AGW: atmospheric physics

[IlarMeilyr]

SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.

Oh, definitely.

But it's good to know that we can now all use postcards instead of data.

I realize your limited grasp of science and the meaning of words leaves you at a severe disadvantage, but it is still true that sometimes the contents of and images on a postcard constitute "data."

All evidence contrary to your pet notion (not even a true scientific theory) is disregarded by you AGW Faithers.

Yes there are "tons" blogs out there that take all kind of stands on climate change. Very few of them have any scientific standing, and many of them are linked to particular right-wing politicians. There are very, very few solid pieces of research that deny climate change. Some of those that do are interesting, some less so.

Your determination of who does or does not have "scientific standing" is far from controlling. Thought you should know. There are numerous and very substantial and solid "pieces of research" that deny the legitimacy of the "science" of AGW climate change.

At this stage, every major scientific organisations backs human involvement in climate change. That is 60+ organisations representing every field of scientific enfeavour from biology to physics. It's a no brainer to anyone who does not hold extremist political views.

Once again you must come to grips with the truth of the VERY simple proposition that science is not governed by "consensus" or democracy.
It is abundantly clear that you AGW Faithers have rather extremist (but scientifically unsupported) political views.

 

[SSDD]

Once again you must come to grips with the truth of the VERY simple proposition that science is not governed by "consensus" or democracy.
It is abundantly clear that you AGW Faithers have rather extremist (but scientifically unsupported) political views.

Their entire argument comes down to an appeal to authority and even the "authority" can't even provide any measured evidence of a greenhouse effect....or a single shred of evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes global climate change.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Once again you must come to grips with the truth of the VERY simple proposition that science is not governed by "consensus" or democracy.
It is abundantly clear that you AGW Faithers have rather extremist (but scientifically unsupported) political views.

Their entire argument comes down to an appeal to authority and even the "authority" can't even provide any measured evidence of a greenhouse effect....or a single shred of evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes global climate change.

But a lot of people say it. So it must be true.

SCIENCE!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Saigon will never state the null hypothesis.

 

[numan]

SSDD -
You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.

Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.

I remember when those atomic submarines visited the North Pole. The news reports all said that the submarines had to punch their way through the ice to get enough clear water so that they could get those tourist photos !!

· · ·

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -
You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.

Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.

I remember when those atomic submarines visited the North Pole. The news reports all said that the submarines had to punch their way through the ice to get enough clear water so that they could get those tourist photos !!

· · ·

There are some photos where the subs had to punch their way through ice and there are photos of them in open water. Open water at the north pole is not a new thing. According to the "experts" the oldest of the sea ice is no more than 10 years old. That should give you an indication of exactly how much melting and freezing goes on up there.

 

[depotoo]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SQhx5_o8HAs]Amateur home movie of Arctic Circle, 1950's -- Film 4169 - YouTube[/ame]
.Amateur home movie of Arctic Circle, 1950's -- Film 4169 .

 

[mamooth]

One of the more obvious and glaring fails of the AGW Faither side

Please Don't project your slavish allegiance to a political liars' cult on to the honest and rational people. We get it. You fail totally concerning all the science and logic, therefore you just parrot whatever your cult orders you to parrot. You need to understand, however, that we are not like you.

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

But it does explain them. That's the point. Where do you come up with such dumfukkery? AGW science is climate science, and climate science does explain those climate changes.

Another is that despite the (still questionable) increase in the lower atmosphere's concentration of CO2

"ALL THE DATA IS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!"

You're even denying the CO2 increase? Even the most crazed of the 'tards here don't take it to that level.

we do NOT see any corresponding increase in average temperatures in the last one to decades.

A brazen lie, debunked here over and over. Of course, I'm guessing FOX didn't tell you that, so you'd have no way of knowing. So you get a pass on it.

But the AGW Faithers still have faith. Praise Gaia.

A dumbshit logic blunder and repeating an outright lie on your part doesn't make us hypocrites or cultists. It just makes you stupid and dishonest.

 

[mamooth]

So SSDD is _still_ claiming that a lead in the ice means "The arctic is ice free".

I think that qualifies as the most pathetic lie I've ever read here. Not the biggest lie, but the most pathetic, just because it's so stupid, and because it's so obvious that the 'tard is trying to weasel out of his stupid claim by digging himself in even deeper.

Sadder, all of the other denialist 'tards have jumped on the same 'tard bandwagon. Like I keep saying, it's a liars' cult.

 

[polarbear]

One of the more obvious and glaring fails of the AGW Faither side

Please Don't project your slavish allegiance to a political liars' cult on to the honest and rational people. We get it. You fail totally concerning all the science and logic, therefore you just parrot whatever your cult orders you to parrot. You need to understand, however, that we are not like you.

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

But it does explain them. That's the point. Where do you come up with such dumfukkery? AGW science is climate science, and climate science does explain those climate changes.



"ALL THE DATA IS A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!"

You're even denying the CO2 increase? Even the most crazed of the 'tards here don't take it to that level.

we do NOT see any corresponding increase in average temperatures in the last one to decades.

A brazen lie, debunked here over and over. Of course, I'm guessing FOX didn't tell you that, so you'd have no way of knowing. So you get a pass on it.

But the AGW Faithers still have faith. Praise Gaia.

A dumbshit logic blunder and repeating an outright lie on your part doesn't make us hypocrites or cultists. It just makes you stupid and dishonest.

So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?
After all it was you who claimed these "aerosols" reflected enough sunlight to explain the temperature stall.
Why don`t you tell us how to calibrate a pollen count as a "proxy thermometer"?
Pollen, that`s a nice word for plant sperm, perhaps this might help :

Your occult high priest Marcott needs help URGENTLY.
Let me google that for you

Since when are non-occult members a "denial occult".
Are you a "Scientologist"...no..?
That makes you a "denial occult member" by your own definition.

 

[mamooth]

So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?

Because concrete and asphalt are dark, dumbass. And because they don't evaporate moisture.

Again, 4rth grade level science, and yet you can't grasp it.

 

[SSDD]

Please Don't project your slavish allegiance to a political liars' cult on to the honest and rational people. We get it. You fail totally concerning all the science and logic, therefore you just parrot whatever your cult orders you to parrot. You need to understand, however, that we are not like you.

I am afraid that it is you and yours who have foregone science and logic in favor of political agenda. Lets talk about the science... Describe the greenhouse effect as you understand it....and describe it without violating any of the laws of physics if you don't mind.

I don't believe for a second that you can but hey, there is a certain entertainment value in seeing your sort be exposed for the morons you are.

 

[SSDD]

So SSDD is _still_ claiming that a lead in the ice means "The arctic is ice free".

I think that qualifies as the most pathetic lie I've ever read here. Not the biggest lie, but the most pathetic, just because it's so stupid, and because it's so obvious that the 'tard is trying to weasel out of his stupid claim by digging himself in even deeper.

Sadder, all of the other denialist 'tards have jumped on the same 'tard bandwagon. Like I keep saying, it's a liars' cult.

The challenge is on the table mamooth....lets talk about the greenhosue effect. Again, describe it in your own words without violating any of the laws of physics. Which version do you subscribe to...the official version or one of the various lukewarmer versions?

 

[mamooth]

I have zero trouble addressing direct questions, being that I'm not a mewling denialist liars' cult member. The simplified version:

CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb IR radiation in certain bands, so more CO2 slows down radiative heat transfer away from the earth. That changes the equilibrium, more energy comes in than goes out, and the earth warms. The earth would eventually reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature, if the CO2 levels stabilized, but we're not there yet, we're in the warming part.

An additional blanket warms the bed in a similar way, by slowing down outward heat transfer. If you think AGW theory violates the laws of physics, you probably also think a blanket violates the laws of physics.

(And by the way, given that we all know you're eventually going to turn tail and run, like you always do, the bluster was probably not a good idea.)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I have zero trouble addressing direct questions, being that I'm not a mewling denialist liars' cult member. The simplified version:

CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb IR radiation in certain bands, so more CO2 slows down heat transfer away from the earth. That changes the equilibrium, more energy comes in than goes out, and the earth warms. The earth would eventually reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature, if the CO2 levels stabilized, but we're not there yet, we're in the warming part.

An additional blanket warms the bed in a similar way, by slowing down outward heat transfer. If you think AGW theory violates the laws of physics, you probably also think a blanket violates the laws of physics.

(And by the way, given that we all know you're eventually going to turn tail and run, like you always do, the bluster was probably not a good idea.)

Why isn't the rate of global heating increasing in the past 10 -15 - 20 years?

All the human-caused co2 isn't going anywhere, is it?

Not only is it still here, but it's been ADDED to, right?

So why isn't the RATE of global heating getting progressively worse and worse?

Why is the rate slowing?

And what evidence is there for any speculated answer?

 

[SSDD]

I have zero trouble addressing direct questions, being that I'm not a mewling denialist liars' cult member. The simplified version:

CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb IR radiation in certain bands, so more CO2 slows down radiative heat transfer away from the earth. That changes the equilibrium, more energy comes in than goes out, and the earth warms. The earth would eventually reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature, if the CO2 levels stabilized, but we're not there yet, we're in the warming part.

Interesting. You don't buy into the official greenhouse effect but you do buy into a luke warmer type offshoot. Any particular reason you don't buy into the actual greenhouse hypothesis?

Here is the actual hypothesis as stated by the IPCC.

FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water. Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.

So what special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to disregard the actual greenhouse hypothesis in favor of a luke warmer hypothesis?

An additional blanket warms the bed in a similar way, by slowing down outward heat transfer. If you think AGW theory violates the laws of physics, you probably also think a blanket violates the laws of physics.

Of course a blanket doesn't violate any laws of physics. The belief that a blanket can make an object beneath it warmer does though. Do you think your mattress is above room temperature just because it has a blanket on it? Grab yourself a thermometer and check it out....it isn't. A blanket can never warm a bed unless it is an electric blanket...and a blanket can never make a warm object underneath it warmer unless it is an electric blanket and capable of heating to a temperature greater than that of the warm object it is covering.

Here is an experiment for you to prove that a blanket can't cause any warming at all. Grab every blanket in your house...grab the sheets and towells too, and your winter coats. Put on all your winter coats then climb under all your blankets, sheets, and towells and see if you can give yourself a fever. Here is a clue....you can't. Those blankets are not energy sources and therefore they can't cause your body to become warmer than it already is. You will feel warmer as the air under the blanket and the layers of the blanket themselves reach equilibrium with your body, but your body temperature won't increase at all because your body is the only energy source.

The blankets will warm as a result of absorbing your body heat and eventually reach equilibrium all the way to the outermost blanket at which time it will begin radiating out into the room. At no point will your body temperature increase however. Feel free to try and put on enough clothes to give yourself a temperature. When you can't, perhaps you will then realize that if a physical blanket can't do it, then a trace gas in the atmosphere certainly can't.

(And by the way, given that we all know you're eventually going to turn tail and run, like you always do, the bluster was probably not a good idea.)

I believe it is you who will turn tail and run because my bet is that we are now over your head....and I never run...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Sometimes at night I kick off the blankets when I give myself a fever by having them covering me too thoroughly.

Whew.

 

[mamooth]

Any particular reason you don't buy into the actual greenhouse hypothesis?

Any particular reason you failed to understand the word "simplified"? Was it due to ignorance of the word, or deliberate misinterpretation?

The belief that a blanket can make an object beneath it warmer does though.

I suggest you sleep without a blanket tonight to test that very peculiar claim.

The earth is just like a warm body, in terms of the CO2 analogy. It has heat energy it needs to radiate out, just like a body under the covers. Whether the heat comes from internal chemical reactions or the absorption of visible light is not relevant to the analogy.

but your body temperature won't increase at all because your body is the only energy source.

Your claim violates the laws of thermodynamics. If an object keeps producing heat and the heat moves outward more slowly, the object will warm up.

You claim also violates common sense, as anyone who has used a blanket knows. If I stay outside the blanket, I get cold. I don't just feel cold, my skin actually gets colder. Under the blanket, my body temperature rises.

perhaps you will then realize that if a physical blanket can't do it, then a trace gas in the atmosphere certainly can't.

And since a physical blanket clearly can do it, you've clearly been debunked concerning your claim that CO2 can't do it.

 

[flacaltenn]

SSDD -

Had any other poster made your laughable claim, I'd had expected them to withdraw it and apologise.

I don't think anyone familiar with your daily rite of self-immolation would have expected anything other than diversions and lies.

Well done - you really are such an honest poster.

What a moron you are....don't even realize that I have proven my point and made your claim of an ice free arctic 125000 years ago laughable. Seems you were off by over 100,000 years.

And before you make an even bigger idiot out of yourself, you might take a minute or two to learn what is meant by the phrase "ice free" even by arctic researchers. They don't mean a complete absence of ice...they mean large areas of open water...such as those you see in the photo of the USS Skate in the 1950's.

That is the problem wtih talking to you guys who have no grasp of the science...every tiny detail must be explained to you 10 times and still you don't get it. Hell, you still believe there is proof that increased atmospheric CO2 results in increased global temperature even though you can't seem to find any to post here.

Actually, the definition of being ICED (applied to sea ice extent) is somewhere in the range of 25 to 30% coverage (if I remember correctly). So it's worse than what you stated. Those sub pictures would probably be counted today from satellite and automated image processing as "completely iced". So when the definition is that low --- you get HUGE area variability in the surveys. Which is great if you're feeding a flock of alarmists, but doesn't say piss about historical comparisons by ship log or ice core dating..

That's why I don't mudwrestle about ice melts --- or believe that trees are thermometers.

 

[flacaltenn]

So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?

Because concrete and asphalt are dark, dumbass. And because they don't evaporate moisture.

Again, 4rth grade level science, and yet you can't grasp it.

And apparently neither can the folks at NASA who keep resisting making corrections for Urban Heat Island corrections. Of course they've doctored the data sets for every other FAVORABLE bias they can imagine, but one like UHI that requires them to "cool the data" is not in favor.. Hence -- folks who HAVE developed rational urban corrections (like Dr. Roy Spencer) get a BETTER match to the satellite record than the data doctors manufacturing warming temperatures from 10,000 thermometers.