16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[SSDD]

SSDD

Try real hard to understand that what we are talking about here is a demonstration of the mechanism that starts the effect, not the full blown effect itself.

I get that, of course.

It just doesn't surprise me that many aspects of weather simply cannot be produced in a lab. The systems are too vast, too complex and include too many variables.

Weather....all weather is due to high pressure or low pressure with moisture or without. Any of the basic mechanisms can be reproduced in a lab....the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work can not because it does not exist.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Basic mechanisms, possibly. But climate change is not a basic mechanism - it's the culmination of literally dozens of different variables - of which CO2 and warming is only one process.

 

[Flopper]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Yes, some people think the earth isn't heating up because we had a cold winter then decide otherwise after a hot summer. How dumb. After all this time some people don't seem to understand that global warming takes place over a relatively long period.

 

[gslack]

SSDD -

Basic mechanisms, possibly. But climate change is not a basic mechanism - it's the culmination of literally dozens of different variables - of which CO2 and warming is only one process.

You warmers have called it for CO2 since day one. Now you are going to claim "dozens of different variables"?? FIne, you can switch sides, we don't descriminate..

We have said time and again it's too complex to simply claim it caused by a trace gas, or a magical back-radiation that only exists toprove the failed theory...SO now you agree? Fine..LOL

 

[westwall]

SSDD

the mechanisms that cause weather can be duplicated in a lab

Really? So hurricanes can be duplicated in a lab, can they?

How about monsoons, wind sheer or particular kinds of clouds?

How dumb are you? I mean really....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls1WNgxUYtc]lab experiment of how waves damage bridges in hurricanes - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMvydih9rlM]Science Nation - Dropsondes: Work Horses in Hurricane Forecasting - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zN-4oqwXCY]PREDICT Science :: Hurricane Research - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Yes, some people think the earth isn't heating up because we had a cold winter then decide otherwise after a hot summer. How dumb. After all this time some people don't seem to understand that global warming takes place over a relatively long period.

And, like a true fanatic, you miss the point entirely. The point dear person is the AGW fraudsters claimed that CO2 was the primary cause and regardless of other factors the warming would continue.

We stated that CO2 was NOT the driving cause and other factors would counter it. We have been proven correct and they have been trying to rewrite history ever since. Why do you think they have changed the name several times? Why do you think they have PAID people to bury their BS claims in the depths of the internet to try and make it more difficult to show the world what they really said?

You need to pull your head out of the sand and really LOOK at what these people have said.
Because they are lying to you now, just like they have been doing for the last 20 years. If you TRYLY care about science you will do so. If, on the other hand you don't care about humanity and the environment then by all means...keep your blinders on. It IS easier to go through life ignorant like the sheep.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Basic mechanisms, possibly. But climate change is not a basic mechanism - it's the culmination of literally dozens of different variables - of which CO2 and warming is only one process.

So I am asking for an experiment that demonstrates the basic mechanism of AGW

 

[Abraham3]

Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty?

Saigon was quite clear what he meant by the term "dirty".

Semantic bullshit.

Well yes, it IS semantic bullshit when you say that CO2 is "dirty," because it's not. In fact it is an essential compound needed for all plants to live. Without plants, we can't survive.

You owe me and everyone reading this an apology. You've intentionally manipulated my text to alter what I wrote.

As I stated earlier, YOUR comment that CO2 is not a pollutant is semantic bullshit. I'm perfectly aware of the functions of CO2 and plant and animal life on this planet just as you should be aware what an excess of GHGs will do to temperatures here. No one is suggesting the CO2 levels be dropped below pre-industrial levels - even were that a realistic target. No one with any reasonable intellect is arguing that higher CO2 levels will be of net benefit to humans or even to our crops. So let's cut the shite.

Well yeah, 300 parts per million, is a trace. But CO2 exists all over the universe in abundance because carbon exists all over the universe in abundance.

Well, nah, it doesn't. Oxygen and carbon, together, make up 15 thousandths of the baryonic matter in the universe and thus 63 hundred thousandths of the total matter of the universe. There is 23 times as much helium by mass and 71 times as much hydrogen. And only a fraction of that oxygen and carbon are associated as carbon dioxide. The vast majority of the carbon, for instance, is bound to hydrogen in numerous hydrocarbon compounds which ARE common throughout the universe.

Nature accounts for FAR more CO2 in our atmosphere than humans.

That depends on what you actually mean by "nature". Humans produce more carbon dioxide than the world's volcanoes. The CO2 exhaled by the non-human animal life on this planet is larger than that exhaled by humans, but the CO2 we produce generating electricity, driving our ICE-powered vehicles and manufacturing concrete dwarfs that many, many times over. There is certainly an enormous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, in geological compounds and in the ocean and there is a constant interchange between the various sinks. But the source of the carbon dioxide that has increased the atmospheric levels from 280 ppm to 400 ppm over the last 150 years are, without a doubt, human.

Plant life lives on CO2, so if you want to reduce CO2 levels, plant a tree! It's not harmful to humans at 300ppm, or even 600ppm. OSHA regulations for miners working underground and other hazardous environments, limit human exposure to 800ppm, but this is only the point at which OSHA says it's unsafe, humans can actually breathe up to 1,200~1,500ppm, and not die from it.

Are you under the impression that you're clever? Do you actually think you will score any debating points with irrelevant drivel such as this? Good grief.

We'll never reach these levels in nature because it dissipates into space or is absorbed by the oceans, if it is not used by the plant life on Earth.

And on what do you base those beliefs? CO2 will dissipate into space? CO2 will dissipate into space? ! ? ! You've never passed a science class, have you.

I don't know, I just find it odd that you are waging war against the very thing that plants need to survive. Seems a bit stupid to me.

And I find it more than a little stupid that you would attempt to make this argument in a thread on anthropogenic global warming.

Botanists, (who ARE scientists, btw) claim that, up until this latest 'spike' in atmospheric CO2, that all plant life was STARVING for CO2, and it has only recently increased to a level which enables plants to thrive.

My mother was a botanist. A worthy profession. Just for jollies, why don't you give us a link to a professional botanist making such a statement. And then I will point out that whether or not it's true, human culture will not do well with the temperature up 4C and neither will our crops.

So does it not bother you, that you are actively working against the very element needed to revive the rain forests? Not that eliminating man's contribution will matter much, it's only a small fraction of what causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but still... kinda dumb to be fighting so strongly against it.

Are you actually this stupid or are you trying to play polemicist?

I'll bet you money right here and now, that in the United States, more people have died from accidents involving windmills, than have died as a result of nuclear energy.

That would be the first accurate statement you've made in this post.

I am suspect of any studies regarding wind power, because I don't think they account for the enormous maintenance costs, or the 'downtime' involved.

And what makes you think wind generators have enormous maintenance costs?

Again, wind is not reliable, we can't predict when it is going to blow and when it will not blow.

It is most certainly variable. But we CAN predict when and where it will blow and when and where it will not. But that's not the argument currently underway here. The theme of this thread is what proportion of the general public believes global warming is a threat to our well-being. The reliability of wind as an energy source has nothing to do with that point.

Plus, in order to fill the current demand for electricity in a major city, you'd need thousands of miles of windmills, stacked in grids, up and down the coastline. People like the Kennedy's don't want to look out of their exclusive Summer homes and see windmills, so we have a problem there.

One that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread nor the validity of AGW.

No, I was merely asking a question to prove a point. I have no problem with someone wanting to "get off the grid" by installing windmills, but wind power can't replace coal, there are far too many applications where coal is better suited. Plus, coal is our most abundant resource, and we have thousands and thousands of people who work in the coal industry. Again, coal OR wind, is not as efficient as nuclear, so if we're going to retrain all these people in the coal industry, might as well go nuclear.

No one is suggesting that wind replace coal. They are suggesting that a range of sources with reduced carbon output be used to phase out high carbon output sources such as coal-fired generators.

You're totally missing my point. We can say, the Summer months are coming and we know the demand for electricity will be higher, so let's order some more coal... you can't order more wind. You're totally dependent on mother nature, you may not have as much wind this year as last year. What happens when demand spikes and wind doesn't? We can store some power, but what if mother nature decides to freak a little and not produce as much wind for a period of time? It is far too unreliable to ever be our primary source of energy.

Then it's certainly good that no one has ever suggested such a thing.

But it's not so good that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I don't know, I was just asking a question. I know nuclear power plants don't have a problem producing power during a hurricane.

Fukushima had some issues with environmental effects. Nuke plants are not indestructible. And windmills and solar thermal and PV installations can easily be made strong enough to withstand hurricane force winds. Besides, the entire country is not powered from the southeastern coastline. But you seem to have missed the spot where I said "I SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER".

Or do you assume we will no longer have hurricanes if we convert to wind power?

I think you need to do a little more reading

Why is that?

Because you have made a large number of erroneous statements.

Don't you have all the answers? Shouldn't I just follow whatever you say, and believe you know what the hell you're talking about?

If you follow what I write, you will see that when I am stating an opinion - something I do NOT know to be a fact - I will almost always tack on qualification: "I think" or "I believe" or "the evidence indicates".

I think my biggest problem here is, I have done a lot of reading, and I am marginally smarter than you.

The number of blatant mistakes you've made and the number of falsehoods you've spouted do not support that contention. If you were smarter than me, you wouldn't suggest excess CO2 will dissipate into space. If you were smarter than me, you wouldn't waste paragraphs talking about CO2 toxicity or optimum levels for plants. If you were smarter than me you wouldn't suggest human CO2 production was trivial or that windmills have enormous maintenance costs or that CO2 was abundant throughout the universe or think that ANY of those arguments had any bearing on the validity of AGW.

This keeps me from being a gullible fool when it comes to AGW, and the effects of man on the climate. If only I could undo all my reading and find a way to make myself dumb again, you might be able to convince me of this lunacy.

What was that syndrome PMZ mentioned? Dunning-Kruger? Yeah... that was it:

From Wikipedia:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]

And from Webster's

Dunnning-Kruger: 1) See the Boss

 

[Abraham3]

SSDD -

Basic mechanisms, possibly. But climate change is not a basic mechanism - it's the culmination of literally dozens of different variables - of which CO2 and warming is only one process.

So I am asking for an experiment that demonstrates the basic mechanism of AGW

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD

the mechanisms that cause weather can be duplicated in a lab

Really? So hurricanes can be duplicated in a lab, can they?

How about monsoons, wind sheer or particular kinds of clouds?

Are you telling me that the government is lying to me when they say that simulated hurricanes tend to be more intensive in a warmer climate?

Shouldn't you be posting in the Whackadoodle Forum, aka Conspiracy Theories?
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Hurricane Portal

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How about your assertion that I have everything wrong?

How about you show some consistency and not declare the normal hyperbole and insults here are "lying"? It's only "lying" when the other side does it, apparently. When you or your own side does it, that obviously can't qualify as "lying". A fine double standard on your part.

Lying would be ... well, what gslack is famous for, for the obvious example. That is, constantly making up wild stories about how people said things they never came close to saying. That's why everyone holds him in such contempt, as he's the only one here who flagrantly crosses the line and just brazenly lies about everyone.

You said I had everything wrong, I asked you to show me what I had wrong, and you now say you were using hyperbole.

I didn't call you a liar, but it does seem appropriate.

 

[Abraham3]

The point dear person is the AGW fraudsters claimed that CO2 was the primary cause and regardless of other factors the warming would continue.

How about a link from ipcc.ch or any of their lead authors that make such a statement?

Eh?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD -

Basic mechanisms, possibly. But climate change is not a basic mechanism - it's the culmination of literally dozens of different variables - of which CO2 and warming is only one process.

Kinda like a hurricane? Which are pretty accurately tracked and predicted now, and where we have models that take all the various factors that we are aware of into account when they make those predictions?

Wait, you just said we can't do that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD

the mechanisms that cause weather can be duplicated in a lab

Really? So hurricanes can be duplicated in a lab, can they?

How about monsoons, wind sheer or particular kinds of clouds?

How dumb are you? I mean really....

He isn't dumb, the book he read about hurricanes was right when it was written 200 years ago.

 

[mamooth]

You said I had everything wrong, I asked you to show me what I had wrong, and you now say you were using hyperbole.

Grow up, ya big baby. Get over yourself. The fact that nobody wastes time on your hallmark semantic tantrums simply indicates that most people see through that bullshit act.

I didn't call you a liar, but it does seem appropriate.

It seems appropriate to point out you have an amusingly inflated and totally unjustified sense of sense-competence.

 

[NLT]

Climate change is true. It snowed in Dallas in December and its fucking hot as hell here today in August. Next December it will be cold in Dallas. ccchhhha changes

 

[Abraham3]

Any of the basic mechanisms can be reproduced in a lab....the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work can not because it does not exist.

Are you rejecting the Keeling curve?

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

 

[SSDD]

I can list 10 countries off the top of my head with clearly, openly conservative governments who fund climate research. Why do you deny it?

Do they have socialized medicine? If so, then by defninition, they aren't conservative.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Basic mechanisms, possibly. But climate change is not a basic mechanism - it's the culmination of literally dozens of different variables - of which CO2 and warming is only one process.

Describe, if you can, the basic mechanism by which you claim AGW operates and then explain why this BASIC MECHANISM can't be shown in a lab.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Basic mechanisms, possibly. But climate change is not a basic mechanism - it's the culmination of literally dozens of different variables - of which CO2 and warming is only one process.

So I am asking for an experiment that demonstrates the basic mechanism of AGW

Are you rejecting the Greenhouse Effect?

Yes I am...for a couple of reasons. The most fundamental reason is that if you try to calculate the temperatures of the other planets in the solar system that have atmospheres using the greenhouse effect, the resulting predicted temperature isn't even close. The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct fabricated explicitly to fix the incorrect temperature that the flawed energy budget yields.

I subscribe to an atmospheric thermal effect which is quite a bit larger than the so called greenhouse effect, but doesn't depend on the composition of an atmosphere beyond what it weighs. It explains the temperature here on earth very well and requires little more than the TSI and the ideal gas laws....in addition, when applied to every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere, it yields an accurate temperature.