If CO2 is so powerful, why are there no experiments?

[IanC]

I think it is funny when the warmers' words are turned back on them. It's not always fair, but it's always funny.

 

[mmao41377]

There ARE experiments.

来自我的 U3 上的 Tapatalk

 

[saveliberty]

reenter closed system tests for the millionth time...

 

[Wuwei]

I think it is funny when the warmers' words are turned back on them. It's not always fair, but it's always funny.

I'm not a warmer. I'm an agnostic. And stick to physics that I think I know. I posted what I generally understand is going on at the earth surface. I'm not going to read AR5.

Yes I understand that the final loss of heat is at the TOA. Now educate me as to why you think my post was funny at the bottom of the atmosphere, and why you think my words were turned back on me.

 

[IanC]

I think it is funny when the warmers' words are turned back on them. It's not always fair, but it's always funny.

I'm not a warmer. I'm an agnostic. And stick to physics that I think I know. I posted what I generally understand is going on at the earth surface. I'm not going to read AR5.

Yes I understand that the final loss of heat is at the TOA. Now educate me as to why you think my post was funny at the bottom of the atmosphere, and why you think my words were turned back on me.

I seldom disagree with what you say. AR5 does claim that the oceans are eating the excess heat. Their stated methods are incoherent. Pielke Sr, when he was still blogging, had a lot to say about dispersing heat in the oceans. The IPCC explanation is an ad hoc fairytale.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There ARE experiments.

来自我的 U3 上的 Tapatalk

Sure there are. They're a closely guarded secret.

If they released the experiments that control for CO2 levels from 280 to 400PPM, well, know knows what would happen

 

[Wuwei]

I seldom disagree with what you say. AR5 does claim that the oceans are eating the excess heat. Their stated methods are incoherent. Pielke Sr, when he was still blogging, had a lot to say about dispersing heat in the oceans. The IPCC explanation is an ad hoc fairytale.

OK, but why are so many of you guys always harping on the inability of thermal radiation to penetrate the ocean's top surface. I would think that that inability is obvious to warmers and deniers alike. Do warmers claim it can penetrate? Is Pielke claiming that?

 

[IanC]

I seldom disagree with what you say. AR5 does claim that the oceans are eating the excess heat. Their stated methods are incoherent. Pielke Sr, when he was still blogging, had a lot to say about dispersing heat in the oceans. The IPCC explanation is an ad hoc fairytale.

OK, but why are so many of you guys always harping on the inability of thermal radiation to penetrate the ocean's top surface. I would think that that inability is obvious to warmers and deniers alike. Do warmers claim it can penetrate? Is Pielke claiming that?

Please be careful as to what category you put me into, and what positions you assume I have. None of us like to defend strawman accusations.

IR from the atmosphere has basically no ability to warm the oceans. Solar input heats the oceans. The temperature of the atmosphere affects the equilibrium temp of the surface via the S-B laws, as you say, causing less heat to be radiated away. Evaporation and convection mess up the equations even more. Overturning, salinity, ocean currents, etc add even more complexity.

The warmers claim that the deep oceans are taking a significant amount of the 'excess heat' but have no coherent theory as to how it happens. Their claims as to the temps at different levels are a joke because they simply don't have the information to claim their uncertainty bars. Worse yet, the historical data doesn't even support their claims until it has been 'reanalyzed' by running it through a computer model.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I seldom disagree with what you say. AR5 does claim that the oceans are eating the excess heat. Their stated methods are incoherent. Pielke Sr, when he was still blogging, had a lot to say about dispersing heat in the oceans. The IPCC explanation is an ad hoc fairytale.

OK, but why are so many of you guys always harping on the inability of thermal radiation to penetrate the ocean's top surface. I would think that that inability is obvious to warmers and deniers alike. Do warmers claim it can penetrate? Is Pielke claiming that?

Please read AR5. It's how they made the Pause disappear and are now claiming these last 2 years are the HOTTEST EHAV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Wuwei]

Please be careful as to what category you put me into, and what positions you assume I have. None of us like to defend strawman accusations.

Fine, it has been done to me here too. However, you seemed to have supported Frank who was promoting the IR-can't-penetrate-the-ocean red herring as something the warmers supposedly believe. Have you chastised billy bob and jc about that red herring?

IR from the atmosphere has basically no ability to warm the oceans. Solar input heats the oceans. The temperature of the atmosphere affects the equilibrium temp of the surface via the S-B laws, as you say, causing less heat to be radiated away. Evaporation and convection mess up the equations even more. Overturning, salinity, ocean currents, etc add even more complexity.

Yes, I know that

The warmers claim that the deep oceans are taking a significant amount of the 'excess heat' but have no coherent theory as to how it happens. Their claims as to the temps at different levels are a joke because they simply don't have the information to claim their uncertainty bars. Worse yet, the historical data doesn't even support their claims until it has been 'reanalyzed' by running it through a computer model.

I think ocean warming is a reasonable hypothesis, but yes, I think neither warmers nor deniers can claim one way or another that the hypothesis has merit.

 

[IanC]

Please be careful as to what category you put me into, and what positions you assume I have. None of us like to defend strawman accusations.

Fine, it has been done to me here too. However, you seemed to have supported Frank who was promoting the IR-can't-penetrate-the-ocean red herring as something the warmers supposedly believe. Have you chastised billy bob and jc about that red herring?

IR from the atmosphere has basically no ability to warm the oceans. Solar input heats the oceans. The temperature of the atmosphere affects the equilibrium temp of the surface via the S-B laws, as you say, causing less heat to be radiated away. Evaporation and convection mess up the equations even more. Overturning, salinity, ocean currents, etc add even more complexity.

Yes, I know that

The warmers claim that the deep oceans are taking a significant amount of the 'excess heat' but have no coherent theory as to how it happens. Their claims as to the temps at different levels are a joke because they simply don't have the information to claim their uncertainty bars. Worse yet, the historical data doesn't even support their claims until it has been 'reanalyzed' by running it through a computer model.

I think ocean warming is a reasonable hypothesis, but yes, I think neither warmers nor deniers can claim one way or another that the hypothesis has merit.

I was laughing WITH Frank. My comment actually had nothing to do with you. I believe I have disagreed with just about everyone here, even Flac. If you think it is my job to individually correct every statement here then you have a poor estimation of the value of my time. I do what I can, I speak my piece, and move on. I hope I encourage people to think for themselves but I may be deluded because I haven't seen anyone change their mind yet.

Do you enjoy my posts? Have I pointed out any areas for further consideration? If I have that's great. If I haven't then I don't think you have read my comments carefully enough. I thought your comment on IR being released at roughly the freezing point of water had merit.

 

[Wuwei]

I was laughing WITH Frank. My comment actually had nothing to do with you. I believe I have disagreed with just about everyone here, even Flac. If you think it is my job to individually correct every statement here then you have a poor estimation of the value of my time. I do what I can, I speak my piece, and move on. I hope I encourage people to think for themselves but I may be deluded because I haven't seen anyone change their mind yet.

Do you enjoy my posts? Have I pointed out any areas for further consideration? If I have that's great. If I haven't then I don't think you have read my comments carefully enough. I thought your comment on IR being released at roughly the freezing point of water had merit.

Yes, not all people are worth challenging, except when their comments are too far to the weird and repeated too often.

I think you and Flac are the more educated and saner of the "denier" posters, and that's about it. And yes I appreciate the general technical insights you have in climate. However, unlike you and Flac, I withhold judgement on what the nature of climate change is. The the interaction of the climate variables is too obscure to come to any conclusion. However the fact that CO2 has absorption spectral lines that don't overlap the H2O spectrum is taken too lightly by most of the deniers.

 

[jc456]

I was laughing WITH Frank. My comment actually had nothing to do with you. I believe I have disagreed with just about everyone here, even Flac. If you think it is my job to individually correct every statement here then you have a poor estimation of the value of my time. I do what I can, I speak my piece, and move on. I hope I encourage people to think for themselves but I may be deluded because I haven't seen anyone change their mind yet.

Do you enjoy my posts? Have I pointed out any areas for further consideration? If I have that's great. If I haven't then I don't think you have read my comments carefully enough. I thought your comment on IR being released at roughly the freezing point of water had merit.

Yes, not all people are worth challenging, except when their comments are too far to the weird and repeated too often.

I think you and Flac are the more educated and saner of the "denier" posters, and that's about it. And yes I appreciate the general technical insights you have in climate. However, unlike you and Flac, I withhold judgement on what the nature of climate change is. The the interaction of the climate variables is too obscure to come to any conclusion. However the fact that CO2 has absorption spectral lines that don't overlap the H2O spectrum is taken too lightly by most of the deniers.

so if someone told you that you had to pay more for your use of your car, heat your home, cool your home, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is a reason for it. You just accept it? You merely trust Al Gore? Michael Moore? Robert Kennedy, he's a good one, you doubt science you get locked up. yeah right here you fk. I do get lit up with these fkturds. I do. I admit it.

For me, they'll have to prove something to me. Especially when I find scientists who are not at all paid by government money saying that those being paid by government money are faking things. And then they admit it like flippin us all off. I will challenge anyone supporting that, and I'll call them liars and fools and people hurting the poor. Warmers are condescending fks as well.

I especially like those who say the globe is warming when in 30+ years in Chicago it hasn't. It just hasn't. And tell me that 1.8F is dangerous and causes floods and extreme weather. I call bullshit. Now if you wish to join that bunch, then you get the 'get fk'd' message, because you can't prove any of it. Yeah CO2 absorbs IR. Big frkin deal we know that. Excess heat in the oceans, I laugh with Frank and Skooks. Anyone making that claim are nutjobs.

Dude, I can go on and on. Anyone wishes to challenge me, must first post up the experiment that proves their claim. That's it, very simple challenge.

Oh, one thing I love, is the response that there are a thousand experiments. By the warmers on here. I've been here two years, and I'm still waiting. The one link old socks loves to post up, actually shows Herr Koch's experiment from 1901 that doesn't support the warmer agenda. Funny shit how often that twit posts that link in here. He tells me it's not a valid experiment, so I merely asked that he then post up the one that disproves it. he hasn't. Funny shit his response most every time. warmers are funny fks, who know very little science. Me, I'm not big on science and admit it. But I don't need to be, I use logic, if it can't penetrate logic, then that science is bullshit.

I do know experiments and hypothesis', it isn't something not limited to science.

 

[IanC]

I was laughing WITH Frank. My comment actually had nothing to do with you. I believe I have disagreed with just about everyone here, even Flac. If you think it is my job to individually correct every statement here then you have a poor estimation of the value of my time. I do what I can, I speak my piece, and move on. I hope I encourage people to think for themselves but I may be deluded because I haven't seen anyone change their mind yet.

Do you enjoy my posts? Have I pointed out any areas for further consideration? If I have that's great. If I haven't then I don't think you have read my comments carefully enough. I thought your comment on IR being released at roughly the freezing point of water had merit.

Yes, not all people are worth challenging, except when their comments are too far to the weird and repeated too often.

I think you and Flac are the more educated and saner of the "denier" posters, and that's about it. And yes I appreciate the general technical insights you have in climate. However, unlike you and Flac, I withhold judgement on what the nature of climate change is. The the interaction of the climate variables is too obscure to come to any conclusion. However the fact that CO2 has absorption spectral lines that don't overlap the H2O spectrum is taken too lightly by most of the deniers.

I take offence at being called a denier. What am I denying? Be specific, preferably with a quote.

 

[IanC]

Wuwei- a typical post from me is the one where I pointed out to Old Rocks that the video he linked to from the AGU was giving incorrect messages. To whit, that the Arctic had warmed by 5C. This was not some anonymous poster on a message board, this was a respected scientist sending out a report to the public to inform them. Or should that be misinform them.

I did not see one warmer here speak up and say that exaggeration and misinformation was wrong, even if it was to help the 'Noble Cause'.

Do you speak up and point out obvious climate science exaggerations when you see them? Why not?

 

[Wuwei]

I take offence at being called a denier. What am I denying? Be specific, preferably with a quote.

A year ago I watched a NIPCC ("anti-IPCC") meeting sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. The video lasted well over an hour. The NIPCC website list of journals is the screwiest thing I had ever seen involving the climate. Some of the speakers in the video were a bit rabid. One speaker said that cigarettes don't cause cancer. I had to rewind that segment 3 times before I could believe my ears.

My perception is based on a post you made several months ago where you said that you believed that CO2 has an effect but you thought the effect was exaggerated by the IPCC and that accelerations were exaggerated.

One of the more reasonable speakers had a similar stance to yours. Since the NIPCC is quite anti-AGW, I associated that with your philosophy. I can accept that my judgment was hasty and I was wrong. I already know that perceptions of ones self is different than the perception of others have. I have seen that with myself. So I apologize to you and Flac.

 

[Wuwei]

Wuwei- a typical post from me is the one where I pointed out to Old Rocks that the video he linked to from the AGU was giving incorrect messages. To whit, that the Arctic had warmed by 5C. This was not some anonymous poster on a message board, this was a respected scientist sending out a report to the public to inform them. Or should that be misinform them.

I did not see one warmer here speak up and say that exaggeration and misinformation was wrong, even if it was to help the 'Noble Cause'.

Do you speak up and point out obvious climate science exaggerations when you see them? Why not?

I do not watch videos if they are over 10 minutes. My eyes glaze over the plethora of graphs because I can't readily make a conclusion on the veracity unless it is obviously cherry picked. Even then I seldom comment on graphs unless they are directed at me.

Since I am a sort of agnostic in climate change, I generally stick strictly to scientific topics that have a peripheral application in climate, such as misconceptions of the 2nd law, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation properties of gasses etc. Old Rocks always seems to be reasonable on the threads that I watched when it comes to science, but I have not kept up on the details of experiments, measurements and models that are bandied about by everyone.

 

[IanC]

I take offence at being called a denier. What am I denying? Be specific, preferably with a quote.

A year ago I watched a NIPCC ("anti-IPCC") meeting sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. The video lasted well over an hour. The NIPCC website list of journals is the screwiest thing I had ever seen involving the climate. Some of the speakers in the video were a bit rabid. One speaker said that cigarettes don't cause cancer. I had to rewind that segment 3 times before I could believe my ears.

My perception is based on a post you made several months ago where you said that you believed that CO2 has an effect but you thought the effect was exaggerated by the IPCC and that accelerations were exaggerated.

One of the more reasonable speakers had a similar stance to yours. Since the NIPCC is quite anti-AGW, I associated that with your philosophy. I can accept that my judgment was hasty and I was wrong. I already know that perceptions of ones self is different than the perception of others have. I have seen that with myself. So I apologize to you and Flac.

A rather backhanded apology but better than nothing.

I haven't seen the video you are talking about. Are you sure that the speaker wasn't saying that there is no proof that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer?

I complain against exaggerations and unsupported conclusions and you jump to your own conclusion that I am a denier of not only of AGW but now you want to associate me with smoking? Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

I haven't seen the video you are talking about. Are you sure that the speaker wasn't saying that there is no proof that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer?

At 44:50 of the video Dr. Soon said, “lung cancer causes cigarette smoking... this is ridiculous actually” I misread it at my original viewing. I now see that he inverted what one would expect to hear and was being facetious. In a rather awkward way, he was degrading Al Gore's cause and effect that CO2 causes warming.

I complain against exaggerations and unsupported conclusions and you jump to your own conclusion that I am a denier of not only of AGW but now you want to associate me with smoking? Weird.

I presume you are being facetious. Well, that makes two.

 

[IanC]

I haven't seen the video you are talking about. Are you sure that the speaker wasn't saying that there is no proof that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer?

At 44:50 of the video Dr. Soon said, “lung cancer causes cigarette smoking... this is ridiculous actually” I misread it at my original viewing. I now see that he inverted what one would expect to hear and was being facetious. In a rather awkward way, he was degrading Al Gore's cause and effect that CO2 causes warming.

I complain against exaggerations and unsupported conclusions and you jump to your own conclusion that I am a denier of not only of AGW but now you want to associate me with smoking? Weird.

I presume you are being facetious. Well, that makes two.

Wow! You actually made it through a W Soon video? His ESL makes them unbearable. I did listen to one while grocery shopping, years ago. It was about the MWP and all the dirty tricks that Mann and company pulled on him and Balunas. It was disgraceful the way they were treated, if there was any truth to what he was saying. And the climategate emails certainly supported his version.