> ...



You keep saying "Evidence"


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2014)

Here I thought that video was actually going to say something meaningful.

Foxfyre asked when mainstream scientists were going to look at "aggregate influences" and mamooth noted the AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1) table listing the affect of alternate influences.

Did you actually have some point to make with regard to those FACTS?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Here I thought that video was actually going to say something meaningful.
> 
> Foxfyre asked when mainstream scientists were going to look at "aggregate influences" and mamooth noted the AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1) table listing the affect of alternate influences.
> 
> Did you actually have some point to make with regard to those FACTS?



a computer model is not "Evidence"


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2014)

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


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2014)

Prosecutor: Here's a computer model showing how the defendant committed the murders.

Judge: Do you have any evidence, DNA, fingerprints, eye witnesses?

Prosecutor: Denier!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Where in AP5 is the evidence that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2. 

Can you highlight it for me?

Just pick one or two paragraphs


----------



## SSDD (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Tell you what Swifty, here's a little challenge.  Why don't we each go looking for OTHER sources - NAMED SOURCES that back up our contentions?  Let's see if you can find another physics reference source that says the terms "cosmic radiation" or "cosmic rays" most commonly refer to the cosmic background radiation.



Tell you what abe...lets go look for credible sources stating what heat is.  What do you want to bet that science, here in the 21st century isn't clear on just exactly what heat is.  It remains undecided as to whether heat a form of energy, or the result of energy moving from one place to another.  Personally, I think that heat is the result of energy moving and can find plenty of credible sources that say so...but then, there are also plenty of credible sources that say that heat is a form of energy itself.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys260/agashe/S09/notes/lecture11.pdf



> Heat: energy transferred between system and environment; heat is not a form of energy or state variable; heat can cause thermal energy to change



Heat



> n physics, heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms, molecules and other particles which comprise matter; generally defined as energy in motion.



http://lectureexchange.com/wp-conte...hysics-for-Scientist-and-Engineers_Serway.pdf



> Heat Is Not a Form of Energy
> The word heat is one of the most misused words in our popular lan- guage. Heat is a method of transfer- ring energy, not a form of storing energy. Therefore, phrases such
> as heat content, the heat of the summer, and the heat escaped all represent uses of this word that are inconsistent with our physics definition. See Chapter 20.




Energy, Work, and Heat, The first Law



> One of the great breakthroughs in the history of science was the recognition that heat is a form of energy.



Teachers' Online Primary Science



> Remember - Heat is not a form of energy
> The correct uses of the word "Heat" are:
> 
> As a verb, describing the process of
> ...



http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/heat.aspx



> Heat is a form of energyspecifically, the energy that flows between two bodies because of differences in temperature. Therefore, the scientific definition of heat is different from, and more precise than, the everyday meaning.



So tell me abe...and think hard.  If science is even now unsure and divided over whether heat is a form of energy, or the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another, how does that affect the credibility of the claims made by climate science and further....the whole settle science claim?  If science isn't settled over what heat is, then it certainly can't be settled in regards to any topic involving heat.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 1, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> > Are Cosmic Rays Electromagnetic Radiation?
> > On one of your web pages it is stated that "Particles and high-energy light that bombard the Earth from anywhere beyond its atmosphere are known as cosmic rays." Yet on one of the linked pages it is stated that "For some time it was believed that the radiation was electromagnetic in nature (hence the name cosmic "rays"), and some textbooks still incorrectly include cosmic rays as part of the electromagnetic spectrum." I would like to know if some cosmic rays consist of high energy electromagnetic radiation (or are they all particulate?).
> >
> > Some people still call high energy photons (x-rays and gamma rays) cosmic rays, and you'll still see that in some textbooks. The more common usage (at least in scientific circles) is to call particles cosmic rays, and to call photons either x-rays or gamma rays.
> ...



Actually, what I was mainly pointing out was mammoth's mistaken belief that cosmic radiation only originates outside our solar system.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. It's only SSDD and the "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!" crowd who deny that the Second Law is based on statistics, and other basics of Statistical Mechanics.
> ...


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2014)

hahahahahaha. its almost as if Hannibal Leckter  had used a melon baller to scoop out part of SSDD's brain where the logic involved with themodynamics would take place. he seems reasonably normal until this subject comes up, and is totally refractory to any information passed his way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2014)

Where's the evidence from AP5?

Hmmm?


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



You will find it in the same section in which they verify the laws of thermodynamics and the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide.  

When we tell you you're idiots for challenging the greenhouse effect, we're absolutely correct.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


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



So you have no evidence showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature and disrupt the climate


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns
> ...



I rest my case.


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2014)

Good.  It had no where else to go.


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



There exists SHITLOADS of evidence, just none in AR5 because the greenhouse effect has been settled science for close to a century.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2014)

Your THEORY is that a 120PPM Increase causes "Climate Disruption"

That's not a Fact, that's a theory


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2014)

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

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


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2014)

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

4-8 ppm.  

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


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> I rest my case.



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


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> The theory to which the vast majority of climate scientists (and because of them, I) hold is that 120 ppm of CO2, added by human activity, is the primary cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.  That's correct.
> 
> I would have thought you'd have caught that point a great long while ago Frank.  We haven't been hiding the point.



...and it's still a THEORY. 

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

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


----------



## elektra (Jun 1, 2014)

elektra said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...





mamooth said:


> Cosmic radiation would be the extremely high energy particles and photons coming from outside our solar system.
> 
> Elektra, however, seems to think cosmic radiation is the same as infrared radiation.
> 
> That's not the worst blunder I've seen here, but it's up there.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## elektra (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


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



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


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2014)

elektra said:


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



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

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



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



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


----------



## Metzor (Jun 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.
> 
> Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> The theory to which the vast majority of climate scientists (and because of them, I) hold is that 120 ppm of CO2, added by human activity, is the primary cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.  That's correct.
> 
> I would have thought you'd have caught that point a great long while ago Frank.  We haven't been hiding the point.



That's the theory you consistently fail to support.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


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




LOL

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


----------



## elektra (Jun 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2014)

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

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

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


----------



## SSDD (Jun 1, 2014)

Crick said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## elektra (Jun 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> First, calm down. You're getting hysterical, not to mention kind of stalky and creepy.
> 
> Second, you ought to just say you made a mistake when you told us cosmic radiation causes global warming. Mistakes aren't that big of a deal, and it's not the end of the world for you.
> 
> Remember, it's not the mistake that gets you, it's the cover up and denial. Don't keep digging deeper into the stupid hole and destroying what little credibility you have left.



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

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

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

Speaking of Credibility.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> (half life in the atmosphere measured in minutes)



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

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



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



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

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


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2014)

elektra said:


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



Is English your first language?

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


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 1, 2014)

manboob is not JUST a troll.

But it IS largely a troll.

And it says lots of silly baseless shit.

manboob is known by the vapidity of its posts.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Jun 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



What is your excuse?


----------



## Kosh (Jun 1, 2014)

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


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Jun 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


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


Warmers do not care.

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


----------



## elektra (Jun 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



Wow, you think much of yourself to think that your nonsense is insulting. I am more than happy to see you run from your own comments, where is that link to, "nuclear radiation". Technically you are over your head, feel free to flame away though. It's been fun.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > (half life in the atmosphere measured in minutes)
> ...



Pretty close to reality...not that that would have any effect on your position.



mamooth said:


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




Ozone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In a sealed chamber, with fan moving the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately a day at room temperature



Half-life time of ozone as a function of air movement and conditions in a sealed container - ResearchGate



> The focus of this study was to determine HLT of ozone in air as a function of airflow (0, 0.028, 0.051, 0.10 m3/s), temperature (4, 24, 40 °C) and relative humidity (0, 30, 80%) in a sealed plexiglass cylinder equipped with a combination temperature/humidity sensor and fan. *HLT was as high as 1524 min (25.4 h) in still air at 24 °C and zero humidity, which was substantially longer than previously published data (i.e., 3040 min). As airflow, temperature and humidity increased, HLT decreased to as low as 39 min*.



NOTE:  That is in a sealed container not being bombarded by high energy UV.

Ozone for Beginners Guide



> Ozone is an unstable molecule which quickly changes back to oxygen.  The half life (time for half the ozone in air to decompose) is 20 to 60 minutes depending on the temperature and humidity of the ambient air.
> 
> Water Treatability Database | US EPA
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



I think you surprised everyone here, in that we didn't think you could get crazier than your thermodynamics theories. We were wrong.

Needless to say, the ozone layer does not vanish every night.

What is SSDD missing? That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone. Hence, in a container of high-concentration ozone, the ozone decays quickly. Out in the atmosphere, that few ppm of ozone doesn't have other ozone around to react with, so it decays much more slowly. That would by why I pointed out concentration was a factor.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2014)

elektra said:


> Wow, you think much of yourself to think that your nonsense is insulting. I am more than happy to see you run from your own comments, where is that link to, "nuclear radiation". Technically you are over your head, feel free to flame away though. It's been fun.



Why on earth do you keep babbling about links to nuclear radiation?

Your voices seem to be steering you in a very peculiar direction. You might want to tell them to pipe down.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you think much of yourself to think that your nonsense is insulting. I am more than happy to see you run from your own comments, where is that link to, "nuclear radiation". Technically you are over your head, feel free to flame away though. It's been fun.
> ...


Well from an outsider reading the thread, it appears he believes you said there was nuclear radiation.  Did you actually state that or not?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Well from an outsider reading the thread, it appears he believes you said there was nuclear radiation.  Did you actually state that or not?



Nope. All I said was that he knew jack shit about all types of radiation. At that point, Elektra started going off about nuclear radiation and demanding that I post links to the topic.

Looking at it more, I'm guessing he was trying to disprove my point by showing he knows a little about nuclear radiation. However, he hasn't done that yet. He'll have to define "jack shit" first to prove that his small amount of displayed knowledge surpasses the "jack shit" level.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 2, 2014)

And still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate as the AGW lore teaches.

How can so many believe in something without any real scientific proof?


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2014)

Oh my GOD.  You are HILARIOUS.  You know what they call that?  They call that being a one-trick pony.  Just for jollies, let's pretend I just send you a link to a temperature vs lat/lon/ht dataset and the source code for a program in C - using an open source math library - that would use that dataset to calculate the average global temperature over time.  

What are you going to do with it?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> What is SSDD missing? That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone.



O3 reacts with O3 to create more O3?  Really?  Describe that chemical reaction admiral hairball.  What might the catalyst be?  What does that sort of reaction look like?  

Never taken a chemistry course have you admiral?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2014)

You just keep getting dumber. It never seems to end.

O3 + O3 => O2 + O2 + O2

Need I type it slower?


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



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

Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, far stronger than O2. It is also unstable at high concentrations, decaying to ordinary diatomic oxygen. It has a varying length half-life (meaning half as concentrated, or half-depleted), depending upon atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, and air movement). *In a sealed chamber, with fan moving the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately a day at room temperature[13] Some claims have been stated that ozone can have a half life as short as a half an hour in atmospheric conditions, although this claim is not verified by this reference:[14]*
2 O3 &#8594; 3 O2
This reaction proceeds more rapidly with increasing temperature and increased pressure [_just the sort of conditions one finds in the stratosphere_]

*Ozone Layer*

Location and production
The highest levels of ozone in the atmosphere are in the stratosphere, in a region also known as the ozone layer between about 10 km and 50 km above the surface (or between about 6 and 31 miles). However, even in this "layer" the ozone concentrations are only two to eight parts per million, so most of the oxygen there remains of the dioxygen type.

Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from short-wave ultraviolet rays (in the UVC band) but it can be also produced from x-rays reacting with oxygen:

O2 + photon (radiation &#955; < 240 nm) &#8594; 2 O
O + O2 + M &#8594; O3 + M
&#945; + &#946;&#8722; + O2 &#8594; He + O3

where "M" denotes the third body that carries off the excess energy of the reaction. The thus produced ozone is destroyed by the reaction with atomic oxygen:

O3 + O &#8594; 2 O2

The latter reaction is *catalysed by the presence of certain free radicals*, of which the most important are hydroxyl (OH), nitric oxide (NO) and atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br).* In recent decades the amount of ozone in the stratosphere has been declining mostly because of emissions of CFCs and similar chlorinated and brominated organic molecules, which have increased the concentration of ozone-depleting catalysts above the natural background.*

*Importance to surface-dwelling life on Earth*

Ozone in the ozone layer filters out sunlight wavelengths from about 200 nm UV rays to 315 nm, with ozone peak absorption at about 250 nm.[22] This ozone UV absorption is important to life, since it extends the absorption of UV by ordinary oxygen and nitrogen in air (which absorb all wavelengths < 200 nm) through the lower UV-C (200&#8211;280 nm) and the entire UV-B band (280&#8211;315 nm). The small unabsorbed part that remains of UV-B after passage through ozone causes sunburn in humans, and direct DNA damage in living tissues in both plants and animals. Ozone's effect on mid-range UV-B rays is illustrated by its effect on UV-B at 290 nm, which has a radiation intensity 350 million times as powerful at the top of the atmosphere as at the surface. Nevertheless, enough of UV-B radiation at similar frequency reaches the ground to cause some sunburn, and these same wavelengths are also among those responsible for the production of vitamin D in humans.

[_The comments here, particularly those showing different wavelengths absorbed by ozone than by diatomic oxygen, indicate that OZONE ABSORBS UV independently of oxygen._]

The ozone layer has little effect on the longer UV wavelengths called UV-A (315&#8211;400 nm), but this radiation does not cause sunburn or direct DNA damage, and while it probably does cause long-term skin damage in certain humans, it is not as dangerous to plants and to the health of surface-dwelling organisms on Earth in general (see ultraviolet for more information on near ultraviolet)

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

So, as has been the case with almost every single scientific pronouncement SSDD has ever made here, he is factually incorrect on all points.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> You just keep getting dumber. It never seems to end.
> 
> O3 + O3 => O2 + O2 + O2
> 
> Need I type it slower?



I don't think it makes any difference how quickly you type...typing gibberish will result in gibberish no matter how quickly you type it.

You claimed:

[mqmooth]That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone. Hence, in a container of high-concentration ozone, the ozone decays quickly. 





> Clearly,  you didn't read the links to the research I provided....preferring to stick with your fantasy.
> 
> Half-life time of ozone as a function of air movement and conditions in a sealed container - ResearchGate
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2014)

That halflife of ozone at room temperature is roughly 12 hours and with lower pressures and temperatures one would find in the stratosphere, it gets longer.

Ozone blocks UV above and beyond UV turning O2 into O3.

Human emissions of polychlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) increased the breakdown of O3 and thinned the Ozone Layer and seriously reduced the column ozone over Antarctica.  The worldwide ban on CFCs is beginning to correct this problem.

If you think O3+O3 => O2+O2+O2 is gibberish, maybe you ought to get past high school chemistry before rejoining the conversation.  Actually, 7th grade physical science would have covered this.  Have you ever had ANY science education at all?  At just what point did you drop out of the public school system?

As is becoming tiresomely the case, your claims, though made with your usual angry bitterness, are completely invalid.  You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  About pretty much EVERYTHING.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> This reaction proceeds more rapidly with increasing temperature and increased pressure [_just the sort of conditions one finds in the stratosphere_]



I said that ozone decays quickly in the atmosphere....mamooth claimed that it doesn't.  




Crick said:


> B]Importance to surface-dwelling life on Earth[/B]
> 
> Ozone in the ozone layer filters out sunlight wavelengths from about 200 nm UV rays to 315 nm, with ozone peak absorption at about 250 nm.[22] This ozone UV absorption is important to life, since it extends the absorption of UV by ordinary oxygen and nitrogen in air (which absorb all wavelengths < 200 nm) through the lower UV-C (200280 nm) and the entire UV-B band (280315 nm). The small unabsorbed part that remains of UV-B after passage through ozone causes sunburn in humans, and direct DNA damage in living tissues in both plants and animals. Ozone's effect on mid-range UV-B rays is illustrated by its effect on UV-B at 290 nm, which has a radiation intensity 350 million times as powerful at the top of the atmosphere as at the surface. Nevertheless, enough of UV-B radiation at similar frequency reaches the ground to cause some sunburn, and these same wavelengths are also among those responsible for the production of vitamin D in humans.



OK abe, refer back to your wiki reference with regard to how ozone is formed and then look at the statement above regarding how ozone protects us.  Maybe you will see how terribly lacking you are where critical thinking skills are concerned.

According to your reference ozone absorbs UV from 200 -315.  It then goes on to say that "oxygen and nitrogen in air (which absorb all wavelengths < 200 nm) through the lower UV-C (200280 nm) and the entire UV-B band (280315 nm)."

Your own source says that oxygen and nitrogen absorb in the wavelengths from <200 to 315nm.  Therefor oxygen and nitrogen are what protect us from UV....ozone is a result of the radiation being absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen. Ozone in turn absorbs some small amount of UV, but since it is such an unstable molecule, it takes little energy to break it apart.  Even if no O3 were present, O2 and N would still absorb incoming UV from <200 - 315 and the end result would be the same.  The radiation would penetrate slightly further into the atmosphere but other than that, there would be no change.  O3 is a result, not a cause.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> That halflife of ozone at room temperature is roughly 12 hours and with lower pressures and temperatures one would find in the stratosphere, it gets longer.
> 
> Ozone blocks UV above and beyond UV turning O2 into O3.
> 
> ...



I didn't say that O3 + O3  did not equal O2+O2+02.  I said that O2 decays quickly because it is an unstable molecule and would decay as quickly whether there were other O3 molecules around or not.

And again, O and N absorb UV from <200 - 315nm so it is O2 and N that protect us from harmful UV...O3 is the result of that absorption...not the primary protector.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> > That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone. Hence, in a container of high-concentration ozone, the ozone decays quickly.



Still absolutely correct, and that paper reinforces it. It says ozone half-life decreases with increasing temp and airflow, which is exactly what one expects if ozone is reacting with ozone. Increasing temp and airflow means more ozone molecules bumping into each other.

Now, that paper did not explore changing ozone concentrations, but since lower concentrations mean fewer collisions, lower concentrations mean a longer ozone half-life.

This:



> Ozone for Beginners Guide



is nonsense. That is, it's a pamphlet from a company selling ozone water puriification systems. Grabbing one-liners from it to compare to a scientific paper is apples-to-oranges nonsense.

Ozone is not unstable in the manner of a radioactive nucleus. A single ozone molecule in a dark vacuum won't decay at all. Ozone needs something to react with in order to decay.

In a flask full of ozone, it reacts with other ozone molecules and can have a half life of minutes.

In the lower troposphere where it has very low concentrations, it doesn't have other ozone to react with. It does have organic stuff and metals to oxidize, so it reacts that way, having that 20 or so day half life.

In the stratosphere where there's almost nothing around to react with (assume no CFCs), the ozone has a 5 year half-life.



> So again, since O3 decays quickly into diatomic oxygen out in the atmosphere and there is no UV on the dark side of the earth what exactly do you think supports the ozone "layer" at night?



The 5 year half-life would mean it's not decaying at night. This paper from 1962 mentions it, page 372. Note that 1962 is way before ozone depletion theory appeared, so you can't handwave it away as part of the conspiracy.

Global ozone budget and exchange between stratosphere and troposphere - JUNGE - 2010 - Tellus - Wiley Online Library


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Now, that paper did not explore changing ozone concentrations, but since lower concentrations mean fewer collisions, lower concentrations mean a longer ozone half-life.



You are assuming that collisions are the only cause for the molecule to decay and not the weak bonds holding it together.  I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.  



mamooth said:


> :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So feel free to provide a scientific paper that proves them wrong.  The statements made there are based on the available research.  The one paper that claimed that ozone half life could be extended to more than 1000 minutes under highly controlled and specific conditions is the only paper to make such claims... the rest put the half life of an O3 molecule at less than an hour.



mamooth said:


> is not unstable in the manner of a radioactive nucleus. A single ozone molecule in a dark vacuum won't decay at all. Ozone needs something to react with in order to decay.



Not true.  The molecule is unstable because of very weak bonds.  It is itching to come apart from the time it is formed.



mamooth said:


> the stratosphere where there's almost nothing around to react with (assume no CFCs), the ozone has a 5 year half-life.



Pure bullshit...but feel free to prove it if you care to try.



mamooth said:


> 5 year half-life would mean it's not decaying at night. This paper from 1962 mentions it, page 372. Note that 1962 is way before ozone depletion theory appeared, so you can't handwave it away as part of the conspiracy.



There is no five year half life...there is a half life measured in minutes....and as to your model...it is just a model and models associated with climate science are known to be terribly flawed.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.



True, I don't share your cult's religious beliefs.

Notice how nobody wants to join you here? This latest crazy train of yours is so nutty, even other deniers don't want to jump on.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.
> ...



Note, I'm not an expert, I can't get into that argument, however, I do believe the ozone thing was a hoax.  I now believe that more today just based on what I read between the two of you.  I trust SSDD


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.
> ...



Unlike you I'm not a follower and could give a shit what people think. Right is right and I am right 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I now believe that more today just based on what I read between the two of you.  I trust SSDD



So do you trust the way he flat out refused to even acknowledge the existence of the 1962 paper that said ozone half-life in the stratosphere was 5 years?

It's the SSDD way. When the science says you're full of shit, simply pretend the science doesn't exist.

Ozone does not vanish every night. That's flat-earther level of craziness. If your cult loyalty is so strong that it's making you feel obligated to jump on that crazy train, fine, but be prepared to be laughed at by everyone for the rest of your life.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I now believe that more today just based on what I read between the two of you.  I trust SSDD
> ...



As the resident science expert, can you finally tell us how much CO2 is needed in order to lower the pH of the Earth's oceans from 8.25 to 8.15?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I now believe that more today just based on what I read between the two of you.  I trust SSDD
> ...



Yep, I believe his posts over yours. I am fine with myself, I really would like to see that one experiement that shows that CO2 drives climate.  Haven't seen that one yet, yet you keep on insisting it does, so the mere fact that you can't produce that one piece of evidence pushes me to believe SSDD information.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> As the resident science expert, can you finally tell us how much CO2 is needed in order to lower the pH of the Earth's oceans from 8.25 to 8.15?



I already told you I don't know, you stalky little thing. And I've repeatedly asked why you think it matters, but so far, you haven't been able to locate your balls and attempt an answer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > As the resident science expert, can you finally tell us how much CO2 is needed in order to lower the pH of the Earth's oceans from 8.25 to 8.15?
> ...



It's YOUR Theory that CO2 is causing "ocean acidification"

YOUR THEORY

Explain YOUR THEORY


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Yep, I believe his posts over yours. I am fine with myself,



Of course you're fine, because you don't care about the facts, just about ideological purity and cult loyalty.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Explain YOUR THEORY



Given that we've done so many times, this is where I tell you I don't play the games of whiny little liars. You're a joke, the world is laughing at you, and you should run along and try lying to people who give a shit.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, I believe his posts over yours. I am fine with myself,
> ...



Yes, and the facts are you have none.  So you are on a message board and all you have is some prediction models that have been proven wrong, and I don't use facts.  LOL buddy boy!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Explain YOUR THEORY
> ...


oh....I'm pretty sure you give a shit.  You wouldn't spend your day repeating the same thing over and over with no facts to support it.  And then you repeat it all over again.  See to me that demonstrates you give a shit.  About lies.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 3, 2014)

Raise your hand if you believe that manboob will ever man up sufficiently to carefully and concisely explain his "theory."


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

Y'all can cry at me all you want, but the whole damn world still correctly defines you as dishonest cultists. That is, you kooks lose. At this point, you're simply reinforcing your image as sore losers. Here's a thought. Instead of trying to gang up on me, which wouldn't work anyways unless you can hit 20:1 odds or better, why not do some science?

Tell us your theory to explain the observed warming. And no, waving your hands around wildly and shouting "NATURAL CYCLES!" is not a theory. Cycles have causes. Specifically name the cycle in play and the cause of it.

Explain the decrease we measure in outgoing longwave radiation, and the increase we measure in downgoing longwave radiation. AGW theory explains it perfectly. "Natural cycles!", not at all.

Explain the stratospheric cooling. Again, AGW theory explains it perfecty. Ilar's "It's the sun!" theory, alas, does not, since the stratosphere would be heating if the sun was the culprit.

We'll just start with that. At some point, you lamers have to start stating your own science, instead of just crying about the other guy. That's how science works, and so far, you all suck at it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, I believe his posts over yours. I am fine with myself,
> ...



mamooth, you either have zero scientific knowledge, or zero critical thinking skills...or both.

Use your brain for just a moment....if ozone has the long half life you claim, why is it not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere? Ozone is confined to places in the atmosphere where it is produced because it has such a short life span.   If individual molecules hung around for even a small fraction of the time you claim, ozone would be well mixed in the atmosphere....it isn't precisely because individual molecules have such a short half life.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Explain YOUR THEORY
> ...



No, Admiral.  Please link to the post where you described the amount of CO2 needed to reduce the pH from 8.25 to 8.15

Stop lying about what you've answered


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2014)

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

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO
2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30&#8211;40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5]* representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.*[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services.[9]

*REFERENCES*
1) "Feely et al. - Evidence for upwelling of corrosive "acidified" water onto the Continental Shel". pmel.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2014-01-25.
2) Caldeira, K.; Wickett, M. E. (2003). "Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH". Nature 425 (6956): 365&#8211;365. Bibcode:2001AGUFMOS11C0385C. doi:10.1038/425365a. PMID 14508477.
3) Millero, Frank J. (1995). "Thermodynamics of the carbon dioxide system in the oceans". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59 (4): 661&#8211;677. Bibcode:1995GeCoA..59..661M. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(94)00354-O.
4) Feely, R. A.; et al. (July 2004). "Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans". Science 305 (5682): 362&#8211;366. Bibcode:2004Sci...305..362F. doi:10.1126/science.1097329. PMID 15256664.
5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research &#8211; Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96&#8211;9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop
8) Mora, C (2013). "The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability". Nature 502: 183&#8211;187. doi:10.1038/nature12540.
9) Mora, C. et al. (2013). "Biotic and Human Vulnerability to Projected Changes in Ocean Biogeochemistry over the 21st Century". PLoS Biology 11: e1001682. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001682.
*************************************************************************

*So, numbnuts, it took 30% more than was there in 1751.*

and now, you stupid ass, tell us what you're going to DO with the number.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2014)

and

*Rate*
One of the first detailed datasets to examine how pH varied over a period of time at a temperate coastal location found that acidification was occurring much faster than previously predicted, with consequences for near-shore benthic ecosystems.[28][29] Thomas Lovejoy, former chief biodiversity advisor to the World Bank, has suggested that "the acidity of the oceans will more than double in the next 40 years. This rate is *100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, making it unlikely that marine life can somehow adapt to the changes."*[30] It is predicted that, by the year 2100, the level of acidity in the ocean will reach the levels experienced by the earth 20 million years ago.[9][31]

Current rates of ocean acidification have been *compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene&#8211;Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago)* when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5&#8211;6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet* bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction*. The current acidification is on a path to reach levels *higher than any seen in the last 65 million years*,[32] and the *rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene&#8211;Eocene mass extinction*. The current and projected acidification has been described as *an almost unprecedented geological event.*[33] A National Research Council study released in April 2010 likewise concluded that "the level of acid in the oceans is *increasing at an unprecedented rate*."[34][35] A 2012 paper in the journal Science examined the geological record in an attempt to find a historical analog for current global conditions as well as those of the future. The researchers determined that the *current rate of ocean acidification is faster than at any time in the past 300 million years*.[36][37]

A review by climate scientists at the RealClimate blog, of a 2005 report by the Royal Society of the UK similarly highlighted the centrality of the rates of change in the present anthropogenic acidification process, writing:[38]

"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+ and CO2&#8722;3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that* if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."*

In the 15-year period 1995&#8211;2010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[39] According to a statement in July 2012 by Jane Lubchenco, head of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration* "surface waters are changing much more rapidly than initial calculations have suggested*. It's yet another reason to be very seriously concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now and the additional amount we continue to put out."[40]

*A 2013 study claimed acidity was increasing at a rate 10 times faster than in any of the evolutionary crises in the earth's history*.[41]

*REFERENCES*

28) Wootton, J. T.; Pfister, C. A. and Forester, J. D. (2008). "Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (48): 18848&#8211;18853. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10518848W. doi:10.1073/pnas.0810079105. PMC 2596240. PMID 19033205.
29) "Ocean Growing More Acidic Faster Than Once Thought; Increasing Acidity Threatens Sea Life". Science Daily. 2008-11-26. Retrieved 26 November 2008.
30) UN: Oceans are 30 percent more acidic than before fossil fuels
31) "What is Ocean Acidification". NOAA. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
32) "Rate of ocean acidification the fastest in 65 million years". Physorg.com. 2010-02-14. Retrieved 2013-08-29.
33) "An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification by Carl Zimmer: Yale Environment 360". e360.yale.edu. Retrieved 2014-01-25.
34) Report: Ocean acidification rising at unprecedented rate
35) United States National Research Council, 2010. Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean
36) "The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification". JournalistsResource.org, retrieved 14 March 2012
37) Hönisch, Bärbel; Ridgwell, Andy; Schmidt, Daniela N.; Thomas, E.; Gibbs, S. J.; Sluijs, A.; Zeebe, R.; Kump, L.; Martindale, R. C.; Greene, S. E.; Kiessling, W.; Ries, J.; Zachos, J. C.; Royer, D. L.; Barker, S.; Marchitto, T. M.; Moyer, R.; Pelejero, C.; Ziveri, P.; Foster, G. L.; Williams, B. (2012). "The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification". Science 335 (6072): 1058&#8211;1063. Bibcode:2012Sci...335.1058H. doi:10.1126/science.1208277. PMID 22383840.
38) The Acid Ocean &#8211; the Other Problem with CO2 Emission
39) How Acidification Threatens Oceans from the Inside Out
40) Huffington Post, 9 July 2012, "Ocean Acidification Is Climate Change's 'Equally Evil Twin,' NOAA Chief Says," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...limate-change_n_1658081.html?utm_hp_ref=green
41) Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent (2013-08-25). "Rising levels of acids in seas may endanger marine life, says study | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-08-29.
42) Mitchell, M. J.; et al (2010). "A model of carbon dioxide dissolution and mineral carbonation kinetics". Proceedings of the Royal Society A 466 (2117): 1265&#8211;1290. doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0349.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2014)

Has it occurred to you how poor is your position when you can be blown out of the water by an encyclopedia article?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Has it occurred to you how poor is your position when you can be blown out of the water by an encyclopedia article?



Q: How much atmospheric CO2 will be needed to reduce the pH from 8.25 to 8.15?'

A:  More than could be created by burning all of the known fossil fuels on planet earth.

Why can't you answer a simple question.  If you were what you claimed to be abe, you could answer the question...of course, answering the question and still maintaining your position would expose you as the hand waving old hysterical granny that you are.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2014)

I'll bite.  What do YOU think caused the ocean's pH to go from 8.25 too 8.14?  Oh, and let's see the math behind your claim if you please.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No, Admiral.  Please link to the post where you described the amount of CO2 needed to reduce the pH from 8.25 to 8.15



Since I never claimed to have answered that, there would obviously be no link. Why are choosing to deliberately lie by saying I said I answered it? You're getting more and more dishonest, which would seem to indicate you're getting more and more desperate.

So, let's get back to what's making you squeal and run, which was the request that you post your theory, for the first time ever. Sauce for the goose. We've been posting theories over and over for years, so now it's time for you to put up.

Tell us your theory to explain the observed warming. Again, waving your hands around wildly and shouting "NATURAL CYCLES!" is not a theory. Cycles have causes. Specifically name the cycle in play and the cause of it.

Explain why we measure a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation, and an increase in downgoing longwave radiation, exactly as AGW theory predicts. What "Natural cycles" would explain it?

Explain the stratospheric cooling, another thing predicted perfecty by AGW theory. Since a hotter sun would cause a hotter stratosphere, theories of solar increase causing warming fall flat. Why do you say the stratosphere is cooling as the world warms?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> A:  More than could be created by burning all of the known fossil fuels on planet earth.



Please show us your calculations for this. That is, if you didn't just pull it out of your ass. If you did just pull it out of your ass, you may have some trouble backing up your claim.

Do make sure your answer accounts for stratification of the oceans, and the buffering action of the bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

At least I'm smart enough to understand I don't have enough knowledge to calculate the numbers for that very complicated question. You're not.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Use your brain for just a moment....if ozone has the long half life you claim, why is it not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere?



We'll try to start with the basics. Can you tell us why "the stratosphere" is called "the stratosphere"? I just ask because you don't seem aware of how the stratosphere works.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Use your brain for just a moment....if ozone has the long half life you claim, why is it not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere?
> ...



It is not even a well mixed gas within the stratosphere admiral hairball.  It is far more concentrated in the higher reaches of the stratosphere where most of it is formed (and then decays very quickly) and then gets less abundant further down into the stratosphere as less is formed due to there being less UV.  If it had anything like the half life you claim, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere....it isn't.  It is local to where it is formed because it is highly unstable and begins to decay within minutes of forming.

Like I said, you can't even use your brain if it means questioning your faith.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'll bite.  What do YOU think caused the ocean's pH to go from 8.25 too 8.14?  Oh, and let's see the math behind your claim if you please.



You say that the pH went from 8.25 to 8.14 as if it were fact.  Why do I think it changed from this to that.  What makes you think it changed that much?  pH wasn't discovered till 1901.  What would lead you to believe (as if it were fact) that it did go from 8.25 to 8.14.  Let me guess...a computer model.  A model based on.....what?  Let me guess...a model designed to produce a specific answer.

You warmers are flatly pathetic.


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> It is not even a well mixed gas within the stratosphere.  It is far more concentrated in the higher reaches of the stratosphere where most of it is formed (and then decays very quickly) and then gets less abundant further down into the stratosphere as less is formed due to there being less UV.  If it had anything like the half life you claim, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere....it isn't.  It is local to where it is formed because it is highly unstable and begins to decay within minutes of forming.



From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

*Location and production*
The highest levels of ozone in the atmosphere are in the stratosphere, in a region also known as the ozone layer between about 10 km [_which is where the stratosphere BEGINS_]and 50 km above the surface (or between about 6 and 31 miles). However, even in this "layer" the ozone concentrations are only two to eight parts per million, so most of the oxygen there remains of the dioxygen type.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere







*Ozone and temperature*
Within this layer, temperature increases as altitude increases (see temperature inversion); the top of the stratosphere has a temperature of about 270 K (&#8722;3°C or 26.6°F), just slightly below the freezing point of water.[2] The stratosphere is layered in temperature because ozone (O3) here absorbs high energy UVB and UVC energy waves from the Sun and is broken down into atomic oxygen (O) and diatomic oxygen (O2). Atomic oxygen is found prevalent in the upper stratosphere due to the bombardment of UV light and the destruction of both ozone and diatomic oxygen.* The mid stratosphere has less UV light passing through it, O and O2 are able to combine, and is where the majority of natural ozone is produced. *It is when these two forms of oxygen recombine to form ozone that they release the heat found in the stratosphere. The lower stratosphere receives very low amounts of UVC, thus atomic oxygen is not found here and ozone is not formed (with heat as the byproduct).[verification needed] This vertical stratification, with warmer layers above and cooler layers below, makes the stratosphere dynamically stable: there is no regular convection and associated turbulence in this part of the atmosphere. The top of the stratosphere is called the stratopause, above which the temperature decreases with height.
*******************************************************

Ozone tends to the mid to lower portions of the stratosphere, it does NOT increase with increasing altitude and it's layered nature is NOT due to its half-life. It's predominance does NOT follow UV intensity.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

Thanks for the confirmation of my statement.  Ozone is not even a well mixed gas within the stratosphere.   The bulk of the ozone is found at the point where UV encounters the first high concentrations of O2.  It then rapidly decays.  If it had even a fraction of the half-life that admiral hairball claims, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere at least.  Your graph clearly shows that it isn't.   

You poor dupes have zero critical thinking skills.  There is a reason it is not well mixed even within the atmospheric layer where it is formed.  It decays far to quickly to become a well mixed gas.  It is concentrated where it is be causes it is constantly being regenerated by UV and decaying almost immediately before it can spread through the surrounding atmosphere.

You fall for one hoax after another and another and another.  All it has to do is conform to your political leanings and you are on the bandwagon whether the facts support the hoax or not.

Look at your graph abe and ask yourself why a molecule that has a half life as long as you and the admiral believe it to be would not be well mixed within the stratosphere.  You might look for a graph showing O2 concentrations within the stratosphere and compare the concentration of O3 to the concentration of O2.  You will find further confirmation of my claim.


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2014)

Your batting record is 000 and I don't mean a thousand.  

The extract I posted explained very clearly why ozone forms where it does.  It's half-life is irrelevant.  At high altitudes, where you claimed ozone concentration would be highest, there is virtually NONE because UV is TOO high and breaks down both O3 and O2.  It doesn't form in the lower levels because UVC is too low and atomic oxygen is not present. 

This reference states that the halflife of ozone is roughly 12 hours at room temperature and that it will increase with decreasing temperature and pressure.  You've claimed that its halflife in the ozone layer is measured in minutes.  Yet I seem to have missed you posting any reference to back up that claim.  Got one


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Your batting record is 000 and I don't mean a thousand.
> 
> The extract I posted explained very clearly why ozone forms where it does.  It's half-life is irrelevant.  At high altitudes, where you claimed ozone concentration would be highest, there is virtually NONE because UV is TOO high and breaks down both O3 and O2.  It doesn't form in the lower levels because UVC is too low and atomic oxygen is not present.



I am sure that it is irrelevant to you, since you can't bring yourself to question anything that supports your political position.  If it had even a small fraction of the half life you guys claim, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere at least.  It is not and you can't bring yourself to ask why.  Even someone as biased as you could only come up with one reason that a gas that supposedly has a half life of weeks would not be well mixed at least within the atmospheric layer in which it forms.  That answer is because the half life isn't anything like what you guys claim.  

As to where I claimed it was, one would think that you would be bright enough to know that O2 concentrations would indicate where O3 concentrations would be highest.  The further one goes into the stratosphere, the less O2 is available as your graph shows.  You don't have an honest bone in your body, do you abe.  Every time you post under the name crick, you are telling a lie and you are perfectly ok with that, aren't you?



Crick said:


> reference states that the halflife of ozone is roughly 12 hours at room temperature and that it will increase with decreasing temperature and pressure.  You've claimed that its halflife in the ozone layer is measured in minutes.  Yet I seem to have missed you posting any reference to back up that claim.  Got one




A refernece?  While dozens of others state that the half life of an O3 molecule in the atmosphere is measured in minutes.  That's like you claiming that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for centuries based on IPCC claims while dozens of other studies say that it has a residence time of less than a decade.  You are the denier abe and your bias is so strong that you can't see it.  Hell, even if it had a half life of 12 hours, it would be much more well mixed within the stratosphere than it is.  

To acknowledge that it isn't well mixed even within the stratosphere is to admit that it doesn't have anything like that sort of half life and that is to admit that you fell for a hoax and you just can't do that, can you?


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2014)

Explain how it is going to mix itself well into the upper stratosphere - where you claimed it had its highest concentration - when the intensity of UVC at that atlitude will not even allow it to exist.  Feel free to use some of that critical thinking skill you believe yourself full of.

Full of something.

I'm off to work.  Play with yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Explain how it is going to mix itself well into the upper stratosphere - where you claimed it had its highest concentration - when the intensity of UVC at that atlitude will not even allow it to exist.  Feel free to use some of that critical thinking skill you believe yourself full of.
> 
> Full of something.
> 
> I'm off to work.  Play with yourself.



Again you find that you must lie.  You don't have an honest bone in your body, do you?  Every time you post under the name crick you tell a lie but you are fine with that, aren't you.  If you will lie about something so fundamental as your identity, you will lie about anything.

You are the one making the "upper" stratosphere caveat.  I merely stated that it remains concentrated where it is formed which would be the upper limits of sufficient O2 to create a meaningful concentration of O3.  Certainly not lower as UV decreases quickly as it passes through the O2 (which, along with N is what really protects us from UV).  Check stratospheric concentrations of O2 and they will very closely correspond with stratospheric concentrations of O3.  It doesn't move around much because it doesn't last long enough to move around before it decays and is then replenished.

So, which is it....half life so short that it hardly gets to exist before it decays or half life of more than 12 hours?  You said:



			
				crickham said:
			
		

> That halflife of ozone at room temperature is roughly 12 hours and with lower pressures and temperatures one would find in the stratosphere, it gets longer.



How much longer?  If it had a half life of 12 hours it would become a pretty well mixed gas.  Clearly, it isn't.  So are you now acknowledging that it does have a half life that is measured in minutes?  If so, then you acknowledge the ozone hole fiasco was a meaningless hoax, if not, we are back to you trying to explain why O3 is not a well mixed gas at least in the stratosphere.  If you are acknowledging a very short half life, maybe you should inform mammoth of that fact.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> A refernece?  While dozens of others state that the half life of an O3 molecule in the atmosphere is measured in minutes.



Bullshit. You haven't shown us a single reference saying that, other than an offhand comment from an advertising brochure, and talk about how concentrated ozone in a flask behaves, which is a totally different thing that a few ppm of ozone in the atmosphere.

In contrast, I showed you the 1962 paper which specifically stated ozone residence time in the stratosphere was over 5 years. I specifically used that very old paper because it predates ozone depletion theory, and therefore can't be accused of having a socialist agenda. And also to show just how long this has been established science.

After you give us some actual references for the first time, you might want to explain why instruments measure ozone existing at the north and south poles during their long winters when it's completely dark. Reduced ozone, but still some. Your kook theory would predict requires that there must be zero ozone at such times, hence your kook theory is conclusively debunked.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Bullshit. You haven't shown us a single reference saying that, other than an offhand comment from an advertising brochure.



Answer the question mammoth.  If the half life of O3 is anything close to as long as you claim, why is it not a well mixed gas, at least in the stratosphere.  crickham provided a chart showing concentrations by altitude and it isn't a well mixed gas.  Are you claiming that the ari doesn't move up there?   

It isn't well mixed because it decays so fast it has no time to become well mixed.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2014)

That was answered in detail by Crick, and you ran from it. You always run, leaving your trademark trail of piddle behind you. Let's get back to my specific challenges, so you can run again for everyone's amusement.

Where are your references about ozone half life in the atmosphere? Given you claimed there were dozens, you should be able to find at least one.

Why are you ignoring the 1962 paper stating ozone half life is 5 years?

Why is there still ozone at the poles during the polar nights, given your theory says all the ozone must vanish?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> That was answered in detail by Crick, and you ran from it. You always run, leaving your trademark trail of piddle behind you. Let's get back to my specific challenges, so you can run again for everyone's amusement.
> 
> Where are your references about ozone half life in the atmosphere? Given you claimed there were dozens, you should be able to find at least one.
> 
> ...



So where is your proof it is there?  Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bite.  What do YOU think caused the ocean's pH to go from 8.25 too 8.14?  Oh, and let's see the math behind your claim if you please.
> ...



Someone around her is "flatly pathetic".  Think for five seconds about ocean pH and calcareous sediments.  Their are about a hundred ways to determine the record of ocean pH values by examination of different calcareous species found in sediment.  On top of that, pH changes recently have taken place at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history.  But you seem to think that means nothing.

Your rate of being wrong is really quite astounding.

And, HEY!  Big Surprise!  NO MODELS USED.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So where is your proof it is there?  Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.



jc, things never turn out well for those who choose the path of the personal vendetta. Not because of anything I do, but because my stalkers usually end up self-destructing out of frustration and bitterness. Instead of obsessing about me, think about walking away from the computer and doing something useful.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
> 
> Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO
> 2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 3040% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5]* representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.*[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services.[9]
> ...



Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.

Your articles state that 40% "of the CO2 released by humans" is what turning the oceans to gastric juice. 

Don't you see its physically impossible for that to happen?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.
> 
> Your articles state that 40% "of the CO2 released by humans" is what turning the oceans to gastric juice.
> 
> ...



Explain yourself.  Tell us why that's physically impossible.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> That was answered in detail by Crick, and you ran from it. You always run, leaving your trademark trail of piddle behind you. Let's get back to my specific challenges, so you can run again for everyone's amusement.
> 
> Where are your references about ozone half life in the atmosphere? Given you claimed there were dozens, you should be able to find at least one.



I gave you 5.  That you don't like them is irrelevant.



mamooth said:


> are you ignoring the 1962 paper stating ozone half life is 5 years?


Because the observations prove that the claim is flatly impossible.  If O3 even had a half life of 24 hours it would be a well mixed gas within the stratosphere at least.  It isn't.  Crickhams chart showed that O3 is not well mixed within even the stratosphere and when question as to why, he acknowledged that it's half life is so short that it can't become well mixed.  It remains very close to where it is formed because it doesn't last long enough to move anywhere else.



mamooth said:


> is there still ozone at the poles during the polar nights, given your theory says all the ozone must vanish?



I gave you a 9 month video of the ozone "hole" over antarctica.  It clearly shows the hole forming and growing as the winter progresses....precisely as I stated.  No UV...no ozone.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> On top of that, pH changes recently have taken place at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history.  But you seem to think that means nothing.



Of course it means something...but not what you think it means.  Unprecedented in earth's history?  Even when atmospheric CO2 levels were 1000ppm, 2000ppm, 3000ppm, 4000ppm, 5000ppm, 6000ppm, 7000ppm???

If the present rate of "acidification" is unprecedented at 400ppm and even surpasses "acidification" rates when atmospheric CO2 was nearly 20 times higher, then atmospheric CO2 is not the answer.  If it isn't, then what is?



Crick said:


> rate of being wrong is really quite astounding.



And your rate of being duped...and believing whatever nonsense your politically driven, bought and paid for climate scientists tell you is also astounding.  How stupid do you have to be to believe anyone who tells you that the rate of "acidification:" is unprecedented in earth history due to atmospheric CO2 levels when at present, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2 relative to earth history.  You are so myopic, than you can't even see back past the ice age the earth is presently in, much less earth history.  When someone tells you that anything is unprecedented due to the present CO2 concentration they are a liar since present CO2 is half of even the normal low in earth history.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So where is your proof it is there?  Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.
> ...




Which is why you are always getting kicked around the board.  Only an idiot would claim that a gas that is not well mixed, at least within the atmospheric layer in which it is produced has a half life longer than an hour.  If it were anything like what you claim, it would be well mixed and crickhams graph shows it isn't and he acknowledges that it isn't because it decays to fast to become well mixed.  Sorry that bit of observational critical thinking escaped you.  Perhaps if you weren't a religious zealot, you would catch on to such things.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
> ...



These people simply lack any ability to think for themselves.  Imagine, believing that the rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of what it was at the beginning of the present ice age and it was low, relatively speaking even then.

If it is, in fact, unprecedented, then atmospheric CO2 is obviously not the cause.  Blind faith is what they have and they have it in spades.  If it agrees with their political leanings, then they gobble it up as quickly as it can be spoon fed to them.


----------



## Crick (Jun 5, 2014)

Increasing the half life of ozone will NOT make it well mixed across the entire stratosphere because the upper portions have too much UVC.  The regions of the stratosphere where you say it should be greatest is where it cannot exist under any circumstances.

This whole argument is just another wasted detour.  Human CFC emissions are responsible for it's disappearance.  The ban on CFC's is responsible for its return.  Your contentions otherwise are not borne out by the facts and this simply smacks of another of your "all scientists are stupid, greedy, dishonest and incredibly conspiratorial" fantasies.

I bet you were really into chemtrails, weren't you.

Human activities: GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary causes of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.  The rise in CO2, the warming and the concomitant ocean acidification are all taking place at rates that grossly exceed any historical examples - including a number of extinction events.  It is NOT that the temperatures, the CO2 levels or the ocean's pH have no historical analogues.  It is that the RATE at which these things are happening will not allow natural or synthetic accommodation or adaptation.

The efforts of you and the rest of the deniers here and deniers worldwide have made to slow or stop any response or reform to address  these problems will cost humanity - our children and theirs - for a dozen generations - incredibly.  I will do my best to make certain our descendants know exactly who is responsible for the pain they will suffer and how greed, ignorance and cowardice motivated those individuals to do what they did.  Perhaps they'll take it as a lesson: in the future they'll know whom to teach, to whom to listen and who to utterly ignore.


----------



## Crick (Jun 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > On top of that, pH changes recently have taken place at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history.  But you seem to think that means nothing.
> ...



You failed to read what you should have read.


----------



## Crick (Jun 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> These people simply lack any ability to think for themselves.  Imagine, believing that the rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of what it was at the beginning of the present ice age and it was low, relatively speaking even then.



Read this you incredible fool.

A review by climate scientists at the RealClimate blog, of a 2005 report by the Royal Society of the UK similarly highlighted the centrality of the rates of change in the present anthropogenic acidification process, writing:[38]

*"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+ and CO2&#8722;3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."*


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> Increasing the half life of ozone will NOT make it well mixed across the entire stratosphere because the upper portions have too much UVC.  The regions of the stratosphere where you say it should be greatest is where it cannot exist under any circumstances.



You just can't stop lying can you?  When you have no actual argument, you make up statements from your opponents and argue against them...same as you did in your last idiot incarnation before you got banned.

I said that if you find yourself a graph of oxygen concentration in the upper atmosphere, you will find that the ozone concentration will match the upper level of any significant O2 concentration.  Ozone stays where it forms because it decays to fast to move about.



Crick said:


> whole argument is just another wasted detour.  Human CFC emissions are responsible for it's disappearance.



This whole argument is just another example of how easily it is to dupe idiots with no science background with side show tricks.  You accept a long half-life of O3 but never question why it isn't well mixed within at least the stratosphere.  And when questioned about it, you make up arguments from your opponent to rail against.

Maybe CFC's do destroy ozone, but so what.  It decomposes in minutes and is replenished almost immediately during daylight hours.  Look back at the video I provided...it shows the ozone hole increasing as less and less light becomes available to make more.  The ozone hole is a hoax and only the bases idiots fell for it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Earth's history is the key phrase there you idiot.  If the rate is unprecedented, then it isn't atmospheric CO2 that is causing it....and don't even try to tell me that a proxy exists that will tell you at what rate atmospheric CO2 levels have changed prior to the beginning of the present ice age.  The statement is made up bullshit based on nothing more than a political bias.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > These people simply lack any ability to think for themselves.  Imagine, believing that the rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of what it was at the beginning of the present ice age and it was low, relatively speaking even then.
> ...




And how long is the Vostok record?  It records the decent into an ice age where atmospheric CO2 is naturally going to be decreasing.  How stupid are you?  Do you think the earth formed during the period the Vostok record covers and there was nothing prior to the beginning of the ice age?  The Vostok data records the descent of the earth into an ice age, and just a little bit of its exit from an ice age.  You have no idea what the normal is for coming out of an ice age and yet you believe that you do because you can see the emperor's clothes.


----------



## Crick (Jun 5, 2014)

The same may be seen ANYWHERE in the geological record.  As I posted here earlier, the geological evidence indicates that the rate of ocean acidification between 1751 and today is greater than any in the last 300 million years.  CaCO3 compensation via weathering is unable to keep up and ocean pH will spike as it has never spiked before.

You are the most perfect example of that Dunning Kruger effect I have ever seen.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.
> ...



How much CO2 is released by humans?

Take 40% of that number

OK. Start there


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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




Then, of course, we might want to consider the total VOLUME of the oceans.

And of course, it might help to ascertain how many parts per unit (CO2 in water) turns water into an acid akin to gastric juices.

All of that is just a small start, by the way.

Science, bitches.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


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



Yeah, when they realized the error of their ways they changed it to "it's not the WHOLE OCEAN that's turning to acid, it's only the area we're measuring"

It's Fake Science from start to finish.

Also confusing is the entire concept of 40% of AGW CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, but that's for another time


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

the study didn't say that

its say up to 30-40%

and didn't say just oceans

it mentioned oceans rivers and lakes

and it also said "some of it reacts" to form carbonic acid

not all of it


I know I know, you cant do nuance.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So where is your proof it is there?  Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.
> ...



sure, you think you're some big bad message board dude, eh? Let me tell you something jack, I've asked and others have asked and still you have not provided any evidence, zip, nadda.  Before you start flexing your itsy bitsy muscles, perhaps you could do one thing, prove your point!!!!! Hahahahahahaahaha you loser.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 5, 2014)

Come on people.  You're not being realistic here.  Their computer models have simply failed in their predictions of doom and gloom scenarios of disappearing glaciers and ice caps and Greenland turned into a banana belt and inundation of coastal cities and all that.  And with it being more and more difficult to sell the thinking public on a concept of global warming, they have to have some other kind of catastrophic scenario for scientists to study and write terrifying papers about in order to keep all those lovely billions of government money flowing into their bank accounts.

So I think ocean acidfication is probably the trial balloon they are floating to see if it will develop any legs.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I gave you 5.



Zero is not 5. You're just lying now. Other than that advertisement, which doesn't count, you gave us no references at all stating that atmospheric ozone has a half life of minutes. 



> If O3 even had a half life of 24 hours it would be a well mixed gas within the stratosphere at least.



"Because I say so!", the only argument you ever have on any topic, is not particularly convincing to anyone outside of your cult.



> I gave you a 9 month video of the ozone "hole" over antarctica.  It clearly shows the hole forming and growing as the winter progresses....precisely as I stated.  No UV...no ozone.



So now you're claiming that the ozone hole has zero ozone, and that it exactly matches the polar night? That's what your theory says must happen, that the night side must instantly go to zero ozone. And it doesn't happen. Not even close. Hence, your theory is a delusional crock of shit. That would be why the whole world laughs at it.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 5, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sure, you think you're some big bad message board dude, eh?



Um, no. That's why I said your meltdown has nothing to do with what I do. I'm just pointing out you're melting down into incoherence. You're not even trying to talk about issues, you're just going totally obsessive about me.

If simple criticism of your suckass science and logic flusters you that badly, you might want to take a break. I'm just looking out for your welfare here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> the study didn't say that
> 
> its say up to 30-40%
> 
> ...



LOL

Wait.

You think that was helpful?

I was being generous to your "Theory"

You clowns keep spewing the "30 gigatons of CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as if it's a big deal, but when you divide that by the volume of the ocean, it's less than a rounding error. If you take only 30% of it as you suggest it's even less; if you add in the rivers and streams, the number goes down even further

The mass of water in the oceans is 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg

Theres about 1000 kg in a ton so the 30 gigatons is about 3 *10 ^13, so you see how the math is not your friend even assuming 100% of the CO2 enters the oceans

Try not being a reflexive dupe.

Think it through, the AGWCult Theory makes no sense!


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > the study didn't say that
> ...



Your posts read like this: 

hurr dee durr, derpa derpa Obama is a mooslim....

her deeee derr, I hate my life the pres is a Kenyan!!!!!! bases on the moon!@!@




so, shut the fuck up. kindly. 

regards,

yo dad.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I said don't be a reflexive Dupe.

I tired to help.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Do you need an aspirin?  Seems your brain is gone.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



tire<sic> to help some more, flea brain


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I can't help you. You have no idea how dumb you really are and refuse to take even a second to think about anything


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



amazingly - you just expressed my own thoughts about you

pat yourself on the back


or the dick if youre a freak lie that



I wont tell anyone


----------



## mamooth (Jun 5, 2014)

So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:

1. Global warming
2. Ocean acidification
3. Ozone depletion
4. DDT being harmful

Anything else? Science only. We need not get into the kook political beliefs of the cult.

For example, do deniers accept that lead in the environment is harmful? That fluoridation is not a plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids? That secondhand smoke is harmful? That the HIV virus causes AIDS? Deniers, if you need to check with your masters here for an answer, do so and get back to us.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:
> 
> 1. Global warming
> 2. Ocean acidification
> ...



you forgot bases on the moon


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Sure, Vanilla Ice. Keep it real


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:
> 
> 1. Global warming
> 2. Ocean acidification
> ...



mass of water in the oceans is 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg

Total Mass of CO2 added annually 3 *10^13

see the problem with your "Manmade CO2 is turning the oceans to acid" theory?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I always keep it real, there - tin foil puss.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:
> 
> 1. Global warming
> 2. Ocean acidification
> ...



Personally, I'll settle for one experiment that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



See the simple math problem I posted?

It means that it's physically impossible for your "ManMade CO2 is turning the Oceans to Acid" Theory to work


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Good thing GT never said that 


but more to the point, your math is irrelevant

if you want to accurately say what your pea brain is trying to say - - -- - you'd take the percent of c02 being said to contribute to the acidification of the ocean(which isn't 30-40%, btw - - - -read more carefully), and compare it with the percent of measured acidification (it isn't but a percent increase, not a complete transformation into acid).

that's kinda hard when youre on the derp squad though


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



...and you bury yourself further and further.

The 30GT figure was 100% of the AGW figure, is 30% less or more than 100%?

In fact we'll do 100% for 100 years.

That's 3 *10^15 and the oceans remain at 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg so there total contribution of 100% of 30 GT annual to the oceans is 0.000219% of the total mass of the oceans.

That's a really small number, too small for it to have the stated effect on ocean pH

Is this making any sense to you?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Can you see your reflection when you're looking into the base on the moon, dingbat?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You see how fucked up this stupid "Theory" is right?

It's not possible for it to work at all


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2014)

Where's Admiral Moonbat.

You see now why I said the Ocean acidification story HAS to be total crap?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Where's Admiral Moonbat.
> 
> You see now why I said the Ocean acidification story HAS to be total crap?



I really love when the facts hit them in the face and the only response is filth and potty mouthed posts.  They are so distinguished and full of class, eh?

I've always wondered what chapter in the book the insults are kept in.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> That's 3 *10^15 and the oceans remain at 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg so there total contribution of 100% of 30 GT annual to the oceans is 0.000219% of the total mass of the oceans.
> 
> That's a really small number, too small for it to have the stated effect on ocean pH
> 
> Is this making any sense to you?



No, because it sucks balls as science. In addition to forgetting it's a yearly increase and ignoring ocean stratification, it's also just a variation of your amazingly stupid "a trace can't affect temperature" retardation.

jc fell for it, of course. It came from a fellow cult member, so jc instantly believed with all his little cultist heart, despite the obviously stupidity of it. You're both sterling illustrations of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, people who are way too stupid to ever have an inkling of how stupid you are.


----------



## hadit (Jun 5, 2014)

And the insults spewed from the castle walls (3 gold smilies to the one who picks up on the reference) continue to prove the reality that science plays a significantly smaller role in this discussion than does politics.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 5, 2014)

The frenchmen didn't just spew insults. They kicked the asses of the knights. Just as we kick the asses of the denier loons concerning the science.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 5, 2014)

I'm bored. I could instantly see why Frank's theory was so dumb, being I understand chemistry, but it never hurts to run the numbers.

According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.

CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.

1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.

That's a thousand times less than Franks 0.000219% figure. Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see a far lower percentage causing more of a pH drop.

Hence, Frank's kook theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.

(I understand that the ocean isn't that simple, that there are buffering agents complicating things, and that it takes exponentially more CO2 to get pH dropping more. But the point of this exercise was not to calculate ocean pH; it was to show Frank was full of shit.)


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



He doesn't know what 1.37 × 10^ 21 kg means.  He can't put it into any context that would allow him to make sense of the volume of the ocean vs the amount of human made CO2 in the atmosphere.  He has been told that humans are causing ocean acidification via their CO2 emissions and he lacks both the basic math skills and the critical thinking skills required to put the statement to the test...so he simply believes...like all of the poor dupes who simply believe because they think that they really don't have any other choice.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:
> 
> 1. Global warming
> 2. Ocean acidification
> ...



Actually admiral hairball, we, unlike you are required to do nothing...we are highly skeptical of the claims of the above because those making the claims lack any hard evidence to support their claims, fabricate evidence when necessary, and lie all the time.  Anyone who believes claims based on little if any empirical evidence is an idiot, and those who believe because they think that the piss poor excuse for evidence that is provided is actual evidence are just tragic.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So, the fringe kook right cult is now required to deny:
> ...



Again, no grasp of what you are saying...no basic math skills necessary to do anything with the numbers...no critical thinking skills required to question their belief.  You are talking way over their heads....it probably isn't possible to speak to them at a level they understand over the computer....you would have to have a sit down face to face that would involve paper and a box of crayons.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Again...you are talking so far over their heads that they can't even begin to comprehend what you said.  30% and 100% they get, because the scare piece was written in a way to scare them.  They can't grasp how vanishingly small that 30 or even the 100% is in relation to the volume of the oceans.  You might not even be able to communicate to them with paper and crayons.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Where's Admiral Moonbat.
> 
> You see now why I said the Ocean acidification story HAS to be total crap?



Of course he doesn't see.  He believes.  

Don't even try to get into the fact that rainwater all over the earth at a pH of about 5.6 (slightly acidic) reacts with the most common mineral on earth (feldspars) and produce clays.  Don't bother mentioning that the process of producing clays is a reaction that consumes acid.  It is no point in pointing out to them that alkali and alkaline clays are then deposited into the oceans and are then redeposited as cements in sediments.  It is also no point in telling them that this also is an acid consuming reaction that is accelerated by temperature.

They don't grasp that in the ocean, there is a buffering action between the basalts found on the sea floor and sea water.  They don't know any of these things and don't want to know any of these things.  They can't begin to understand the fact that the pH scale is a log scale and they can't possibly grasp that there isn't enough fossil fuel on earth to make the oceans acidic.  

They hear that CO2 can make water acidic...they don't know that the experiments that prove this are done in the lab with distilled water.  They have no idea how different the real world is and no idea of the number of things that are happening in the real world that make it impossible for the oceans to become acidic...unless, perhaps we run out of rocks.  

And they certainly will never ask climate science why feldspar and silicate buffering reactions which have been well understood for a good long time now are never mentioned by the acidification hysterics.

You are talking to literal children who see climate pseudoscientists as parent like figures.  They can no more question them than a 3 year old could question financial decisions made by his father.


----------



## Crick (Jun 6, 2014)

Frank,

How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> Frank,
> 
> How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?



A: potato


----------



## Crick (Jun 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Where's Admiral Moonbat.
> ...



The material we've been posting thoroughly discusses the role of weathering in the process.  In all prior instances, CO2 levels have risen and fallen slowly enough that CaCO3 weathering has allowed the ocean's pH to remain within a narrow range.  The current rate of acidification is at least ten times faster than ANY point in the last 300 million years.  Weathering will not be able to keep up.  Ocean pH will spike.

Perhaps you ought to try READING some basic references on the topic.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> Frank,
> 
> How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?



In a lab or in nature?  Two entirely different things.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Pure pulled out of someone's ass bullshit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## mamooth (Jun 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Of course he doesn't see.  He believes.



You're deliberately ignoring my post which debunked Frank's bullshit in detail, and instead are choosing to repeat the debunked bullshit. That's one heck of a brazen cowardly lie on your part.

At least Frank and jc had the decency to feel some shame and quietly slink away in disgrace. You don't even possess that modicum of decency. You're proudly displaying that classic sociopathic trait of being completely incapable of feeling shame or taking responsibility for you own bad behavior. Hence, like most sociopaths, you're a pathological liar.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course he doesn't see.  He believes.
> ...



You talking about me again?  Hah.... I believe nothing from you.  Information was provided and you haven't debunked it.  Sorry, what can I say.  Just like you can't provide proof of the 120PPM drives climate like you claim!!!!! I will say, at least you're consistent with not being able to prove your claims.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 6, 2014)

It is pretty funny to see how manboob and his AGW-Faither compatriots all strain so hard to AVOID defining their own heavily endorsed "theory."


----------



## mamooth (Jun 6, 2014)

Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?

It's not actually the case that most deniers are as breathtakingly stupid as they appear to be here. Only a few are actually that dumb. It's more the case that their cult has ordered them to pretend to be gibbering morons. And some of them, like jc to give one example, go a little overboard with their zeal to follow that order.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?
> 
> It's not actually the case that most deniers are as breathtakingly stupid as they appear to be here. Only a few are actually that dumb. It's more the case that their cult has ordered them to pretend to be gibbering morons. And some of them, like jc to give one example, go a little overboard with their zeal to follow that order.



You ARE in fact pretty breathtakingly dumb if THAT is your notion of the greenhouse AGW Theory.

Sunlight goes right through the greenhouse glass and IR radiates back up.  But IR gets blocked by greenhouse glass so not all of the energy coming INTO the greenhouse escapes.   And the net effect is (akin to a blanket) the greenhouse glass keeps the greenhouse warm.

See?  I just did a slightly better job in explaining YOUR theory than you did.

But, unlike you, I am willing to admit that there are a lot of variables and assumptions at work in your analogy of greenhouse gasses and water vapor acting like the glass of a greenhouse.  And you, sure as shit, have never successfully even so much as ATTEMPTED to address those numerous assumptions and the myriad of variables.

I'll give YOU a little credit.  Unlike many of your compatriots, YOU at least occasionally acknowledge some of those things.  Sadly, however, when you confronted by others with a significantly deeper base of knowledge on the topic, you tend to run away from engaging in the discussion.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 6, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> But, unlike you, I am willing to admit that there are a lot of variables and assumptions at work in your analogy of greenhouse gasses and water vapor acting like the glass of a greenhouse.



Being I never made such an analogy, your whole rant looks crazy.

But thanks for confirming another point I like to make, which is that deniers rarely respond to what you actually say, since they're generally incapable of doing so. Instead, they'll respond to some convenient strawman.



> Sadly, however, when you confronted by others with a significantly deeper base of knowledge on the topic, you tend to run away from engaging in the discussion.



Thanks for illustrating another point I like to make, which is that deniers are delusional, having some very peculiar and amusing misconceptions concerning the intellects and quality of discussion from their fellow deniers. 

But by all means, point out these instances where a superior mind has caused me to run. This should be funny.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?
> 
> It's not actually the case that most deniers are as breathtakingly stupid as they appear to be here. Only a few are actually that dumb. It's more the case that their cult has ordered them to pretend to be gibbering morons. And some of them, like jc to give one example, go a little overboard with their zeal to follow that order.



How ironic.


----------



## Crick (Jun 7, 2014)

No, how true.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, how true.



You know how we can tell it's a lie?  An AGW cult member posted it.


----------



## Crick (Jun 7, 2014)

Picture that ol' visitor from Mars.  He sees a relatively technologically advanced society: advanced solid state electronics, nuclear power, space travel, advanced medicine, etc.  Earth culture has a pretty substantial reliance on the work of its scientists.  Then he comes across a social phenomenon that they just don't have on back on Mars.  Science on Earth has concluded that human GHG emissions are warming the planet and are beginning to have harmful consequences.  However, a small group of people rejects what mainstream science has to say.  Their arguments flip from one topic to another, their speeches are filled with charges massive incompetence and world spanning conspiracies charging that thousands of a specific group of scientists want to get rich off everyone else's misery and all have the moral lacking to take action on that desire.  When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass incompetence.  When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass conspiracy.  And so forth.

Now you think the Martian is going to conclude YOU are the ones telling the truth around here?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> Picture that ol' visitor from Mars.  He sees a relatively technologically advanced society: advanced solid state electronics, nuclear power, space travel, advanced medicine, etc.  Earth culture has a pretty substantial reliance on the work of its scientists.  Then he comes across a social phenomenon that they just don't have on back on Mars.  Science on Earth has concluded that human GHG emissions are warming the planet and are beginning to have harmful consequences.  However, a small group of people rejects what mainstream science has to say.  Their arguments flip from one topic to another, their speeches are filled with charges massive incompetence and world spanning conspiracies charging that thousands of a specific group of scientists want to get rich off everyone else's misery and all have the moral lacking to take action on that desire.  When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass incompetence.  When the insanity of that charge is pointed out to them, they flip back to charges of mass conspiracy.  And so forth.
> 
> Now you think the Martian is going to conclude YOU are the ones telling the truth around here?



The problem with your little story is that science hasn't concluded anything about the effect of man made GHGs on the planet.  Only liberal turds like you have reached any conclusions.

There's nothing "insane" about the fact that some people want to live at the expense of others.  Just about everything government does is motivated by that principle.  every government employee sucking off the taxpayers is living at the expense of others. So-called AGW researchers are obviously making a living at the expense of the taxpayers.  There's nothing shocking about the claim that they want to keep the mazuma flowing and even increase the flow.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> Frank,
> 
> How much dissolved carbon dioxide does it take to lower the pH of one kilogram of seawater by 0.1?



I don't know. I've been asking the AGWCult that question since you starting proposing the idea that AGW is "Acidifying the oceans'

How come you cane show us how that works either?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 7, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Frank,
> ...



Yes that's the answer I get from the AGWCult

You need* FAITH* in the CO2 molecule to believe!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 7, 2014)

Hmmm.  I was never taught that CO2 blocks infrared radiation.  I was taught that CO2  absorbs  infrared radiation.  As does water vapor.   And there is a whole lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2, but our AGW alarmists don't seem to be at all concerned about that.

Just as huge lion's share of our atmosphere is nitrogen, also a so-called greenhouse gas, but that never seems to be a factor in the whole climate change equation does it.  All the focus is on controlling CO2 via carbon credits and more and more regulation, restrictions, mandates, etc. while nitrogen is ignored.

You know, it is a curiosity why stuff isn't part of the debate.  Does anybody ever wonder why it isn't?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course he doesn't see.  He believes.
> ...



Excuse me, Admiral. I've been at a closing the past few days and I'm back to ask again that you show us how much CO2 is needed to alter the pH of the oceans as you suggest

Are you at all embarrassed that you've can show that the same way you've never show us a lab experiment that shows "Warming" from a 120PPM increase in CO2?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 7, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Hmmm.  I was never taught that CO2 blocks infrared radiation.  I was taught that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.



Lexical nitpicking is generally taken as a sign of desperation.



> As does water vapor. And there is a whole lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than there is CO2, but our AGW alarmists don't seem to be at all concerned about that.



Given water vapor is examined closely, you seem to be shockingly ignorant of the science. Who misinformed you so badly?



> Just as huge lion's share of our atmosphere is nitrogen, also a so-called greenhouse gas, but that never seems to be a factor in the whole climate change equation does it.  All the focus is on controlling CO2 via carbon credits and more and more regulation, restrictions, mandates, etc. while nitrogen is ignored.



Because nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas.

I'm guessing you found a blog somewhere that said "Look! Nitrogen absorbs infrared! Global Warming is a hoax!". Yes, nitrogen has an absorption spike in the IR band, but it's in the shortwave IR band. Same with oxygen. Earth doesn't radiate infrared in the shortwave IR band, hence the absorption band of nitrogen doesn't come into play, hence it is not a greenhouse gas.



> You know, it is a curiosity why stuff isn't part of the debate.  Does anybody ever wonder why it isn't?



Because nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas.

Assuming that some blog has the RealTruth and that all the scientists in the world are stupid or corrupt is not a good idea. A smart starting point is to assume the best minds in the world here actually know what they're doing. That leads to less embarrassment.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 7, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Excuse me, Admiral. I've been at a closing the past few days and I'm back to ask again that you show us how much CO2 is needed to alter the pH of the oceans as you suggest



Already done. I showed how less that 1/1000 of the absorbed CO2 could accomplish a bigger pH change than you talk about.

And rather than respond, you ran. Again. And you'll keep running, because your cowardice is one of your defining features, along with your rank dishonesty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, Admiral. I've been at a closing the past few days and I'm back to ask again that you show us how much CO2 is needed to alter the pH of the oceans as you suggest
> ...



I missed it, please repost


----------



## mamooth (Jun 7, 2014)

Sure thing.

According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.

Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.

CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get 1.5E-6 grams/liter.

1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... 1.5E-7 percent.

That's a thousand times less than Franks 0.000219% figure. Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see 1/1000 as much causing more of a pH drop.

Hence, Frank's theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.

I understand that the ocean isn't that simple, that there are buffering agents complicating things, and that it takes exponentially more CO2 to get pH dropping more. But the point of this exercise was not to calculate ocean pH exactly. The point was to show Frank's claim is contrary to how chemistry works, and that there's plenty enough CO2 to make significant pH changes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.
> 
> ...



If that's accurate, I stand corrected


----------



## jillian (Jun 7, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?
> ...



Already been done, Frank....no matter what science deniers say.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 7, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing.
> ...


It`s not accurate, it`s way off *!*


> Frank claimed such a low percentage could never affect pH, yet here we see 1/1000 as much causing more of a pH drop.
> 
> Hence, Frank's theory of "tiny percentages can't possibly drop pH!" is decisively refuted.
> *The point was to show Frank's claim is contrary to how chemistr*y *works, *


I had a good laugh when I`ve seen that and so would any chemist, because in order to drop the pH the *CO2 needs to converted into carbonic acid.*
Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] &#8776; 1.7×10&#8722;3 in pure water[3] and &#8776; 1.2×10&#8722;3 in seawater.[4] *Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules.*


And before CO2 can form carbonic acid with water it first has to get dissolved in water.
"mamooth" said:


> According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.
> That's a a .19 pH drop, a larger drop than the one Frank is speaking of in the oceans.


So he used pH 7 as a baseline and picked the numbers of the wiki table for pH 6.81 without understanding what the table shows.
On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81
For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words *100 times more CO2 *than what it is 
*if the oceans were already at pH 7
But they are not
*
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3596.pdf


> Caldeira  and  Wickett  [7]  project  a  maximum  pH  reduction  in  2300  of  0.77  units  for  an
> atmospheric  concentration  of  *carbon  dioxide **of  1900  ppmv.
> *
> Using Eq. (5) again, one obtains pH(2300)  =  7.44.    So  again,  the  eighteen
> ...


So NOOA says a good deal of more research is needed before we can make ocean pH projections.
If "mamooth" whould give them a chemistry lesson, that would save a lot of money


> ....how chemistry works,  and that there's plenty enough CO2 to make significant pH changes


----------



## Crick (Jun 7, 2014)

PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:

 Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 [5], representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7]

5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research &#8211; Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6)  Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96&#8211;9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop


----------



## mamooth (Jun 7, 2014)

polarbear said:


> On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81
> For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words *100 times more CO2 *than what it is *if the oceans were already at pH 7
> But they are not*



You don't understand what the table shows. It has nothing to do with seawater. The table simply shows how much CO2 dissolves in regular water at different partial pressures, and what pH will result from having that much CO2 dissolve. It has separate columns for CO2 and Carbonic Acid concentrations, and I correctly used the CO2 column, since the topic being discussed was the amount of CO2 being dissolved in the ocean. I compared apples to apples, while you're doing apples to oranges.



> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3596.pdf
> Caldeira  and  Wickett  [7]  project  a  maximum  pH  reduction  in  2300  of  0.77  units  for  an
> atmospheric  concentration  of  *carbon  dioxide **of  1900  ppmv.
> *



So that source says a lot of CO2 would makes for a huge pH decrease. It's basically confirming the point that CO2 drops pH.



> So NOOA says a good deal of more research is needed before we can make ocean pH projections.



Good thing then that I wasn't making a precise ocean pH prediction, something I specifically pointed out.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

jillian said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:
> 
> Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 [5], representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7]
> 
> ...



It's an *ESTIMATE *From people who have been caught with their thumb on the scale multiple times


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

How would you go about obtaining a more accurate figure dude?


Or should I say, "A more *ACCURATE* figure"?


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking



No Frank, you didn't miss it and EVERYONE here knows that to be a fact.  Thus, everyone here knows you are LYING.  Bravo.  Well Done.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 8, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > PolarBear, do you deny the following statement:
> ...



That`s right it`s an estimate and the people who estimated it are hell bent to "prove" that oceans "acidify at alarming" or "unprecedented" rates....and do it by claiming that they estimate that the "average ocean pH" which varies all over the place was 0.1 pH units higher.
The fact that there is no data supporting that claim does not matter because in that "science" all it takes is an estimate and a "consensus" amongst those who estimated it. After that some of the media and individuals with no background in chemistry whatsoever do the rest.
Take "mamooth" for example.


> You don't understand what the table shows. It has nothing to do with  seawater. The table simply shows how much CO2 dissolves in regular water  at different partial pressures, and what pH will result from having  that much CO2 dissolve. It has separate columns for CO2 and Carbonic  Acid concentrations, and I correctly used the CO2 column, since the  topic being discussed was the amount of CO2 being dissolved in the  ocean. I compared apples to apples, while you're doing apples to  oranges.


Now he is *twisting it as if I was the one *who picked these numbers  from wiki....which are indeed for water without any CaCO3 buffer in it.
Now he admits it has nothing to do with sea water and *talks as if it wasn`t him *who copied and pasted the numbers from that wiki-page.
All I did was showing how way off the mark his claim was.


> mamooth The table simply shows how much CO2 dissolves in regular water at  different partial pressures, and what pH will result from having that  much CO2 dissolve.


*So "mamooth" show me were in your post you addressed the partial pressure for CO2.*


> mamooth post #349
> According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of 3.36E-8 moles/liter.
> 
> Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


After you posted these ridiculous numbers I posted what it would take for pCO2 for the equally ridiculous pH range you copied from wikipedia:


> polarbear post 352
> So he used pH 7 as a baseline and picked the numbers of the wiki table for pH 6.81 without understanding what the table shows.
> *On the left side of the table are the numbers for the partial pressure of CO2 you need to get from pH 7 down to pH 6.81*
> For pH7 pCO2 = 10^(-8) atm and to get it down to pH 6.81 you need a pCO2 of 10^(-6) in other words *100 times more CO2 *than what it is
> *if the oceans were already at pH 7*


And now* you* *pretend that I picked that table and that you did it correctly for ppm CO2.*
But that`s par for the course. Everyone of you instant wiki-science "graduates" does the same thing when you get caught bullshitting.
*If you had any idea whatsoever how to do the math then why did you not do it for the pH range of 8.25 to 8.14 ?*
If I wanted to I could and I would not be confined to the numbers of that wiki-page *which don`t go above pH7.*
*You however are confined *to the numbers wiki listed there *because you haven`t got the slightest clue how to do that calculation.*
and boast to Frank that you know more about chemistry than he does...and are you saying now you know more about it than I do as well?
Weren`t you the one who was talking about "ink molecules"  last year when the same subject was discussed.
I`m still waiting for you to show me what the molecular structure of an "ink molecule" looks like.
We have been round the same bend just a little while ago with that instant wiki-science expert"Abraham3" before he changed his name to "Crick".
He can`t even use a log function correctly and you can`t do a simple calculation with exponents either:


> mamooth post # 349
> According to the wiki page on carbonic acid, a pH of 6.81 requires a CO2 concentration of *3.36E-8 moles/liter.*
> CO2 is about 44 grams per mole, so multiplying, we get *1.5E-6 grams/liter.*
> 1000 grams in a liter, so CO2 concentration is ... *1.5E-7 percent*.


44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7  grams per liter not 1.5 E-6
and if you have 0.00000014784 grams per liter that would be 0.00014784 ppm. A ppm is one part per million and a percent is one part in 100.
So before you start lecturing us about pH and chemistry you should first learn how to use exponents and how to convert ppm correctly to percent.
And after you did then come back here and tell us what the pH would be if you got a solution of 1.5 ^(-7) grams of CO2 gas in water.
1.7/1000 th of that is Carbonic acid and the pKa for Carbonic acid is on the same wiki page you were quoting.
*Since you were the one who used tables for plane water keep using plain water.*
*You have no idea anyway what you were quoting *from there when you did your milkmaid math and could not even do that right.
If you knew how the pH is calculated then you should have realized at the first glance at that table that the numbers you used to perform your screwy math *has nothing to do with dissociated CO2 as an acid.*
The number you copied from the table [CO2](mol/L) was  *3.36E-8 moles/liter *
Since you have zero knowledge about chemistry you don`t know the difference between [CO2] and [CO*3*]2- and took that number as dissociated [CO*3*]2- which is the anion of carbonic acid.
The correct numbers for the pH you picked (pH 6.81) would have been in then columns labelled [HCO3&#8722;](mol/L) and [CO32&#8722;](mol/L)
In conclusion it`s abundantly clear that the table you wagged in front of Frank`s face has dick all to do with "ocean" water "acidification, current ppm atmospheric CO2 and the pH range in question.
And it`s also clear that you have no idea whatsoever what the number you picked expressed....which is CO2 dissolved in H2O and is in no way an "acid",...until it is Carbonic acid which only yields :
HCO3&#8722; 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 CO32&#8722; + H+_K_a2 = 4.69×10^(&#8722;11)mol/litre  which is the ratio of [H+] times [CO3 2&#8722;]  to non dissociated, meaning pH inactive carbonic acid.The [H+] concentration in moles per liter would be the square root of that and the pH would be the negative log value taken from that.
After that do the math how much more CO2 you need in the atmosphere to drop the pH from 8.1 to 8.0 considering the partial pressure increase it takes just to increase how much CO2 is dissolved in water and that it takes 1000 times more dissolved CO2 before you get 1 single molecule of carbonic acid which in turn is one of the weakest acids with a pKa of only 4.7 E-7  
I won`t do it for you but rather sit back and wait for you and "Crick" to do it so that I can have a good laugh.
It would be a fulltime job to debunk all the bullshit you freaks are posting and I do have better things to do with my time.


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

polarbear said:


> That`s right it`s an estimate and the people who estimated it are hell bent to "prove" that oceans "acidify at alarming" or "unprecedented" rates....and do it by claiming that they estimate that the "average ocean pH" which varies all over the place was 0.1 pH units higher.
> The fact that there is no data supporting that claim does not matter because in that "science" all it takes is an estimate and a "consensus" amongst those who estimated it. After that some of the media and individuals with no background in chemistry whatsoever do the rest.



That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better.  You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries.  And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you.  Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid.  Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.

1) Acid-Base Physiology 2.1 - Acid-Base Balance by Kerry Brandis
2) Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310. ISBN 0080379419.
3) Housecroft and Sharpe, Inorganic Chemistry, 2nd ed, Prentice-Pearson-Hall 2005, p.368.
4) Soli, A.L.; R.H. Byrne (2002). "CO2 system hydration and dehydration kinetics and the equilibrium CO2/H2CO3 ratio in aqueous NaCl solution". Marine chemistry 78 (23): 6573. doi:10.1016/S0304-4203(02)00010-5.
5) "excretion." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010.
6) Sabine, C.L.; et al. (2004). " "The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2". Science 305 (5682): 367371. doi:10.1126/science.1097403. PMID 15256665.[dead link]
7) "Ocean Acidification Network".
8) National Research Council. "Summary." Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. 1. Print.
9) Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310. ISBN 0080379419.
10) Loerting, T.; Tautermann, C.; Kroemer, R.T.; Kohl, I.; Hallbrucker, E.; Mayer, A.; Liedl, K. R. (2001). "On the Surprising Kinetic Stability of Carbonic Acid". Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39 (5): 891895. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(20000303)39:5<891::AID-ANIE891>3.0.CO;2-E. PMID 10760883.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> How would you go about obtaining a more accurate figure dude?
> 
> 
> Or should I say, "A more *ACCURATE* figure"?



IDK maybe you could have done a lab experiment showing the ocean acidification that would occur from an additional 100PPM of atmospheric CO2?

Instead you make up some imaginary ESTIMATE of ocean pH 100 years ago.

You can show us in a lab how 100PPM of CO2 drops pH from 8.25 to 8.15, right?

You're not just making stuff up again, are you?


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution.  Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating.  It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution.  Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating.  It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.



Haven't been shown a single one actually


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > But, unlike you, I am willing to admit that there are a lot of variables and assumptions at work in your analogy of greenhouse gasses and water vapor acting like the glass of a greenhouse.
> ...



^ manboob either flat out lies when caught or he actually doesn't understand the nature of his own "theory."  For the truth is, he HAS argued that the so-called "greenhouse gasses" have served to act like the glass of a greenhouse.  In short, manboob, you dishonest pathetic hack, it IS your theory.

Your denial of what you are actually contending is highly amusing.  

You truly are fundamentally dishonest or just pitiably stupid.  Possibly both.


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on.  It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation.  It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s.  So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked.  It's why the process was named as it was.

But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days.  It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here.  So, Mylar, what's your point?  Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution.  Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating.  It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.
> ...



And you talk to your children with that mouth?  Fucking amazing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on.  It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation.  It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s.  So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked.  It's why the process was named as it was.
> 
> But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days.  It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here.  So, Mylar, what's your point?  Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?



No one but a bunch of scientific ignoramuses ever thought greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better.  You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries.  And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you.  Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid.  Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.



It`s you who is full of bullshit and who is ridiculous.
I asked you and your buddy mamooth to do the very simple math how many ppm atmospheric CO2 would it take to drop the pH of plain water by 0.1 *and neither you or your buddy can do it* and both of you are trying to conceal that by "answering" with what you`ve been Googling about ocean acidification.
It turned out (when you were still Abraham3) that you can`t even do a simple conversion of [H+] concentration to get the correct pH and your buddy can`t even convert ppm to percent.
*That also tells me that neither of you would have a clue *what this oceanographer with a PhD in chemistry or any of the other authors  are talking about.
Like your #1  Google search result.

1) Acid-Base Physiology 2.1 - Acid-Base Balance by Kerry Brandis
Is about acid base role in the liver, urinary pH etc and has s.f.a. to do with the subject
#2 is a reference to a basic chemistry book published by Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 310... . and so on and on
Why page 310? You don`t even have it in your post what`s on page 310 of that book, so why do you pretend that you have been reading it?
It`s a list of Google search results that comes up in the same order as you posted it when somebody who has no clue about pH Googled for it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


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


my oldest was one of the top 5 students in his law school, my youngest just finished working at an iPSC lab and starts medical school so clearly my kids came out OK.

you however can go fuck your ignorant cult worshipping self

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking
> ...



IOW:  No.  Prick/Abe cannot show it.

Why not?

Because he is the liar and we all see it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show it? I must have missed it in the 6 years I've been asking
> ...


please repost the lab experiment showing a temperature increase from a 120ppm increase in CO2

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That's complete bullshit and I would have expected you to know better.  You know as well as do I that there exists butt-ton-loads of evidence to support all these ocean acidification commentaries.  And you know as well as do we all that these peer-reviewed, PhD chemistry and oceanography authors know this shit far better than do you.  Here is the full reference set from Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid.  Feel free to identify all the folks with no background in chemistry - the "ridiculous" ones.
> ...



I told you exactly what that was but I guess you didn't read my massive tome with sufficient precision.  THAT is the REFERENCE section to Wikipedia's article on carbonic acid, the one you claimed had been written by people with no familiarity with chemistry, the one you called "ridiculous".

Point is, the world's real chemists and real oceanographers are quite certain that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the 0.1 pH acidification that the ocean has undergone in the last century or so.  You think it is not.  I'm going to side with them.

A number of scientists have lately been studying CO2 and pH transitions throughout the Earth's history and have found that when CO2 levels increase slowly, weathering ashore is able to buffer the reaction and maintain equilibrium within a very narrow range of pH.  The current rate of change is larger by at least one order of magnitude than any change in the last 300 million years - and that includes several extinction events.  We stand a VERY good chance that weathering will NOT be able to keep up with the rate of acidification and pH will spike as it has never done before.

I'm sure you disagree with that as well.  Well, tough shit.  As far as the peer reviewed work in refereed journals, researched and written by professional, degreed researchers, you might as well be a grade school student.  I don't think you're qualified to polish their shoes.  So when you and them disagree, I think you know which direction I'll be trending.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

polarbear said:


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


please make this a sticky! that's science!!

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

But the small library of chemistry textbooks that say he's wrong... what are they Frank?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on.  It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation.  It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s.  So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked.  It's why the process was named as it was.
> 
> But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days.  It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here.  So, Mylar, what's your point?  Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?



No, Pricky.  I am not unhappy at all.  I have a GOOD time pointing out how dishonest you are.

The FACT is that you AGW Faith-based goofballs HAVE been maintaining that the "trapped" heat in our atmosphere is "caused" by the CO2 gas and other alleged "greenhouse" gasses.  I am not as concerned with the mechanism of how it gets "trapped" according to you mush-mouthed vacillating dishonest cultist douche bags, as I am with the fact that you DO repeatedly make the claim.  

I'll grant you that you may have been yabbering a bit informally.  That's fair enough.

*But* the TRUTH is that you HAVE maintained that the heat gets "trapped" (even if that is not an accurate way of describing what you actually mean to convey).  There is a REASON that it's known as a "greenhouse" effect, you dishonest yabbering douch nugget.  It's why you try to explain it to skeptics in terms of a "blanket."  

And you know it.

You global Climate Faither cultist Warmer/Cooler/Cacaphony alarmists OFTEN talk in condescending ways to anybody who challenges your Faith.  I mean, shit:  Just look at the way you get your thin-skinned back up whenever anybody points out that *you are unable to coherently explain the basic thesis of your AGW theory.*

Instead of simply ANSWERING the questions put to you by CrusaderFrank, for instance, you PRETEND that the question has been answered a lot, previously.    Which is EXACTLY the same thing as NOT even attempting to answer his very precise question.  You are particularly adept at that evasion technique.  At least manboob tries.  He may be wrong and he may reveal the shallowness of his own alleged "understanding" in the AGW theroy "process," but at least he tries.

You, pricky, by contrast, are merely a weasel.  And you fool no body.  Your dishonesty is on full display,


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> But the small library of chemistry textbooks that say he's wrong... what are they Frank?


you're too stupid to know you're lying. 

there are zero science books showing how a 120 ppm increase in CO2 drops ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> No, Pricky.  I am not unhappy at all.  I have a GOOD time pointing out how dishonest you are.



That should be entertaining.  So... when are you going to start?



IlarMeilyr said:


> The FACT is that you AGW Faith-based goofballs HAVE been maintaining that the "trapped" heat in our atmosphere is "caused" by the CO2 gas and other alleged "greenhouse" gasses.



If by that slightly odd construction you mean to say that we (and the rest of mainstream science) have been contending that anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases trap or retain heat in our atmosphere, than you are correct.



IlarMeilyr said:


> I am not as concerned with the mechanism of how it gets "trapped"



Ohhh, I bet you're not.



IlarMeilyr said:


> according to you mush-mouthed vacillating dishonest cultist douche bags



Now that's not nice.  And here I was beginning to think of you in a positive manner



IlarMeilyr said:


> as I am with the fact that you DO repeatedly make the claim.



Well, not quite the way you put it, but there is a distinct resemblance.



IlarMeilyr said:


> I'll grant you that you may have been yabbering a bit informally.  That's fair enough.



And I do so love the full-on, informal yabber. 



IlarMeilyr said:


> But the TRUTH is that you HAVE maintained that the heat gets "trapped" (even if that is not an accurate way of describing what you actually mean to convey).  There is a REASON that it's known as a "greenhouse" effect, you dishonest yabbering douch nugget.  It's why you try to explain it to skeptics in terms of a "blanket."



Y-y-y-yesss.  Though it's known as the greenhouse effect because at the time the atmospheric process was discovered, it was thought that greenhouses got warm by the very same mechanism: that glazing allowed the sun's visible light to pass but reflected the infrared light radiated by the warmed interior.  Turns out that's not the case, but you know English - no vocabulary rules.



IlarMeilyr said:


> And you know it.



I know some things.  But I'm pretty sure I don't know what you know.  Maybe never.



IlarMeilyr said:


> You global Climate Faither cultist Warmer/Cooler/Cacaphony alarmists OFTEN talk in condescending ways to anybody who challenges your Faith.  I mean, shit:  Just look at the way you get your thin-skinned back up whenever anybody points out that you are unable to coherently explain the basic thesis of your AGW theory.



I just did.  In eight words.  "Anthropogenic greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere."  Yup.  Did that not seem coherent to you?  I'm quite certain I've explained that before on numerous occasions.  If you don't think that makes sense, tell me where it goes wonky on you and I'll straighten 'er out.



IlarMeilyr said:


> Instead of simply ANSWERING the questions put to you by CrusaderFrank, for instance, you PRETEND that the question has been answered a lot, previously.



We're not pretending in the slightest.  Besides, Frank was not asking a question, he was making a request.  There's a difference.  His request was also rhetorical in nature.  He didn't want to learn of an experiment that demonstrated AGW.  I guess he actually assumed there were no such experiments and that we would be embarrassed by being unable to produce one.  We didn't want to satisfy his initial requests because we knew he didn't really want to see them and that when he did, he would deny they did what their descriptions claimed, would deny that they were an adequate demonstration of the behavior of the climate in situ and then would simply deny that he had ever been shown a successful experiment.  Little did we know that he would actually take it a step further and deny that he had ever seen the things.  The posts can still be pulled up - christ, they're probably still warm.  The last set were put up by G.T.  Do a search through his posts (he hasn't done that many).  You'll find them.  Then you too can deny they do what they claim to do.

You also need to realize that it's not necessary to demonstrate this process by making some sort of global climate simulation (ie, a large clear box full of air and a cup of water) and shining bright lights at it.  You can take the gases that make up our atmosphere, and, in a nicely equipped lab such as the one Polar Bear is so proud of having worked, carefully measure their behavior in response to sunlight and how they behave when they get warm and get cold.  For instance, you may have seen a diagram like this on a few occasions.






 This graph shows what frequencies of light are absorbed by some of the components of our atmosphere: water vapor (H2O), oxygen and ozone (O2 and O3) and carbon dioxide (CO2).  The horizontal axis is frequency and goes through several bands of electromagnetic radiation (EM, aka light).  The vertical scales show the percent of light at each frequency absorbed by each gas.  You'll note that CO2's green curve is dominated by three humps.  The significant one is the one on the right.  That's the one that sits near the middle of the infrared band (heat) which the Earth uses to radiate its excess heat back to space.  You'll not it lies in a bit of a gap in H2O's curve.  H2O is the champeen absorber, but the only thing that'll change it's atmospheric level is heat.  It's got such a quick turn around time in the atmosphere that it's nigh on impossible to build it up there.  It just falls back down.  Rain, the locals call it.  CO2, on the other hand, can effectively stay in the atmosphere for centuries.  So if we add a little, it starts soaking up more heat and it keeps doing it for a very long time.  Even if we stop making CO2 now, the amount we've already put in the air will be there for a very long while.  Longer than you and me.

Anyway, back to experiments to demonstrate that CO2 absorbs infrared.  Look at that graph up there Mylar.  How do you think they got that information?  I'll tell you how they did it.  They did an experiment; the kind where you just measure something you don't know.  In this case, they measured how much CO2 absorbed different frequencies of light.  They found, as you can see right there, that it absorbs a band of infrared light right in the middle of the frequencies that the warm Earth wants to radiate back out to space.  That means that CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb that heat.  The CO2 will get warmer and some of that heat energy will spread to other gas molecules that brush up against the CO2.  Some of it will leave the CO2 the same way it came in: as infrared light in that same band.  It will hit and warm other gases, or the Earth or the ocean or it might escape out to space.  That's how CO2 makes us warmer.

There is Crusader Frank's experiments. We told him that over and over and over again.  But he refused to believe us.  I guess he was looking for that big clear box with the bowl of water and the floodlight.



IlarMeilyr said:


> Which is EXACTLY the same thing as NOT even attempting to answer his very precise question.  You are particularly adept at that evasion technique.  At least manboob tries.  He may be wrong and he may reveal the shallowness of his own alleged "understanding" in the AGW theroy "process," but at least he tries.
> 
> You, pricky, by contrast, are merely a weasel.  And you fool no body.  Your dishonesty is on full display,



Well, now you've got a little more information.  I'd be curious if you still think the same things.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Ilar, what about "CO2 blocks infrared radiation and warms the planet" escapes your grasp?



CO2 doesn't block IR.  CO2 absorbs and emits a narrow band of IR.  Absorption and emission are not blocking no matter how much you wish they were.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Lexical nitpicking is generally taken as a sign of desperation.



And claiming that a thing does a thing that it does;'t is a sign of a liar.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution.  Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating.  It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.
> ...



When you consider what passes for evidence in the minds (?) of these people, it is little wonder that they have been so completely hoaxed.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> I recall no such statements, though it was a pretty widespread misconception early on.  It was generally assumed that greenhouses worked by trapping IR radiation.  It was what I was taught in high school in the late 1960s.  So it would be correct to say that CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere work the way we used to think glass greenhouses worked.  It's why the process was named as it was.
> 
> But it certainly is not a position that anyone conversant on the topic would make these days.  It is most certainly not what I have read Mamooth contend ever since I got here.  So, Mylar, what's your point?  Are you unhappy that you aren't being allowed to argue against a straw man of your own creation?



Greenhousese work because the block conduction and convection to the outside atmosphere.  If your claim that the glass in a greenhouse absorbs IR were true, then you would, in effect, be saying that glass thermometers are inherently inaccurate.  Is that what you are saying?

By the way, in the late 60's the greenhouse effect was not even a blip on the radar insofar as primary education went...even if you were taking what might have then been called AP physics.  Caught lying again...feel free to go to the SAT of the period and look for anything that might reference the greenhouse effect.  You are one of the worst liars on this  board...


----------



## Crick (Jun 9, 2014)

First line, 12th word in the first sentence: "misconception".

I'm not surprised YOUR school didn't teach such things.  I attended a normal one.  And what I was taught in the late 1960s, as the sentence construction fully supports, is that that was how GREENHOUSE_S_ worked.

PS, your contention regarding glass thermometers is incorrect.  The properties of a material interface are determined by the properties of the individual materials.  A mercury/glass interface is quite unlikely to behave like an air/glass interface.  But, in any case, it would be the height of ignorance to fail to realize that the glass surround unavoidably provides _some_ amount of insulation between the mercury and the air.  The net result is that it takes a wee bit longer to equalize.  Undoubtedly why the glass of the mercury bulb is made as thin as practical.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



It's a Cult, and a frightening end-of-days, death worshiping one at that. Their faith in CO2 and hatred for American Civilization is on par with Islamic Fundamentalism.

And watch, Mammoth's next post she's going to say "The deniers are fundamentalists"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

Jilly?

Crickbraham?

Where's that experiment you promised?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



The deniers are fundamentalists.

Now, comparing agw to America hatred and Islamic Fundamentalism proves that, but don't even worry about it it's par for the course of a deluded partisan sycophant who needs to go be social somewhere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


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



Well you don't have a shred of real science on your side and your one and only solution is to close down the US Economy, what are we supposed to think?

Here's your "Science"







I thought this was a joke at first. But, nope, this is what passes for AGWCult "Science"

And what do you offer in return? Can you show us a single experiment that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2? No.

Can you show us an experiment that lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15 by adding 120PPM of CO2? No.

You offer NOTHING but that you CO2 is all-powerful

That's how I know you're a Cult


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You've been shown several experiments that show not only that, but an even wider range. Fingers in the ear and la la la doesn't count, pippy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2014)

Since what Frankie boy and people like SSDD are seeking is the confirmation of their sick 'Conservative' ideology, no amount of proof will ever convince them that reality does not work in the manner that their diseased ideology claims. 

These are people that in survival situations die of the stupids.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Yes double down on a losing hand.

show me any one of the experiments

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Since what Frankie boy and people like SSDD are seeking is the confirmation of their sick 'Conservative' ideology, no amount of proof will ever convince them that reality does not work in the manner that their diseased ideology claims.
> 
> These are people that in survival situations die of the stupids.


You have absolutely not a single shred of evidence to back your theory.

I ask you for an experiment showing a temperature increase or decrease in pH and you insult me. LOL

That's how I know you're lying.

theoretically, you could have 2 containers each with a little sea water and earth atmosphere the only difference would be an extra 120ppm of CO2 and that tank would have a higher temperature and lower pH.

but we both know that the lab is unkind to your theory and has never validated it even once.

I guess a science lab is the ultimate Denier

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



no.

how's that?

go back and look dumbdumb

there were several experiments posted.

all you have to do to find your 120ppm increase as it correlates with temperature is read a fucking graph

fuck outta here


----------



## jc456 (Jun 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Since what Frankie boy and people like SSDD are seeking is the confirmation of their sick 'Conservative' ideology, no amount of proof will ever convince them that reality does not work in the manner that their diseased ideology claims.
> 
> These are people that in survival situations die of the stupids.



Big word there, PROOF.  It takes but one experiment to validate your hypothesis.  I know you don't have validation otherwise you'd have shown it by now.  All of us who expect the validation are still waiting.  Well......................................................

Didn't think so.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



hahahahahahaahha, the same old same old.  temperature drives CO2, do you, question that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


you're what's wrong with social promotions. you never learned anything

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## G.T. (Jun 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



kay thanks history's trash


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



So why can't you post an experiment?  Have you ever wondered about that?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> First line, 12th word in the first sentence: "misconception".
> 
> I'm not surprised YOUR school didn't teach such things.  I attended a normal one.  And what I was taught in the late 1960s, as the sentence construction fully supports, is that that was how GREENHOUSE_S_ worked.
> 
> PS, your contention regarding glass thermometers is incorrect.  The properties of a material interface are determined by the properties of the individual materials.  A mercury/glass interface is quite unlikely to behave like an air/glass interface.  But, in any case, it would be the height of ignorance to fail to realize that the glass surround unavoidably provides _some_ amount of insulation between the mercury and the air.  The net result is that it takes a wee bit longer to equalize.  Undoubtedly why the glass of the mercury bulb is made as thin as practical.



Just another lie on your part...but then lies are your stock in trade, aren't they?  You will say anything in an attempt to support your position....truth be damned.

As to the thermometer...if the material itself is claimed to capture IR, then the interface is irrelevant.  You are truly stupid...has anyone ever told you that before?  Stupid and completely duped.  

As to your claims regarding the construction of thermometers...bullshit pulled out of your ass.  Nowhere in any literature is there any concern on the part of anyone over the manufacture of thermometers...nor has the absorption of IR by glass ever even been a consideration.  Just another thing overlooked by climate pseudoscience.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



None that actually show what you claim.  Your experiments demonstrate all sorts of scientific properties...but none show that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Since what Frankie boy and people like SSDD are seeking is the confirmation of their sick 'Conservative' ideology, no amount of proof will ever convince them that reality does not work in the manner that their diseased ideology claims.
> 
> These are people that in survival situations die of the stupids.



Why not try actually providing something akin to proof for once and see...or simply acknowledge that nothing akin to proof actually exists and that is why none of you provide it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Sure, several posted...none showing what you claim.  The ease with which you are convinced by sleight of hand is amazing.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



At least we skeptics usually understand the stuff we post and don't post huge blocks of cut and pasted scientific looking stuff copied from some pro AGW site that the poster couldn't explain in his own words if their lives depended on it.  Once I see somebody doing that, I know he or she doesn't have a clue.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 9, 2014)

I studied hard in school.

I learned the difference between sedimentary rocks and igneous rocks.

This makes me an Earth scientist!

And, naturally, being a scientist and an Earth scientist at that, I must be a climatologist!   Err.  Pardon me.  A CLIMATE scientist.

Yes.  That must be it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > No, Pricky.  I am not unhappy at all.  I have a GOOD time pointing out how dishonest you are.
> ...



Already have and I will continue.  As you knew when you asked that faux question, you dishonest mindless hack cultist.

Heck, I have even gotten you to ADMIT that you cultists HAVE claimed that the so-called greenhouse gasses have "trapped" heat in the atmosphere right after you (being a dishonest hack cultist shit ball) had denied that this was your cultist claim.

I'm good at exposing shit balls like you for the turds you are.  But I have to confess, you make it easy, you are SUCH a fucking stupid little ball of shit.


----------



## Crick (Jun 9, 2014)

English is your second language, isn't it.  What did you speak growing up?  Quechua?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> English is your second language, isn't it.  What did you speak growing up?  Quechua?



Babbling Bullshit is your mother tongue, pricky.

Whassa matta?

Mad bro?


----------



## Crick (Jun 9, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


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



But you never succeed in challenging the science.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I don't waste my time challenging big blocks of cut and pasted 'science' that the person posting it couldn't explain in plain language if his/her life depended on it.  And I have a really difficult time respecting the use of that tactic in lieu of reasoned debate.  I look to the scientists who don't have a personal dog in the fight to explain the basic necessary science involved in the debate, and otherwise  prefer to look at the politics, economics, and behavior/tactics of those involved to inform me who is likely to have the more credible argument.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


pointing to the weather channel and saying "eeeeeeek manmade global climate disruption" is not science

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Crick (Jun 9, 2014)

Frank, I'm real close to putting you back on ignore.

AR5 is not the Weather Channel.  When you have one tenth as much peer reviewed science as may be found in AR5, I might think about listening to what you've got to say.  Till then, everything I know and everything I read and every authority I trust tells me you folks are simply wrong.  Whether it's because you're really, really, really stupid or because your politics won't let you get on the same bandwagon as Al Gore and all us huge-penised-liberals or because your religious cult-leader told you that god told him the Earth was ours to hose up howe'er we wish - whatever the reason you've chosen to hold to what you hold - you're completely wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There is little effort required to defeat your pseudoscience.....propaganda on a large scale aided by the mainstream media, on the other hand is difficult to defeat...it takes time and many failures on your part before that can happen.  Luckily, much time has passed and climate pseudoscience has provided many failures....that is why your side is losing...and will lose even larger during the next presidential election season.  Global warming is a political third rail issue and the increasing prices due the hoax are creating a backlash that will soon come home to roost.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Frank, I'm real close to putting you back on ignore.
> 
> AR5 is not the Weather Channel.  When you have one tenth as much peer reviewed science as may be found in AR5, I might think about listening to what you've got to say.  Till then, everything I know and everything I read and every authority I trust tells me you folks are simply wrong.  Whether it's because you're really, really, really stupid or because your politics won't let you get on the same bandwagon as Al Gore and all us huge-penised-liberals or because your religious cult-leader told you that god told him the Earth was ours to hose up howe'er we wish - whatever the reason you've chosen to hold to what you hold - you're completely wrong.



True...ar5 is even more of a joke.

by the way...ignore is the refuge of blatant cowards....you did it when you were abe and now you are doing as lying crick.  Does the fact that you are telling a lie every time you post under that name have any effect on you at all?...or is lying so natural to you that you can do it with no feelings about it whatsoever?


----------



## Crick (Jun 9, 2014)

Does it bother you that you're apparently so dense you don't see my sig reading "formerly Abraham3"?

AR5 is collected across the entire spectrum of peer-reviewed climate research for a period of several years.  Compared to AR5, you haven't got a Dick and Jane reading book.

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation.  The evidence is irrefutable.  The science is widely accepted.  Global warming denialism is rationally unsupportable.  It fits EVERY qualification for pseudo science and bunkum.  Why else would you have to shift from character assassination to false testimony to bad science to creating false controversy to erecting straw men to throwing up red herrings and finally back to character assassination?  Why is it you can't make a rational, evidence-supported argument for your position?  Think hard.  It'll come to you eventually.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation.



The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the past 150 years is data tampering.  The evidence is irrefutable.  


Why is it that you can't provide any evidence that adding 100 or even 200ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause anything at all?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Frank, I'm real close to putting you back on ignore.
> 
> AR5 is not the Weather Channel.  When you have one tenth as much peer reviewed science as may be found in AR5, I might think about listening to what you've got to say.  Till then, everything I know and everything I read and every authority I trust tells me you folks are simply wrong.  Whether it's because you're really, really, really stupid or because your politics won't let you get on the same bandwagon as Al Gore and all us huge-penised-liberals or because your religious cult-leader told you that god told him the Earth was ours to hose up howe'er we wish - whatever the reason you've chosen to hold to what you hold - you're completely wrong.



Hey before you go, please post that elusive experiment showing a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2

As an added bonus, post the one that shows a drop in pH from 8.25 to 8.15 from the same increase in CO2


----------



## Crick (Jun 10, 2014)

Hey Frank

Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump.  I want to see if it improves our view.


----------



## Crick (Jun 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation.
> ...



How is it you all so easily lie?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Hey Frank
> 
> Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump.  I want to see if it improves our view.



No experimental evidence?  Complete absence of anything even resembling the scientific method where climate science is concerned?  

Of course, insult is all you would have....and you aren't even good at that.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Is projection the only tool you have in your toolbox?  We produce evidence upon evidence of data tampering within the climate science community showing a serious warming bias in the temperature adjustments.

Now, at long last, NOAA has released data from its CRN network.  A state of the art, triple redundant, meticulously placed network that requires absolutely no adjustment of its data and guess what, it doesn't show the warming that is claimed by every other network here in the US.  In fact, it shows a cooling trend of .68 degrees per century.  Further, when one looks at the global mean as reported, one sees a few very warm spots that create the illusion of warming and those very warm spots are invariably in locations where large areas are very poorly covered and present the greatest opportunity for infilling and when that happens, climate science can't help but introduce a warming bias.  

It is climate science that is the liar and it is supported by liars such as yourself.


----------



## Crick (Jun 10, 2014)

Why no link to this earth-shattering news?

The CRN first phase wasn't completed till 2008.  Where, precisely, are you getting century long data trends?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Hey Frank
> 
> Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump.  I want to see if it improves our view.



What I proposed was science. What you proposed is how the AGWCult operates.

See the difference?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Now that's funny.  Did I say that this is funny?  Yes, I think I said this is funny. yep.  You crack me up.   So, for the umpteenth hundred time, just supply the supporting evidence to your claim, that sir is your challenge, and you have failed for months.  So..................................challenge you fail, so who has been successful?  not you!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Frank
> ...



And now you know why his post about challenging is so fnnn funny.  All he has are insults and religion.  Not much in the way of actual evidence as we've continued to point out to him.  But he is entertaining.


----------



## Crick (Jun 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Frank
> ...



Having Frank stick his head up his ass is an experiment of the first order.  The secrets that will be revealed will tell us what the universe was SUPPOSED to be like.

I've fed you guys science till it ought to be coming out your ears.  After all, those of us on the mainstream science side have a MOUNTAIN of work to quote.  The vast majority of all climate science studies support or simply assume AGW is perfectly valid.  But you ignore it.  You come back with your asinine accusations of wrongdoing, with the output of the most geriatric of retired researchers and with piles upon piles of really, really, really bad science.  After a while it gets very hard to avoid saying "what's the fucking point?"


----------



## mamooth (Jun 10, 2014)

At this point, it's just the same small group of denier cultists raving mindlessly on a message board. You can't reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into, so it's not possible to reach them with reason. Just consider them to be free entertainment. Poke the loonies occasionally, laugh at them, but address most of your posts to the grownups in the audience.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 10, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> ^ manboob either flat out lies when caught or he actually doesn't understand the nature of his own "theory."  For the truth is, he HAS argued that the so-called "greenhouse gasses" have served to act like the glass of a greenhouse.



No, I haven't. Not once have I talked about glass or made a comparison to a physical greenhouse. If I had wanted to compare the atmosphere to a glass greenhouse, I would have done so. There's a reason I didn't.

You need to explain why you're claiming I said such a thing. Your choices are:

1. Show where I made such a claim.

2. Admit you made a mistake.

3. Do neither of the above, and instead double down on your big lie, moving yourself into the classification of "deliberate liar".

Remember, it's not the mistake that ruins your reputation. It's what you do after. Mistakes are not a big deal, but deliberate lying is.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 10, 2014)

polarbear said:


> Now he is twisting it as if I was the one who picked these numbers  from wiki....which are indeed for water without any CaCO3 buffer in it. Now he admits it has nothing to do with sea water and talks as if it wasn't him eho copied and pasted the numbers from that wiki-page.
> All I did was showing how way off the mark his claim was.



I specifically stated in my first calcs that they had nothing to do with seawater. I specifically said exactly what my calcs were for, to show that very small concentrations of CO2 can change pH significantly, and specifically added the caveats that the oceans are very different. I misrepresented nothing, while you're wildly misrepresenting what I said.



> So "mamooth" show me were in your post you addressed the partial pressure for CO2.



It's on the tables, so why do I need to address it more? I could run the numbers, but since the table already did so, what's the point? A good engineer knows when to use the tools given him.



> If you had any idea whatsoever how to do the math then why did you not do it for the pH range of 8.25 to 8.14 ?



Because I'm not sure of the carbonate and bicarbonate buffer concentrations, the calcium ions that in turn react with the buffers, or the equilibrium constants of all associated reactions. And even if I did know all that, it's still a very difficult thing to do. Two buffers and a 3rd substance also reacting with the buffers? That's going beyond the basic water chemistry I learned. It's more than I can handle, and I've always said so.



> If I wanted to I could and I would not be confined to the numbers of that wiki-page which don`t go above pH7.



I detect a very strong aroma of bullshit coming from that claim.

Go on, run those numbers for seawater, including the effects of the buffers and the calcium ions. That is, if you're not bullshitting us.



> 44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7  grams per liter not 1.5 E-6



Nope. Multiplication fail on your part. I'm correct, and you're wrong.



> So before you start lecturing us about pH and chemistry you should first learn how to use exponents and how to convert ppm correctly to percent.



Given I got it right and you botched the exponents, the irony is amusing. Before you lecture me again, double-check your work. I double-check my work, which is why I don't botch it like you do.



> And after you did then come back here and tell us what the pH would be if you got a solution of 1.5 ^(-7) grams of CO2 gas in water.



Solubility isn't expressed in grams. Again, I recommend double-checking your work.



> The number you copied from the table [CO2](mol/L) was  3.36E-8 moles/liter



That's definitely the correct column/number to use, since the concept being discussed is how much CO2 was absorbed by the oceans. Since the equilibrium constant is so small, that means 99+% of the CO2 does not disassociate, so we can quickly estimate [CO2] as CO2 absorbed divided by volume (or mass, depending how you look at it). There's no need to mess with disassociation constants, because the table does that calculation.



> Since you have zero knowledge about chemistry you don`t know the difference between [CO2] and [CO3]2- and took that number as dissociated [CO3]2- which is the anion of carbonic acid.



You're really confused about this. Since everyone is discussing how much CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean, the number to use is CO2 absorbed by the ocean. That is, [CO2]. You're off in left field when you say we should take the value of [CO2] and then declare [CO3]2- must be the same. That's just wacky, and would have earned you a failing grade in freshman chemistry.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2014)

quote=polar bear]44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6[/quote]



mamooth said:


> Nope. Multiplication fail on your part. I'm correct, and you're wrong.



Damn but you are stupid.  Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny.  Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter.  How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?


----------



## Crick (Jun 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> quote=polar bear]44 times 3.36 ^(-8) = 0.00000014784 grams or ~ 1.5 E-7 grams per liter not 1.5 E-6





mamooth said:


> Nope. Multiplication fail on your part. I'm correct, and you're wrong.



Damn but you are stupid.  Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny.  Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter.  How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?[/QUOTE]

Mamooth is correct.  44 * 3.36e-8 = 1.4784e-6


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> At this point, it's just the same small group of denier cultists raving mindlessly on a message board. You can't reason a person out of a position they weren't reasoned into, so it's not possible to reach them with reason. Just consider them to be free entertainment. Poke the loonies occasionally, laugh at them, but address most of your posts to the grownups in the audience.








"You tell 'em, Projector Girl!"


----------



## gipper (Jun 12, 2014)

Anyone with a brain...well let me correct that...anyone with a FUNCTIONING brain KNOWS AGW is not science, but politics.  It is pushed almost exclusively by left wing politicians and why?  Because their solutions to AGW is big statist elitist government...every leftists dream!  

What is truly amazing about AGW, is it's leaders ability to dupe millions.  Amazing and frightening that so many people can be so easily influenced to believe a lie, by the elite left.  CRAZY!!!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > polar bear said:
> ...



SSDD is just showing off his cult loyalty. If he supports a fellow cultist, he gets cult brownie points, regardless of whether such support makes him look amazingly stupid.

It's also an arrogance thing. Some deniers are too full of themselves to even consider the possibility that they could make an error, so they refuse to double-check their work. It's a symptom of their Dunning-Kruger syndrome, in the way they vastly overestimate their own competence.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



Look whose talking...the official ugly cheerleader for anyone who promotes the AGW hoax...wave them pom poms hairball...sis boom baaaaaaahhhhhhhh.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


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



^ manboob congratulating himself on his prowess with a calculator.  And he's thrilled to display his faux depth of knowledge again by repeating "Dunning-Kruger."

Let's all give manboob a hand.


----------



## Crick (Jun 12, 2014)

You should be wondering about SSDD's LACK of prowess with a simple calculator.  And what sort of person it takes to say:

Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?

when both you and this highly regarded chemist are the ones that are wrong.  BTW, even without a calculator, folks should have been able to guesstimate that 44 *3.3 was closer to 140 than to 14.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> You should be wondering about SSDD's LACK of prowess with a simple calculator.  And what sort of person it takes to say:
> 
> Damn but you are stupid. Even when you have your error clearly pointed out to you, you deny. Guess that explains why you never seem to get any smarter. How stupid must you be to challenge a chemist regarding chemistry hairball?
> 
> when both you and this highly regarded chemist are the ones that are wrong.  BTW, even without a calculator, folks should have been able to guesstimate that 44 *3.3 was closer to 140 than to 14.



Don't be even dumber than you usually are.

anybody can jump a gun now and then.

The fact is, prowess with a calculator is not a very remarkable skill.

Making a mistake is not a cardinal sin.  For which you should be eternally grateful, pricky.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 12, 2014)

It's funny, how you assume a calculator is necessary for such simple calculations.

And you're right, making a mistake is not a sin. But SSDD didn't make a mistake. He didn't even do the calculation. He just auto-screamed that I must be wrong because he doesn't like me. That wasn't a mistake; that was kookery.


----------



## Crick (Jun 12, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You should be wondering about SSDD's LACK of prowess with a simple calculator.  And what sort of person it takes to say:
> ...



I'd have no problem with a simple mistake.  It's making the mistake and then calling the fellow stupid who corrects you without spending two seconds checking your work.  That's ignorance and arrogance.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> It's funny, how you assume a calculator is necessary for such simple calculations.
> 
> And you're right, making a mistake is not a sin. But SSDD didn't make a mistake. He didn't even do the calculation. He just auto-screamed that I must be wrong because he doesn't like me. That wasn't a mistake; that was kookery.



It's funny how you assume that I made an assumption that a calculator was "necessary."

I didn't say or suggest any such thing. I did assume that you used one.  But I said nothing about it being necessary.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 12, 2014)

Crick said:


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



Nah. It was a simple mistake.

You clearly ARE stupid.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 12, 2014)

Mythbusters confirmed the CO2 traps heat theory with their experiment.

[youtube]pPRd5GT0v0I[/youtube]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 12, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Mythbusters confirmed the CO2 traps heat theory with their experiment.
> 
> [youtube]pPRd5GT0v0I[/youtube]



Yeah, the thing is, that's NOT the AGWCult Theory

They never actually say how much CO2 is in the tanks do they? We assume one is 0 and the other 380, but it's odd they didn't test for the difference a 120PPM Increase would cause

Oh maybe it isn't so odd


----------



## Crick (Jun 12, 2014)

You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels.  First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit.  You are worthless.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels.  First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit.  You are worthless.



What are the levels in the tanks?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels.  First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit.  You are worthless.



Also, the 120ppm is only bullshit because it's your failed theory


----------



## Crick (Jun 12, 2014)

you can't keep the same line running for five minutes.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



S/he once caught a punctuation error as well.


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2014)

You made an ass of yourself.  None of this is helping.  Personally, if I'd been stupid enough to do something like that - and I'm sure I have at some point or other - I'd just drop it and move on.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2014)

Did the APS perform the experiment? No. Did NASA or NOAA or East Anglia Data Fudging university? No no no!

All we have is mythbusters and some vague notion regarding what they tested

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels.  First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit.  You are worthless.



And the videos aren't controlled.  Where was the meter to read the CO2 in the box?  So we are told they added 380PPM in one.  How do we know there wasn't more?  Where is the control...............................As I've stated in the past and have remained consistent in my message, give us an experiment that is controlled.  All results are captured, Idle and as the test progresses.  Then, capture all of the data.  How about that?  Why is that so difficult for you tikes to grasp?  And as Frank pointed out, where are the experiments from the groups that wrote the theory?  where are those.  I would gather to bet that those would be controlled.  So since there have been none produced, there must not be any.  Why not just make that statement and we can move on.  For me, today, you have no evidence to support your claim.  Fail!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2014)

So where are all the experiments that show CO2 sensitivity from 80 to 140 PPM in increments of 5PPMs

Hmmmm?

What's the temperature and ocean pH at 130PPM?

Hmmmm?

Odd that there are NO EXPERIMENTS to Guide us


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2014)

How large a temperature increase and Drop in pH is caused each 10PPM incremental increase in CO2?

How about 5PPM, that Mythbuster equipment could handle 1800PPB of CH4, so can we get an analysis of each addition 1PPM of CO2?

Hmmmm?

"You've been shown that billion of times already, Denier! " -- Crick, OR, Dot, et. al.


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2014)

How about you cease and desist with this bullshit and simply accept the FACT that CO2 at its current atmospheric levels can cause global temperatures to increase?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> How about you cease and desist with this bullshit and simply accept the FACT that CO2 at its current atmospheric levels can cause global temperatures to increase?


by how much?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> How about you cease and desist with this bullshit and simply accept the FACT that CO2 at its current atmospheric levels can cause global temperatures to increase?



Why?  Because you can't find any proof. now that's fnn funny.  what a whiner


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2014)

Because, as you and everyone else here *knows*, you've already been shown the experiments.  It's been proven a thousand times for over a century and you're a complete IDIOT to insist otherwise.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2014)

If the CO2 in the atmosphere increases by 120 parts per million, then we can expect the average global temperature to increase by ___X___.

All the experiments posted innumerable times here at USMB by crick/abe and others have conclusively established that FACT!

Therefore, it really should be no problem at all for crick/abey and his cohorts to tell us what the number for X can be expected to be.

And it should be the simplest of simple things for them to cite the work of the recognized authorities on AGW to show us the experiments that prove it and the data derived from those experiments.

Indeed, one must wonder why there is any hesitation on the part of crick/abey and the others in simply copying and pasting any of the innumerable posts which cited those papers, reports experiments and data.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2014)

I find it interesting that the lot of you who choose to deny having seen what we all know you've seen, pose questions based on premises you could only know had you seen the experiments you deny having seen.
Your question is asinine.  The Earth and its climate is far too complex for any experiment to provide such values in a deterministic fashion.  You can make very educated estimates, but that is all they will be.  My best estimate would be that increasing CO2 by 120 ppm over 150 years will increase temperatures by 0.9C.  In another 50-100 years, with NO further increase in CO2, temperatures will rise another 0.5.  

You can find such information in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2014)

jc456 said:


> And the videos aren't controlled.  Where was the meter to read the CO2 in the box?  So we are told they added 380PPM in one.  How do we know there wasn't more?



Do us all a favor and stick your head up your ass and jump.

Nighty-night


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> I find it interesting that the lot of you who choose to deny having seen what we all know you've seen, pose questions based on premises you could only know had you seen the experiments you deny having seen.
> Your question is asinine.  The Earth and its climate is far too complex for any experiment to provide such values in a deterministic fashion.  You can make very educated estimates, but that is all they will be.  My best estimate would be that increasing CO2 by 120 ppm over 150 years will increase temperatures by 0.9C.  In another 50-100 years, with NO further increase in CO2, temperatures will rise another 0.5.
> 
> You can find such information in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



If that is a concession that there are no experiments by which we could calculate the RANGE of likely global temperature increase based on the stated premise, that's your first display of honesty, abey.

But referring folks to the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents back-sliding by you.  The incredible BIASES of the IPCC have become well established.  Fuck.  Even a dishonest hack like you OUGHT to know that much, Abey.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2014)

IlarMeilyr said:


> If that is a concession that there are no experiments by which we could calculate the RANGE of likely global temperature increase based on the stated premise, that's your first display of honesty, abey.



No, it's only my most recent.

I continue to suspect that English is not your native tongue.  One would not conduct an EXPERIMENT to determine the response of the climate to a given change.  One would do a calculation using a lot of estimated values and parameters.



IlarMeilyr said:


> But referring folks to the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents back-sliding by you.  The incredible BIASES of the IPCC have become well established.  Fuck.  Even a dishonest hack like you OUGHT to know that much, Abey.



And this, of course, is simply further evidence that you don't have a fucking clue.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> Because, as you and everyone else here *knows*, you've already been shown the experiments.  It's been proven a thousand times for over a century and you're a complete IDIOT to insist otherwise.



^ Liar

Probably certifiable too because he's never shown the experiment even once


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> I find it interesting that the lot of you who choose to deny having seen what we all know you've seen, pose questions based on premises you could only know had you seen the experiments you deny having seen.
> Your question is asinine.  The Earth and its climate is far too complex for any experiment to provide such values in a deterministic fashion.  You can make very educated estimates, but that is all they will be.  My best estimate would be that increasing CO2 by 120 ppm over 150 years will increase temperatures by 0.9C.  In another 50-100 years, with NO further increase in CO2, temperatures will rise another 0.5.
> 
> You can find such information in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



Your 'Best estimate" is not science. It's not even in the same Universe as science

The fact that you only have your "Best estimate" and not any experiments makes me certain AGW is a scam


----------



## Crick (Jun 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


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



Tell you what, SID.  Since this CO2-absorbing-infrared is a pretty hot topic these days and has been for several years, it's a pretty damn safe assumption that folks HAVE done the experiments that would show us whether or not CO2 warms the atmosphere.  You claim that we can show you no experiments that show it does what we (and ALL of mainstream science) says it does.  THAT means there must be a truckloads of experiments done out there THAT FAILED.

*SHOW US ONE*​


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > If that is a concession that there are no experiments by which we could calculate the RANGE of likely global temperature increase based on the stated premise, that's your first display of honesty, abey.
> ...



English is my native tongue but your lack of native ability to comprehend is evidence of your fluency in babble.

In any case, since you won't even acknowledge the NUMEROUS well-known problems with the veracity of the IPCC, your own bias is on full display.

IF the "science" part of the climate science AGW shit was not such a complete mystery to you, by the way, pricky, even a dimwit such as you MIGHT have a chance to comprehend that a scientific theory INVOLVES the ability to make "predictions."

Again, I am not asking a loser like you to offer a precise value for "X."  That wouldn't even be a fair question to ask an intelligent person.

No.  All YOU are being asked to do is to state a RANGE of values for "X" that the alleged AGW "science" would be expected to lead you to derive if one were to take the atmosphere of planet earth and ADD to it's present totals an additional 120 Parts Per Million of CO2.

If AGW "science" were actual science, it WOULD be able to make a prediction.

Since it is not real science, however, we all understand your reluctance and inability to permit yourself to get even slightly pinned down.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


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


The AGWcult collects billions annually for "research" but you can't show us any experiments?

I'm going to the Koch Brothers to fund my AGW lab.  We're doing the work liberal scientists refuse to do

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


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



There are plenty of experiments performed by climate science that failed to show that an increase in CO2 causes warming.  Here is a brief rundown with the experiments named specifically.  The failure of these models is ample proof that the work done that led up to them was terribly flawed:


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature.  It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED.  That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...
2) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math.  Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD.  Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.

If this is what you've got, you've got nothing.  Which was the point of the rhetorical demand in the first place.  Much obliged for the confirmation.

PS: your graphic is a blatant lie and an attempt at the deception of the public by the inestimable Roy Spencer.  Check http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html if you'd like to see what he's pulled over the eyes of the deniers here.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> 1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature.  It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED.  That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...



In that you are once again wrong.  The lower the sensitivity to CO2 the model has, the more closely it matches observation.  Perhaps the could hind cast if they also added in the fact that solar activity was the highest it has been in a good long time at the end of the 20th century.  The problem with you wackos is that you think CO2 is the end all be all when it hardly even rises to the level of a bit player in the grand scheme.




Crick said:


> ) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math.  Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD.  Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.



And yet, your entire position is supported by nothing but computer models.



Crick said:


> this is what you've got, you've got nothing.



Well, it is the precise reason you have nothing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> 1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature.  It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED.  That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...
> 2) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math.  Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD.  Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.
> 
> If this is what you've got, you've got nothing.  Which was the point of the rhetorical demand in the first place.  Much obliged for the confirmation.
> ...



No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature.  It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED.  That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...

So, what you're saying is that you still can't show us any lab experiments.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> 1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature.  It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED.  That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...





SSDD said:


> In that you are once again wrong.  The lower the sensitivity to CO2 the model has, the more closely it matches observation.  Perhaps the could hind cast if they also added in the fact that solar activity was the highest it has been in a good long time at the end of the 20th century.  The problem with you wackos is that you think CO2 is the end all be all when it hardly even rises to the level of a bit player in the grand scheme.



A model with low CO2 sensitivity is still one assuming AGW.  Show us one that can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years that assumes NO heating from the greenhouse effect.



Crick said:


> ) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math.  Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD.  Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.





SSDD said:


> And yet, your entire position is supported by nothing but computer models.



Wrong.  The recent thread "The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps" by Dr Gavin Schmidt, clearly explained AGW without making any reference to computer models.



Crick said:


> If this is what you've got, you've got nothing.





SSDD said:


> Well, it is the precise reason you have nothing.



Almost all of mainstream science is in agreement that AGW is a valid and accurate description of the behavior of Earth's climate.  Virtually NONE of the world's scientists support whatever whack-job hypothesis you're currently pushing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature.  It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED.  That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...
> ...



Why 6 Steps? 1 East Step

Show us the Lab work!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> A model with low CO2 sensitivity is still one assuming AGW.  Show us one that can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years that assumes NO heating from the greenhouse effect.



Still working on flawed assumptions...there is one so called greenhouse gas that actually can cause warming...H2O.  CO2 is irrelevant...always has been always will be.

By the way, explain why the warming started 14k years ago?  Was it AGW?  Explain why most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940?  Was it AGW?  Show one bit of hard evidence based on observation, backed up by repeatable experiment that validates the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

CO2 does not drive climate and zero scientific evidence exists to prove it does.


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> A model with low CO2 sensitivity is still one assuming AGW.  Show us one that can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years that assumes NO heating from the greenhouse effect.





SSDD said:


> Still working on flawed assumptions...there is one so called greenhouse gas that actually can cause warming...H2O.  CO2 is irrelevant...always has been always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

