AGW: atmospheric physics

[westwall]

Mamooth (another of the "enlightened") just told me NO ONE on the warming side spouts alarmism.

Crying about me won't convince me to go any easier on you, ya big sissy. That just encourages me to mock you more.

Oh yes, your mocks are so powerful

 

[Oddball]

Since it fails to explain the observed data, Occams' Razor says to reject the "Natural Cycle!" theory. And since AGW theory is the simplest theory that does explain all of the observed data, Occam's Razor says it is most likely to be correct.

Except that the AGW fairy tale is one of the most convoluted piles of unreproducible, unfalsifiable, misanthropic crap since at least "An Essay on the Principle of Population".

Occam's razor indeed.

 

[SMP]

Moron One: Global Warming is Real because People are now Farting at ever increasing rates thus GW is man made and must be stopped by Taxing Farting and creating and Index to Trade counting farts as Carbon Emissions. We can't tax cows for their farting but we can Tax all Dairies and other Slime who kill and capitalize on Cows who fart as well.....Also we must tax those damnable anti peta folks who buy milk and steaks......

Moron Two: Well as long as you don't tax my whiskey so I can continue to not fart it will be ok.....Elite Republican response before the Tea Party.....

Moron Three: Government is opposed to ALL FARTING and will Tax anyone who does so....because we believe the Folks who fart the most need to fart their fair share.....

Final Moron: Only fart as you are passing through the First Class Cabin to get to Coach.....that will show those nasty 1 percenters....

 

[Saigon]

SMP -

It is worth noting that some countries are looking at ways to reduce the amount of farting from farm animals. Funny as it sounds, for agricultural countries it is one way they can reduce emissions quickly and hopefully easily.

One way to do it is to channel cow shit at milking sheds into underground tanks and using it to produce methane that can then be used on the farm.

 

[SSDD]

you mean there doesn'r exists a single shred of actual observed experience that you will not ignore.

I mean that there doesn't exist a single shred of evidence to support the claim. If you believe some exists, by all means, please bring it forward.

You have already shown that you don't have the slightest idea of what constututes evidence...you have said rising sea levels prove the claim...sorry, they don't as sea levels have risen over a hundred feet in the past 14000 years with low levels of CO2...you have claimed that retreating glaciers prove the claim...sorry, they don't as the ice cap has retreated almost 2000 miles in the past 14,000 years with low levels of CO2....and on and on. Learn what proof is then admit that there is none.

For anyone else there are rising temperatures, melting glaciers, the collapse of the Arctic, increased patterns of droughts and floods.....

Those things might constitute proof for idiots, or people who want to believe (still idiots) but not for rational thinkers. Temperatures have been on the increase for 14,000 years and the greatest part of that temperature increase was when atmospheric CO2 was at "safe" levels.. This tells a thinking person that CO2 isn't the cause.

The ice cap has retreated almost 2000 miles in the past 14,000 years with 19,800 miles of that retreat being when atmospheric CO2 was at "safe" levels. This tells a thinking person that CO2 is not the cause.

The arctic was ice free during the holocene maximum, during the roman warm period, and had much less ice than the presen during the medieval warm period...all these periods had atmospheric CO2 in the "safe" level.. This tells a thinking person that CO2 is not the cause.

Drought and flood are part of the earth's climate....more sever drought and flood have occurred at times when atmospheric CO2 was at the "safe" level. This tells a thinking person that CO2 is not the culprit.

I gave you examples of what constututes scientific proof. Refer to them and then try giving an actual example of proof that raising atmospheric CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm up.

It is important that you can separate out your own politically based opinions from actual facts.

That is exactly what you should do. The examples above are not examples of proof that CO2 is the cause because those things have all happened when atmospheric CO2 was lower and higher. CO2 is not a cause but your politics allows you to view things that are not proof as proof.

 

[SSDD]

'
As usual, humans have dawdled and lied to themselves. Beyond the political trivialities, the raw facts emerge: we are all doomed. May the Fat Earth Goddess have mercy on our souls.

Point of No Return for the Arctic Climate?

In the case of the Arctic, that could mean a complete disappearance of ice in the region during the summer months. Such an eventuality would then further magnify global warming, due to the fact that bright white ice reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere, whereas dark colored land and ocean absorbs heat....

"In the case of Arctic Sea ice, we have already reached the point of no return,"....

The waters around the North Pole are heavily influenced by the currents coursing through the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Those currents are driven by conflicting atmospheric pressure systems over each ocean: in the Pacific, the low pressure zone located near the Aleutian Islands extending west from Alaska is doing battle with a subtropical high pressure zone further south; in the Atlantic the currents are determined by the Azores High and the Icelandic Low.

Winter in the Arctic has long been determined by what researchers refer to as a "tri-polar" pattern. The interaction among the Icelandic Low, the Azores High and the subtropical high in the Pacific led to primarily east-west winds, a pattern which effectively blocked warmer air from moving northward into the Arctic region.

But since the beginning of the decade, the patterns have changed. Now, a "dipolar" (bipolar) pattern has developed in which a high pressure system over Canada and a low pressure system over Siberia have the say. The result has been that Artic winds now blow north-south, meaning that warmer air from the south has no problem making its way into the Arctic region. "It's like a short-circuit," ....

neuman, you are pathetic. You post this bullshit and never have an answer when it is debunked. The Arctic was ice free during the Holocene Maximum and the Roman warm period and has been ice free within the past 100 years. None of those instances led to the claimed maginification of warming.. What makes you think the present is an exception?

 

[SSDD]

Don't fret, noman. Nobody WITH a brain buys your alarmist AGW Faither nonsense.

,

Typical troll...post..post...post... and never a real answer when his posts are challenged. Guess that means that he is no better able to discuss the topic than the other cut and paste drones on this board. The only people who can actualy discuss the topic are the skeptics.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

If I thought for a moment you had any guine interest in learning about science or climate change, I'd be delighted to present material for you to look at, but we both know you aren't interested.

Why you insist on playing this deranged game in which you demand evidence you then refuse to look at is beyond me.

What we can both agree on is that every major scientific organisaion agrees that human activity plays some role in change the earth's climate - making your hilariously vain claim that you have some kind of monopoly on "rational thinking" as childish as it sounds.

If you do want to post honestly one day - perhaps start by acknowledging that you hold such fantastically extreme political views that you are forced to reject dictionary definitions, and we can move on from there.

 

[SSDD]

Those outside the cult instantly see the big screwups in that statement, assuming melt rate won't keep increasing, and ignoring the thermal expansion of seawater.

How much do you think sea water expands due to increased heat? How much would it expand if the temperature increased 2 degees, 3 degrees, 4 degrees? How much sea level increase would that expansion result in?

You make comments like that as if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here's your chance to prove that you do, or you don't. Answer the questions?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

The Arctic was ice free during the Holocene Maximum and the Roman warm period and has been ice free within the past 100 years.

Wonderful stuff, SSDD, it's good to see you are still as happy to post absolutely anything that springs into your mind, no matter how laughable to is!

You just could not make this shit up, could you??!!

Let's see what some actual scientists say - as opposed to your usual fortune telling sources.

Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.

The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/


That's not bad SSDD - you were only 5,400 years out!!

 

[SSDD]

Totally wrong. Here are just two of the failures of the "It has to be natural!" theory.

1. It fails to explain why past natural cycles in the past all have an identifiable cause, but the current warming has no identifiable natural cause.

Really? What precisely caused the reversal of the last ice age? Please provide proof of your claim. What precisely caused the spike of temperatures duing the holocene maximum, and the roman warm period and why were the maximum temperatures different? Provide proof of your claim.

And doesn't the fact that at the end of the 20th century the output of the sun was near its highest in the past 5000 years suggest that there might be an identifiable natural cause?

2. It fails to explain why we can directly observe the energy imbalance of the earth, caused by the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands.

We can't directly observe the energy imbalance of the earth because we don't have any more than a theoretical handle on the energy cycle within the earth and atmosphere.

And outgoing LW radiation is on the increase as has been shown by satellite measurements in direct contradiction to the predicted decrease of outgoing LW by climate science.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

If I thought for a moment you had any guine interest in learning about science or climate change, I'd be delighted to present material for you to look at, but we both know you aren't interested.

No you wouldn't because there isn't a single scrap of actual evidence of CO2 causing an increase in global temperatures. Not one. Pretending to hold back information because I won't read it denies all of the readers on this board who don't necessarily post. Post it for them. Some of them may be children...do it for the children.

Or prove that no such evidence exists by continuing to not post that which we all know doesn't exist.

Why you insist on playing this deranged game in which you demand evidence you then refuse to look at is beyond me.

The only one deranged is you siagon..claiming that all sorts of things are proof that more CO2 causes warming when all those things happened when CO2 levels were much lower as well. You guys need to take a few minutes and learn a basic scientific fact.....correlation does not equal causation.

What we can both agree on is that every major scientific organisaion agrees that human activity plays some role in change the earth's climate - making your hilariously vain claim that you have some kind of monopoly on "rational thinking" as childish as it sounds.

What we can agree on is that the political heads of every scientific organization have made statements that the membership of said organizations had no sayso on. What we can't agree on is that humans are responsilbe. Another thing we can agree on is that neither you, nor all those heads of scientific organizations can provide a shred of hard evidence that man is responsible for global climate change.

If the proof existed, it would be everywhere and yet, when asked you guys alwasy give some mewling excuse for not providing it.

 

[Saigon]

What we can agree on is that the political heads of every scientific organization have made statements that the membership of said organizations had no sayso on

Right. Even the organistations that took a democratic vote on the issue. Honestly...."political heads"? Of an association of Belgian Chemists?!

It was all fixed by some gigantic socialist conspiracy. There really is absolutely no fact you can't twist into paranoid gibberish, is there?

btw. No one is "holding back" information. It has all been posted here before, and you've flat out ignored it without reading it. You know it and I know it.

If the proof existed, it would be everywhere

Exactly. And yet you still claim you can't find it, when we both know you have found it and refused to look at it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.

Totally wrong. Here are just two of the failures of the "It has to be natural!" theory.

1. It fails to explain why past natural cycles in the past all have an identifiable cause, but the current warming has no identifiable natural cause.

2. It fails to explain why we can directly observe the energy imbalance of the earth, caused by the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands.

Since it fails to explain the observed data, Occams' Razor says to reject the "Natural Cycle!" theory. And since AGW theory is the simplest theory that does explain all of the observed data, Occam's Razor says it is most likely to be correct.

One of the more obvious and glaring fails of the AGW Faither side (to the effect that "it has to be man caused") is evidenced by the fact that it fails to explain all the various global climate changes that preceded human industry.

Another is that despite the (still questionable) increase in the lower atmosphere's concentration of CO2, we do NOT see any corresponding increase in average temperatures in the last one to decades.

But the AGW Faithers still have faith. Praise Gaia.

 

[Saigon]

is evidenced by the fact that it fails to explain all the various global climate changes that preceded human industry.

What ARE you talking about?

Honestly - I am AMAZED how many times we posters present their own ignorance of fact as some kind of political point we should all been impressed by.

Both you and SSDD seem to suffer from the terrible fallacy that suggests that if you refuse to look at evidence, therefore it doesn't exist.

Meanwhile there are books and sites devoted to this topic the rest of the world read 10 years ago.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I think you "forgot" to respond to this. Which is strange, because I know you often tell us how honest you are. Well - here's a chance to prove it.

SSDD -

The Arctic was ice free during the Holocene Maximum and the Roman warm period and has been ice free within the past 100 years.

Wonderful stuff, SSDD, it's good to see you are still as happy to post absolutely anything that springs into your mind, no matter how laughable to is!

You just could not make this shit up, could you??!!

Let's see what some actual scientists say - as opposed to your usual fortune telling sources.

Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.

The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice

Frequently Asked Questions on Arctic sea ice | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis


That's not bad SSDD - you were only 5,400 years out!!

 

[SSDD]

Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.

Some studies? What does that mean? Some studies show that there was no ice in the arctic during the holocene? Of course, that is exactly what that means.

Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Jakobsson et al. 2010.pdf


There are plenty more studies that indicate an ice free arctic during the holocene

The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian.

You say that as if it were fact when clearly it is not as evidenced by studies that state that the arctic was ice free during the holocene.

The there remains the question....why did it melt when atmospheric CO2 was so much lower than the present? Clearly CO2 is not the control knob you believe it to be.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Please post with a little honesty and integrity. Really.

You claimed the Arctic was ice free within the past hundred years.

A reputable source claims you are out by 5,400 years.

Please admit your error.

 

[SSDD]

btw. No one is "holding back" information. It has all been posted here before, and you've flat out ignored it without reading it. You know it and I know it.

I know that you are a liar and no such evidence has been posted here before. I challenge you to prove that you are not a liar by posting a single bit of hard evidence that proves that more CO2 in the atmosphere raises the global temperature. Evidence of something that has never happened when atmospheric CO2 levels were lower would provide strong correlation, but not proof and to date, you guys have not even been able to provide that.

Exactly. And yet you still claim you can't find it, when we both know you have found it and refused to look at it.

I have looked.....it isn't there. The problem is that due to your scientific ignorance you don't know what constitutes scientific proof.

Post one bit of evidence that you believe provides proof that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 cause global warming. Not corelation...proof. You can't do it because no such proof exists.

 

[SSDD]

The Arctic was ice free during the Holocene Maximum and the Roman warm period and has been ice free within the past 100 years.

Guess you haven't seen all of the photos taken by US and Russian submarines surfacing in open water at the north pole in the past 60 years or so. Do you really need to see them?