16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[flacaltenn]

Yep, real science crosses all spectrums.

And based on your postings here, both you and flac suck hard at all science across all spectrums.

Sure, you talk about your successes, but in this forum, you two just parrot debunked nonsense. When you do try to think, you toss out some idiot bad logic that leaves everyone else kind of open-mouthed, astonished that anyone could have typed something that stupid and said "Damn that's good! I'll post that now!".

Oh, cherrypicking one engineer to declare all engineers are brilliant would be an example of the really awful logic which I keep pointing out is the hallmark of most denialists. Maybe they can do math, but they almost all fail at the common sense needed to set up the problem. Flac, thanks for proving my point there.

You're welcome.. However in the future --- please QUOTE my "idiot bad logic" that you are mocking so that we can all compare the usefulness and relevence of the dialog..

Anything else I can help you with? Maybe a career adjustment? You're missing out on the fun if you aren't cruising the big world of technology from your current job..

Ever spend time at ted.org?? You should.. LOTS of interdisciplinary innovation going on there. Maybe even a climate guy talking to a Linear Systems Analysis guy.. Oh horrors !!!!
Nothing good could come of that..

 

[Saigon]

QW -

I love it when you claim that a government is NOT conservative simply because it fits your agenda.

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?

We both know why - the whole basis of denial is political. The FACT that most conservative politicians understand climate science makes you look ridiculous.

There are no conservative governments any more than there are liberal ones. The politicians getting elected to governments might appear conservative, or liberal, to you, but they are usually power hungry potential tyrants. It is not my fault you don't understand this.

Ah, so now there ARE no conservative politicians.

The forum's own Willy Loman strikes again.

At times the standard of debate on this forum couldn't be any lower if the forum set a maximum age of seven.

 

[Boss]

Isotope ratios prove humans caused the CO2 level increase. That's not open for debate by any rational human, any more than the round earth theory is.

This is simply not true. How can isotope ratios prove humans caused the current spike in CO2, yet they didn't and couldn't have caused the spike 100k years ago, or 200k, or 300k?

And again, that's retard logic on your part, assuming the present must act exactly like the past, even when conditions in the present are wildly different.

Excuse me, but YOU are the one twisting logic into a pretzel here. You are basically arguing against scientific principle in favor of random phenomenon. It's like saying that gravity caused the sun to rise and fall today, even though in the past it has risen and fallen because the round Earth is rotating.

There is nothing retarded about testable, repeatable and observable results. It is retarded to argue that these do not matter. There is nothing "wildly different" about the spike in CO2 levels today, versus 100, 200, 300k years ago. In fact, the current spike is milder than previous spikes, in spite of man's industrial contributions. But even considering your point completely valid, the increase in CO2 levels is not catastrophic, will not produce catastrophic results, and will eventually trend in the other direction as it always has, in spite of anything man does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

I love it when you claim that a government is NOT conservative simply because it fits your agenda.

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?

We both know why - the whole basis of denial is political. The FACT that most conservative politicians understand climate science makes you look ridiculous.

There are no conservative governments any more than there are liberal ones. The politicians getting elected to governments might appear conservative, or liberal, to you, but they are usually power hungry potential tyrants. It is not my fault you don't understand this.

Ah, so now there ARE no conservative politicians.

The forum's own Willy Loman strikes again.

At times the standard of debate on this forum couldn't be any lower if the forum set a maximum age of seven.

How did we get from discussing governments to discussing politicians? Did you get confused when I pointed out that power hungry assholes run in order to get power in government?

 

[SSDD]

In the 20th century, we can rule out things like massive volcanic activity; while at the same time we can measure the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

You neglect to mention that as we approached the end of the 20th century, solar activity was at its highest in about 9000 years...then the sun switched into quiet mode just before the turn of the century and we have seen no warming since.

We know these things and can measure them, but you guys inevetably fail to mention them.

 

[SSDD]

The question that should be asked is

1.Is solar or wind good?
2. Is cleaning up coal good?
3. Can increasing fuel standards that allow for more miles per gallon, good?

If you agree with all...I don't understand how the general policies are that extreme.

Solar and wind result in their own sort of ecological damage that in many ways is even worse than traditional fuels.

Cleaning up coal is good.

Increasing fuel standards has resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and permanant injuries. Structural integrity is sacrificed to gain the fuel economy.

One out of 3.

 

[SSDD]

Biology is fundamental to understanding climate change? Climate change is something that happens to the entire planet, biology is something that is on the planet. Climate change is the result of the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and the ocean, biology has nothing to do with fluid dynamics.

Personally, if I wanted to know about climate change I would talk to a meteorologist, not a biologist.

But a meterologist (who are better educated than climatologists) won't tell him what he wants to hear since very few meteorologists are paying passengers on the AGW crazy train.

 

[SSDD]

Saigon, what I continue to see you doing, is trying to argue your point from the perspective of the obvious, which doesn't establish your point at all. It's like Chicken Little running around speaking of all the terrible dangers of a falling sky... it gets in your hair... it could hurt your head... it might even kill somebody! You need to be proving that man is contributing to climate change, and all you're doing is talking about the effects of climate change. We all understand that when the climate changes, it affects things. This fact doesn't establish that mankind is contributing to the change in climate.

Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all. The chart posted by QW, data taken from an ice core, shows that CO2 levels have always followed the same cyclical pattern, over hundreds of thousands of years. Your chart is just the sampling which only shows one spike, the most current. Other spikes, as indicated by ice core data, were greater than the current spike. This couldn't have been caused by man, we weren't here.

These guys work on faith, not proof. They (and we) can easily prove that the climate has, is and will change. That's where they stop with the proof. They take it as a matter of faith that man is responsible for the change and when asked for proof, they revert back to proof that the climate changes and expect you to accept that the change is the result of man's activities as an article of faith like they do.

 

[SSDD]

No, it doesn't. What I posted proved to you that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising at an unprecedented rate - a point you had asked for information on.

Define unprecedented? We know that atmospheric CO2 has been measured in the thousands of parts per million for most of earth's history and was up to the point that the present ice age began.

Relative to most of earth's history, the present atmosphere is positively starved for CO2.

 

[SSDD]

Don't you think that at some point in the past 50 years of climate "research" that someone would have done a lab experiment to actually demonstrate the mechanism by which the AGW hypothesis works if there were, in fact, such a mechanism?

I mean really, if adding CO2 to a volume of gas caused some degree of warming, don't you think it could be readily demonstrated? Of course it can't because the only way CO2 will cause warming is if there is enough of it to change the atmospheric pressure and the ideal gas laws tell us that if that happens, that warming will, in fact happen and that can be demonstrated in any half decent lab.

Absolutely ASTOUNDING that the world's scientists could have missed that basic point ! ! !

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

greenhouse effect: Definition from Answers.com

Greenhouse Effect - What are Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect?

The Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse effect

The Greenhouse Effect | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA

What is the greenhouse effect?

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material

NASA's Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Enhanced 'greenhouse effect' causes global warming - USATODAY.com

Ancient clams yield new information about greenhouse effect on climate

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

7(h) The Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse effect | Define Greenhouse effect at Dictionary.com

Greenhouse gas emissions lowest in 20 years, thanks to natural gas | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog

greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

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

Greenhouse effect - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

greenhouse effect - definition of greenhouse effect by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The Greenhouse Effect - Thermodynamics, Heat, Climate Change - PhET

greenhouse_2011

Greenhouse Effect definition of Greenhouse Effect in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

Greenhouse-effect | Define Greenhouse-effect at Dictionary.com

Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse Effect, by Thomas C. Schelling: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Global Warming Interactive, Global Warming Simulation, Climate Change Simulation - National Geographic

Greenhouse effect

Greenhouse effect | Easy to understand definition of greenhouse effect by Your Dictionary

Greenhouse effect

greenhouse effect (atmospheric science) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

And where among those is a description of a repeatable, observable experiment demonstrating that an increase in atmospheric CO2 of X will result in an increase of temperature by Y? Just point it out and I will gladly go read the experiment. PMZ provided one but alas, the CO2 concentration was 1 million parts per million and it was not the hypothetical greenhouse mechanism at work. His experiment showed the effects of IR on very high concentrations of a heavier than air gas which emits IR at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs...not the effects of a trace gas in an open atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Well there is the root of your problem. You don't know the difference between a real scientist and someone who has what amounts to a liberal science degree. Engineers live applied science. If you want to know what happens in the physical world, ask an engineer, not an academic.

Bullshit. Most engineers are myopic and fairly helpless outside of their specialty. I know that, as an engineer.

Climate science requires generalism. You need physics, chemistry, biology, and loads and loads of statistics. Engineers don't have that. Especially the statistics. An engineering BS requires one basic statistics course, which is laughably inadequate for the sciences. Even the damn psychologists, about as "soft" as you can get, are far better statisticians than the engineers.

What a lot of engineers do have is stupid unwarranted arrogance. They know a lot about their little thing, so they incorrectly assume they must know everything.

You are not an engineer...you have proven that beyond any doubt whatsoever...you are a liar and you have proven that beyond any doubt as well.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Can weather be produced in a lab?

If not, then stop demanding that climate change dconditions be produced in a lab.

I appreciate that CO2 - temperature may seem like a relatively simple thing to reproduce in a lab, but from what I have read, in reality the sheer number of variables mean that it is anything but simple.

I see this mentioned every day here, and although I am sure we'd all like to see that experiment conducted, without factoring in everything from gravity to night & day to the sun to oceans, winds and the electro-magnetic field, it probably wouldn't tell us much anyway.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Can weather be produced in a lab?

If not, then stop demanding that climate change dconditions be produced in a lab.

I appreciate that CO2 - temperature may seem like a relatively simple thing to reproduce in a lab, but from what I have read, in reality the sheer number of variables mean that it is anything but simple.

I see this mentioned every day here, and although I am sure we'd all like to see that experiment conducted, without factoring in everything from gravity to night & day to the sun to oceans, winds and the electro-magnetic field, it probably wouldn't tell us much anyway.

Idiot, the mechanisms that cause weather can be duplicated in a lab as could the mechanism you guys claim for AGW if it existed.

 

[Saigon]

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?

 

[mamooth]

"I was a nuclear watch officer" Ring a bell?

Back to spitting on my military record? You're a piece of work, westwall. You joy in spitting on veterans, so long as the vet is a liberal.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? All you do now anywhere is snarl at people. I've given it my best shot, but trying to appeal to your better nature is clearly pointless, given you don't have a better nature. Just a bitter hate-addict, needing an even larger hate-fix each day to get the same level of hate-rush.

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[SSDD]

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?

You really are a fucking idiot aren't you? The low pressure rotation that initiates a hurricaine can be duplicated in a lab. 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. Any basic weather lab can demonstrate a low pressure rotation.

Monsoons? Rain? Of course, the basic mechanism that initiates rain can be duplicated in a lab. Windshear, of course wind shear can be duplicated. Wind tunnels aren't just for testing automobile and airplane designs.

And of course we can duplicate the basic mechanisms that form clouds. What hasn't been duplicated is the basic mechanism by which you claim CO2 causes atmospheric warming.

 

[mamooth]

This is simply not true. How can isotope ratios prove humans caused the current spike in CO2, yet they didn't and couldn't have caused the spike 100k years ago, or 200k, or 300k?

Groan. Don't expect me to educate you on the basics of isotope ratios. You want me to spend time tutoring you, I'll require payment. Your ignorance on the topic only reflects badly on you, and does not change the fact that isotope ratio measurements prove that humans caused the current CO2 level rise.

Excuse me, but YOU are the one twisting logic into a pretzel here. You are basically arguing against scientific principle in favor of random phenomenon.

You're the one handwaving away all the current observed facts with a "but it happened a different way in the past!" excuse. You have to deliberately discard data to make your theory work. I don't. Hence, you are the kook.

There is nothing retarded about testable, repeatable and observable results.

Yes, there is, given what a raging double standard you have in that area. No one calls for such a thing if the topic is hurricane forecasting, detecting tsunamis or predicting volcanic eruptions. It _is_ retarded to demand that global-scale phenomenon be directly reproducible in a lab.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, there is, given what a raging double standard you have in that area. No one calls for such a thing if the topic is hurricane forecasting, detecting tsunamis or predicting volcanic eruptions. It _is_ retarded to demand that global-scale phenomenon be directly reproducible in a lab.

No one is asking for global scale demonstrations bunghole, what we want to see is a demonstration that shows that adding 200ppm of CO2 to an open atmosphere will cause warming....warming to an extent great enough that it could be detected over other natural phenomena. I would ask to see such an experiment but it has never been done because all involved know that it would be a spectacular failure.

The climate models are the closes climate science has come to performing such an experiment and they fail spectacularly when compared to reality.

 

[Saigon]

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.