Let's see the evidence

[jc456]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

So this is what desperate looks like!

 

[jc456]

So, what I see here is that you silly asses don't have to present any evidence, and can freely ignore evidence that is presented.

Ocean acidification is hardly just a model, nor are the recession of the glaciers worldwide, nor the melting ice caps. However, as the effects continue to mount, we will see a gradual swing in public opinion, then the 'skeptics' will all be screaming that the scientists didn't tell them.

For those actually interrested in what the scientists are stating;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Herr Koch

 

[IanC]

I


You forgot to specify which report, which working group, which chapter, and what pages.

And BB did have one good question. Do you think the absorbed IR is re-emitted or thermalized? If both, what are the proportions?

question from the first page. Do you think the absorbed IR is re-emitted or thermalized? its not that difficult. I would even accept "I dont know".

BTW, you didnt give the location in the IPCC report either.

 

[IanC]

Thermalized or re-emitted. If both then what general proportion?

Ian, you're not thinking about this hard enough. Are you or Billy Boy under the impression that some molecules absorb photons and never let them go again? And I'm still waiting for you to explain how a molecule absorbs a photon without increasing in energy level. You can't emit photons you haven't absorbed. Are you beginning to see the idiocy of the question? I'm surprised at you for hanging your hat on this one.

why are you creating a strawman? when did I ever say photons are absorbed and the energy is never relinquished?

 

[Crick]

You said Billy Boy's question was a good one. Tell us why.

 

[Crick]

I'd also still like to know if that pH data first saw the light of day on WUWT.

 

[Crick]

BTW, you didnt give the location in the IPCC report either.

Billy Boy didn't specify that he wanted any particular evidence. The entire report supports my position because that is where my position comes from. And this demurral you two have claimed because I didn't specify chapter and verse is cowardly bullshit. My evidence is in plain site and copious. Where is YOURS?

 

[IanC]

I take it that you are refusing to answer my question. Whatever.

 

[Crick]

First, my questions precede any of yours. You provided none of the evidence I requested.

Second, I did answer your question about correcting people on my side of this argument.

Third, if you're speaking of some other question, let's hear it one more time. I will think about it while you're either digging up evidence or admitting you don't have any.

 

[IanC]

I take it that you are refusing to answer my question. Whatever.

I actually like talking about this stuff. I am asking you a direct question so that I don't have to assume what your position is. That's how conversation works.

 

[Crick]

WHAT is the direct question?

 

[Crick]

Come on Crick... Why dont you post up your evidence first. We've been waiting for a long time for you present just what it is that CO2 has done to our atmosphere and what can be attributed to human caused CO2.

Tell me Crick does CO2 absorb the photon and then re-emit it, as lab experiments show or does it warm the gas? Empirical evidence shows that CO2 molecules must collide with other CO2 molecules to gain and then throw off heat. Due to the sparse amount of CO2 heat rise is near zero at its current concentration in our atmosphere, that is why Mythbusters used an atmosphere at 7,000ppm (7% of atmosphere) in their experiments. Current atmospheric levels are not conducive to friction caused heat rise.

In your OP you ask the wrong question. It is not the fact that CO2 can absorb certain wave lengths, its the fact that the molecules, once excited, cannot act as you believe and that water vapor kills the process dead through molecular change and convection..

Why dont you pony up your data, methods, and math first... lead by example!

A molecule cannot emit a photon unless it has absorbed one. When a molecule absorbs a photon, its energy level increases. Of course it will evenually reemit it, but while it retains it, its energy level is raised. Thus a population of molecules absorbing and reemitting photons will have a higher temperature than a population of molecules which does NOT absorb photons.

Did this not occur to you?

And what do you mean by "water vapor kills the process dead"?

 

[jc456]

Thermalized or re-emitted. If both then what general proportion?

Ian, you're not thinking about this hard enough. Are you or Billy Boy under the impression that some molecules absorb photons and never let them go again? And I'm still waiting for you to explain how a molecule absorbs a photon without increasing in energy level. You can't emit photons you haven't absorbed. Are you beginning to see the idiocy of the question? I'm surprised at you for hanging your hat on this one.

Facepalm

 

[Crick]

wow!!!! that's quite the impressive rant against strawmen. are you arguing against the mainstream skeptical views or just against certain posters here?

Are you suggesting that the posters here don't properly represent the "mainstream skeptical views"? My experience discussing these topics tells me that they do. Unfortunately, unlike mainstream scientific views on global warming, the "skeptical view" is about as coherent as a box of rats. If you'd care to describe for us what you believe to be the one and only "mainstream skeptical view", I'd be very interested to see it.

link me up to any legitimate skeptic who states that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. your first point is a total fail.

How many times have we been asked to provide the experiments that show that it does?

radiative imbalance at ToA. what data set(s) are you using? what value are you claiming? over what period? it is a trivial statement to say that if more energy comes in than goes out then something must warm up. who is denying that? link me up

It is trivial to conclude that if more comes in than goes out, the Earth's heat content is rising. That's why I make the point. How many times have you heard there's been no warming since 1998?

are you claiming that GHGs are responsible for exactly 33C warming? you take 33C, and I'll take the rest of the field and give you 10-1 odds. we dont even know what the 'average global temp' is, as an absolute number.

Do you actually think that's a legitimate refutation of greenhouse warming?

at least for this point you should be able to link me up with some legitimate or at least quasi-legitimate skeptics who disagree with your statement.

This message board is filled with people who disagree with my statements. You for instance.

ocean acidification. apparently there has been some pHraud there. a few million readings were chucked and now a 'model' is used instead.

while I think there is some influence on ocean pH by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, I think it is overwhelmed by other factors such as ocean currents and the buffering system.

And I think there are a lot of people out there who understand ocean pH better than do you. And there data do not look like your data. I've asked several times now, has this particular graphic appeared anywhere besides WUWT? I see the legend claiming it was derived from FEEL2899 (?) (I presume that was supposed to be Richard Feely 2004 or 2005, et al) and NOAA. But the graph looks like nothing in those sources. Care to explain?

which skeptics are denying that water expands as it warms, or that a net loss from any land ice field wont add to sea levels? link me up. skeptics are, well, skeptical that SLR jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr exactly at the same time as we started using satellites to measure ocean levels. does SLR mean something different now? perhaps it does, coastlines are far less important, arbitrary adjustments are in effect, excuses are made.

You are not required to produce evidence for positions you do not hold.

for the first 15 years of 'the pause', the warmers were screaming about how global warming was accelerating. is the globe warming at an unprecidented rate? who knows? proxy data doesnt really have the resolution to tell us.

They have the resolution to tell us that a change took place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. That is what happened in Earth's history. And there are secondary, rate-dependent effects that verify my contention. Limestone buffering that took place in all previous oceanic pH excursion but is not taking place now, for instance.

skeptics dont have to produce anything. all we have to do is show that you guys are wrong, and you are.

You can't show anything without evidence.

 

[Crick]

Facepalm

I'm sorry, jc, but you're just not qualified to take part in this conversation.

 

[Liminal]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

I'd like to see evidence that you know what any of that means.

 

[Crick]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

I'd like to see evidence that you know what any of that means.

Try me.

 

[Liminal]

Let's see some repeatable laboratory evidence showing CO2 doesn't absorb infrared.

Let's see some evidence explaining how the radiative imbalance observed at the ToA could fail to raise the Earth's total heat content.

Let's see the evidence that greenhouse warming isn't responsible for the Earth being 33C warmer than a blackbody with the Earth's albedo ought to be. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere isn't responsible for the ocean's acidification. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that increasing temperatures and meltwater aren't responsible for the increase in the ocean's sea level seen in the last 50 years. Let's see the evidence that something else is.

Let's see the evidence that the Earth isn't warming at a rate not seen in millions of years.

LET'S SEE A COHERENT, CONSISTENT THEORY AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AS A RESULT OF RISING CO2 LEVELS THAT BOTH EXPLAINS THE OBSERVATIONS AND OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE USE OF GREENHOUSE WARMING ACTING ON HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS.

I'd like to see evidence that you know what any of that means.

Try me.

Try what? Test your ability as a quick study on Wikipedia?

 

[Crick]

If you don't know what you yourself just asked for, I don't know if I can help you. If you'd like an explanation of the OP, I can provide it.

 

[Liminal]

I and others have been putting evidence up here for a great long while. I and other represent the mainstream view. The vast majority of the world's scientists hold positions similar to mine and disagree with yours. You, therefore, have the extraordinary claim and it is YOUR responsibility to provide some evidence.

I see that so far NO ONE has made the slightest attempt to provide any of the evidence I requested; evidence that ought to be in surplus were your positions to be correct or were you to have any actual reason to hold them.

That's because, much like yourself, no one posting on this forum is any kind of scientist. Which means they don't even begin to know how to put the information into a context.