15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[PMZ]

PMZ and Abraham like to pretend they are the experts on science, but they can't even see the obvious flaws in their abracadbra experiment to demonstrate the theory of greenhouse gases. That appears to be the modus operandi of the global warming cult in general. They are never looking for the flaws in their logic or their evidence because they aren't really interested in whether their theories are true. They want their theories to be true because it's so convenient for their agenda if the global warming hocus-pocus is true.

What we are waiting for is the first scientific evidence of some possible result of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW. There has been absutely none presented by anyone.

It's not our job to prove your theories wrong, dipstick. It's your job to prove them right. However, there's plenty of evidence that your theories are wrong, like the fact that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

The proof of AGW in certain. You think that you can change that by denying it.

Doesn't work that way. The proof is the same whether or not you understand it.

 

[bripat9643]

What we are waiting for is the first scientific evidence of some possible result of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW. There has been absutely none presented by anyone.

It's not our job to prove your theories wrong, dipstick. It's your job to prove them right. However, there's plenty of evidence that your theories are wrong, like the fact that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

The proof of AGW in certain. You think that you can change that by denying it.

Doesn't work that way. The proof is the same whether or not you understand it.

AGW is about as certain as winning the lottery. Repeating that your Chicken Little claims are facts over and over again doesn't make them any more valid.

There is no proof, and the claim that I don't understand it is laughable coming from a numskull who can't even see the blatant flaws in an experiment he claims demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases. You totally debunked whatever credibility you may have had with that debacle.

ANd for your information, Chicken Little, that's exactly how science works.

 

[bripat9643]

Deniers, supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels, and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.

GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions from Earth.

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere.

For all passive heavenly bodies energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable. If in is greater than out warming will occur. If in is less than out, cooling will occur.

For AGW to not occur, one of those statements must be proven false.

Have at it.

Wrong, numskull. All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax. Your error is in assuming that those are the only variables of interest. As we've seen with the experiment that demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases, you aren't interested in examining all the variables that might affect the result - especially the ones that blow up your idiot, Chicken Little, doomsday scenarios.

 

[Abraham3]

You are the crispy one.

You got that wrong way round. He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.

So... get hot.

 

[JoeNormal]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

Dont need any more math. Ive had more than most climate scientists. In fact, im up to par on EM Radiation and fields and waves. Ive also helped design supercomputers.

Couple of points on ur vid.

1 it doesnt address greenhouse gases. It focuses exclusively on co2 only. What wasnt shown is how more quickly the dip in the curve saturates in the presence of even moderate water vapor. Water vapor dominates and OVERLAPS much of the absorption lines of co2.

2 The analysis looks at the LOSS thru the atmos, rather than the W/m2 increase at the surface. Tho he implies all of the stored energy contributes to the heating, about half is returned to the surface and half EXITS to1 space. Because the gas layer radiates both up and down. Hope his model gets that part correct.

3 didya notice how fast the co2 saturates on its absorption power? From 1ppm to100ppm there was something like 28W/m2. Then from 100 to 1000ppm you only gotanother 20W/m2 or so. And thats without the huge masking of realistic h2o vapor content. Adding co2 for GW IS NOT A linear proposition.

Thanks for the link. But it really did not change any conclusions for me. Would like to drive his model toy and see what happens under more real conditions..

Cool, a fellow electrical engineer. I'll address your points by number.

1) True, water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas and its absorbtion spectrum partially overlaps that of CO2. However, that doesn't negate the effects of CO2 and as PMZ pointed out, CO2 is increasing while water vapor isn't.

2) His model has a tick mark for looking up vs. looking down so it appears he's taken this into account.

3) True, it does saturate but it looks to me like where you get the additional absorption is where water vapor has little effect.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You are the crispy one.

You got that wrong way round. He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.

So... get hot.

Many of our fellow USMB co-habitants have often said that you cannot prove a negative. So to demand that it be proven the AGW is not occurring is rather ridiculous. Or hypocritical.

Cute play on words, by-the-way.

 

[PMZ]

It's not our job to prove your theories wrong, dipstick. It's your job to prove them right. However, there's plenty of evidence that your theories are wrong, like the fact that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.

The proof of AGW in certain. You think that you can change that by denying it.

Doesn't work that way. The proof is the same whether or not you understand it.

AGW is about as certain as winning the lottery. Repeating that your Chicken Little claims are facts over and over again doesn't make them any more valid.

There is no proof, and the claim that I don't understand it is laughable coming from a numskull who can't even see the blatant flaws in an experiment he claims demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases. You totally debunked whatever credibility you may have had with that debacle.

ANd for your information, Chicken Little, that's exactly how science works.

You talking about science is laughable. Stick to dirty politics. You have the personality for it.

 

[PMZ]

You are the crispy one.

You got that wrong way round. He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.

So... get hot.

Many of our fellow USMB co-habitants have often said that you cannot prove a negative. So to demand that it be proven the AGW is not occurring is rather ridiculous. Or hypocritical.

Cute play on words, by-the-way.

To overcome the certainty that AGW is occurring, you have to show what is occurring instead.

I gave you a golden opportunity to show us in each of the critical processes what might be going on instead of AGW. So far, nothing.

All we hear is that you don't want what is happening, to be happening.

You've got to do way better than that.

 

[PMZ]

Deniers, supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels, and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.

GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions from Earth.

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere.

For all passive heavenly bodies energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable. If in is greater than out warming will occur. If in is less than out, cooling will occur.

For AGW to not occur, one of those statements must be proven false.

Have at it.

Wrong, numskull. All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax. Your error is in assuming that those are the only variables of interest. As we've seen with the experiment that demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases, you aren't interested in examining all the variables that might affect the result - especially the ones that blow up your idiot, Chicken Little, doomsday scenarios.

''All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax.''

Really? How? Don't just claim it. Explain it.

 

[PMZ]

The denialists count on one thing to realize their dream of having the power to push off to others the consequences of cheap energy that have benefited all of us so much.

That they don't have to prove anything.

Bullshit.

Everything in the field of science rests on proof. Nothing in politics does.

They can preach their politics however they want. I'm pretty sure only they are listening to themselves.

What they are not entitled to is science. That somehow no proof is proof.

 

[bripat9643]

The proof of AGW in certain. You think that you can change that by denying it.

Doesn't work that way. The proof is the same whether or not you understand it.

AGW is about as certain as winning the lottery. Repeating that your Chicken Little claims are facts over and over again doesn't make them any more valid.

There is no proof, and the claim that I don't understand it is laughable coming from a numskull who can't even see the blatant flaws in an experiment he claims demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases. You totally debunked whatever credibility you may have had with that debacle.

ANd for your information, Chicken Little, that's exactly how science works.

You talking about science is laughable. Stick to dirty politics. You have the personality for it.

So says the guy who didn't have a clue that the experiment he claimed demonstrated the greenhouse theory was nothing but shear abracadabra and hocus-pocus. No one in this forum has been so obviously wrong on the subject of anthropocentric global warming.

 

[bripat9643]

Deniers, supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels, and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.

GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions from Earth.

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere.

For all passive heavenly bodies energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable. If in is greater than out warming will occur. If in is less than out, cooling will occur.

For AGW to not occur, one of those statements must be proven false.

Have at it.

Wrong, numskull. All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax. Your error is in assuming that those are the only variables of interest. As we've seen with the experiment that demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases, you aren't interested in examining all the variables that might affect the result - especially the ones that blow up your idiot, Chicken Little, doomsday scenarios.

''All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax.''

Really? How? Don't just claim it. Explain it.

For one thing, the effect of all of them can be so small that they amount to spitting in the ocean. Also, they fail to consider the possibility of negative feedback mechanism. There exists plenty of evidence to support them.

That's just two examples. There are possibly thousands of others.

 

[PMZ]

Wrong, numskull. All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax. Your error is in assuming that those are the only variables of interest. As we've seen with the experiment that demonstrates the theory of greenhouse gases, you aren't interested in examining all the variables that might affect the result - especially the ones that blow up your idiot, Chicken Little, doomsday scenarios.

''All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax.''

Really? How? Don't just claim it. Explain it.

For one thing, the effect of all of them can be so small that they amount to spitting in the ocean. Also, they fail to consider the possibility of negative feedback mechanism. There exists plenty of evidence to support them.

That's just two examples. There are possibly thousands of others.

The IPCC is way ahead of you in answering those questions. That’s why we hired them and not you to do the science.

All known positive and negative feedbacks have been included. The energy imbalance caused by atmospheric GHG concentrations has been quantified. Your questions have been addressed for the last decade plus.

What's left to do has to do mostly with the dynamics of warming. To predict that, we need models that can predict long term weather, and that's years away. So, what is unknowable with certainty is the end result warming of even the current load of GHGs, and the extent of the damages they will do, and what parts of our civilization will have to be relocated or protected from.

But science will ultimately provide those answers too. But what is knowable with sufficient certainty now is doing nothing would be the biggest risk.

 

[bripat9643]

''All those statements can be true, and AGW can still be a hoax.''

Really? How? Don't just claim it. Explain it.

For one thing, the effect of all of them can be so small that they amount to spitting in the ocean. Also, they fail to consider the possibility of negative feedback mechanism. There exists plenty of evidence to support them.

That's just two examples. There are possibly thousands of others.

The IPCC is way ahead of you in answering those questions. That’s why we hired them and not you to do the science.

We didn't hire them. The U.N. appointed them, and the U.N. has long been searching for a scheme to mulct American taxpayers for all the cash they can get out of us.

All known positive and negative feedbacks have been included. The energy imbalance caused by atmospheric GHG concentrations has been quantified. Your questions have been addressed for the last decade plus.

In other words, the unknown positive feedbacks haven't been accounted for. Furthermore, the numbers assigned to the positive feedbacks are pure guesswork. The global warming priesthood has produced explanations for everything they don't know, but they haven't supplied proof that their explanations are valid. Their explanations are therefore no better than mine.

What's left to do has to do mostly with the dynamics of warming. To predict that, we need models that can predict long term weather, and that's years away. So, what is unknowable with certainty is the end result warming of even the current load of GHGs, and the extent of the damages they will do, and what parts of our civilization will have to be relocated or protected from.

You just admitted that the global warming high priests can't predict diddly squat.

But science will ultimately provide those answers too. But what is knowable with sufficient certainty now is doing nothing would be the biggest risk.

Perhaps that is known with sufficient certainty for a dolt like you. More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.

 

[Abraham3]

More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.

Wrong Pat. Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.

 

[bripat9643]

More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.

Wrong Pat. Several different studies have clearly shown that the more one knows about the Earth's climate, the more likely you are to believe AGW to be a valid theory.

Wrong. What they really showed is that the more financially dependent you are on producing proof that Anthropogenic global warming is valid, the more likely you are to claim it is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are the crispy one.

You got that wrong way round. He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.

So... get hot.

THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!!

Holy fucking moly!

 

[PMZ]

For one thing, the effect of all of them can be so small that they amount to spitting in the ocean. Also, they fail to consider the possibility of negative feedback mechanism. There exists plenty of evidence to support them.

That's just two examples. There are possibly thousands of others.

The IPCC is way ahead of you in answering those questions. That’s why we hired them and not you to do the science.

We didn't hire them. The U.N. appointed them, and the U.N. has long been searching for a scheme to mulct American taxpayers for all the cash they can get out of us.



In other words, the unknown positive feedbacks haven't been accounted for. Furthermore, the numbers assigned to the positive feedbacks are pure guesswork. The global warming priesthood has produced explanations for everything they don't know, but they haven't supplied proof that their explanations are valid. Their explanations are therefore no better than mine.

What's left to do has to do mostly with the dynamics of warming. To predict that, we need models that can predict long term weather, and that's years away. So, what is unknowable with certainty is the end result warming of even the current load of GHGs, and the extent of the damages they will do, and what parts of our civilization will have to be relocated or protected from.

You just admitted that the global warming high priests can't predict diddly squat.

But science will ultimately provide those answers too. But what is knowable with sufficient certainty now is doing nothing would be the biggest risk.

Perhaps that is known with sufficient certainty for a dolt like you. More intelligent people are not nearly so confident about what they know.

Clearly you have a problem with educated people and that explains why you never got educated. However you'd like to be accorded the same respect as high accomplishers get. For none of the work that they invested. You are not entitled to something for nothing no matter what the propagandists say.

If you want respect, earn it.

 

[PMZ]

You are the crispy one.

You got that wrong way round. He's saying that to prove your case that AGW is not occurring, you have to falsify one of those statements.

So... get hot.

THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!!

Holy fucking moly!

You want to instruct scientists on how science works ?

Talk about irony.

 

[skookerasbil]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]



Because theory posing as science is gay