Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....

[CrusaderFrank]

Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.

Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.

My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.

If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.

Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

280ppm...kept earth from freezing?

Yeah?

Then you wonder why we think you're a cult

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[mamooth]

A little-known fact is that Hank Hill first uttered his "The boy ain't right!" line to describe deniers.

The denier kooks here just ain't right. Most of them are some unholy combination of profoundly stupid and disturbingly demented. I can think of maybe 3 here that could take a psych eval without earning a "Institutionalize for their own safety" recommendation. That would be why the whole world ignores them, and why they have to gather in little kook cliques on message boards.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why does Our Kenyan Emperor not just issue a diktat repealing all laws of thermodynamics and have done with it.

Then when he's done have a word or two with the tides.....

 

[mamooth]

Henry helpfully illustrates the denier way of thinking for us, that science is only what a politician says it is.

 

[mamooth]

A series of control tanks where the atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen, 19% Oxygen and the rest traces elements with varying amounts of CO2 in 100PPM increments from 0 to 1000 and test for increase in temperature, if any.

Mythbusters did something close to that, and you cried and lied in response. Hence, nobody is going to waste time on you, being you'd just cry and lie again. Good work on convincing everyone that your cult is pathologically dishonest, by the way.

This stuff has been done since the 1950s. Sorry that they didn't put it on YouTube so lazy leeches like you wouldn't have to read. Deniers could do it themselves, but they won't. They know the results would show they're full of shit, and deniers don't want truth, they want excuses to keep whining and lying.

So, here are 131 pages of sources from the HITRAN spectral database. Refute it all.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

The data is assembled by those socialists at the Air Force, who are all very convinced about how CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Being the Air Force wishes to have IR homing missiles that work, they want to get the spectral data perfect. But according to some the deniers, the Air Force must be making fake weapons, as CO2 doesn't really absorb IR.

 

[IanC]

Not apples and oranges...picking cherries. Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.

Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.

My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.

If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.

Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

 

[orogenicman]

Strawman argument. I am not attempting to find a math error. I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it. That's your job. So do get on with it, Bubba.

My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.

If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.

Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[IanC]

My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.

If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.

Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

 

[IanC]

the MythBusters experiment showed a CO2 reading of over 3% in the middle of the run. 3 orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. if that caused a 1C temperature increase then 120 ppm CO2 would be far, far less.

Frank's experiment would be a good start, and I have called for similar experiments in the past. I actually believe they have been run but because they would show such small results they have not been publicized.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A series of control tanks where the atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen, 19% Oxygen and the rest traces elements with varying amounts of CO2 in 100PPM increments from 0 to 1000 and test for increase in temperature, if any.

Mythbusters did something close to that, and you cried and lied in response. Hence, nobody is going to waste time on you, being you'd just cry and lie again. Good work on convincing everyone that your cult is pathologically dishonest, by the way.

This stuff has been done since the 1950s. Sorry that they didn't put it on YouTube so lazy leeches like you wouldn't have to read. Deniers could do it themselves, but they won't. They know the results would show they're full of shit, and deniers don't want truth, they want excuses to keep whining and lying.

So, here are 131 pages of sources from the HITRAN spectral database. Refute it all.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

The data is assembled by those socialists at the Air Force, who are all very convinced about how CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Being the Air Force wishes to have IR homing missiles that work, they want to get the spectral data perfect. But according to some the deniers, the Air Force must be making fake weapons, as CO2 doesn't really absorb IR.

I didn't "Cry and Lie" Ricky Retardo, I pointed out that they were vague, at best and disingenuous at worst as to the CO2 levels. At 1:37 in the video there is a CO2 level of over 7%. And again, one could assume that they had to increase CO2 to that level to get any temperature increase

 

[orogenicman]

If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point. As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence. I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead. And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere? CO2. Next.

Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argumkent seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

 

[IanC]

Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argumkent seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

 

[orogenicman]

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

 

[IanC]

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

hahahahaha. are you Old Rocks' sock puppet?

the clathrates didnt 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods during this interglacial. previous interglacials usually produced warmer temps than this one and there is no record in Vostock of runaway global warming due to 'feedbacks'. you guys listen to doomsayers and believe it must be true, even though proxy records can be made to show anything if you just pick the ones that support your conclusion and ignore the ones that detract.

 

[orogenicman]

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

hahahahaha. are you Old Rocks' sock puppet?

the clathrates didnt 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods during this interglacial. previous interglacials usually produced warmer temps than this one and there is no record in Vostock of runaway global warming due to 'feedbacks'. you guys listen to doomsayers and believe it must be true, even though proxy records can be made to show anything if you just pick the ones that support your conclusion and ignore the ones that detract.

Hahaha, what have you been drinking? I was referring to the Permian extinction 250 million years ago.

 

[IanC]

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

hahahahaha. are you Old Rocks' sock puppet?

the clathrates didnt 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods during this interglacial. previous interglacials usually produced warmer temps than this one and there is no record in Vostock of runaway global warming due to 'feedbacks'. you guys listen to doomsayers and believe it must be true, even though proxy records can be made to show anything if you just pick the ones that support your conclusion and ignore the ones that detract.

Hahaha, what have you been drinking? I was referring to the Permian extinction 250 million years ago.

we cannot get a decent proxy picture of what has happened in the last 2 or 5 thousand years and you want me to believe we have a clear picture of what happened a quarter billion years ago?

 

[orogenicman]

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

hahahahaha. are you Old Rocks' sock puppet?

the clathrates didnt 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods during this interglacial. previous interglacials usually produced warmer temps than this one and there is no record in Vostock of runaway global warming due to 'feedbacks'. you guys listen to doomsayers and believe it must be true, even though proxy records can be made to show anything if you just pick the ones that support your conclusion and ignore the ones that detract.

Hahaha, what have you been drinking? I was referring to the Permian extinction 250 million years ago.

we cannot get a decent proxy picture of what has happened in the last 2 or 5 thousand years and you want me to believe we have a clear picture of what happened a quarter billion years ago?

Since we can and have for both instances (the former being admittedly more precise than the latter), yes. It is pretty clear that a rise in CO2 coinciding with the rise in methane levels had a devastating effect on the Earth's biosphere that lasted for a very long time (over a million years). That tends to happen when continent-sized flood basalts erupt.

 

[Old Rocks]

First, the MWP was not as warm as today, and I have not seen good evidence that the RWP was either.Second, neither involved a rise of 40+% of CO2 and a 250% rise in CH4. And the last inter-glacial was warmer than this one, sea levels 20 ft, or more, higher than today, with only a differance of 20 ppm in CO2. And, no the clathrates did not let go then. However, there is a significant differance between 300 ppm and 400+ ppm of CO2, and 800 ppb and 1800+ ppb of CH4. And we are seeing readings of over 2300 ppb over parts of the Arctic.

Now the media likes to focus on the possibility of a catastrophic outgassing of the clathrates, or even CH4 stored in the permafrost. However, that is not needed for a result that would be very detrimental to us. Given that, on a decadel level, CH4 is about 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2, effectively, we are at over the equivelent of 500 ppm of CO2. In other words, almost at a doubling right now. And, with the increasing release of CH4 from the Arctic, we could easily see the equivelent of a quadrupling by the end of the century.


The Arctic Methane Monster 8217 s Nasty Little Helpers Study Finds Ancient Methane Producing Archaea Gorge on Tundra Melt robertscribbler

On the issue of the first and third questions, scientists are divided between those like Peter Wadhams, Natalia Shakhova and Igor Simeletov who believe that large methane pulses from a rapidly warming Arctic Ocean are now possible and warrant serious consideration and those like Gavin Schmidt and David Archer — both top scientists in their own right — who believe the model assessments showing a much slower release are at least some cause for comfort. Further complicating the issue is that estimates of sea-bed methane stores range widely with the East Siberian Arctic Shelf region alone asserted to contain anywhere between 250 and 1500 gigatons of methane (See Arctic Carbon Stores Assessment Here).

With such wide-ranging estimations and observations, it’s no wonder that a major scientific controversy has erupted over the issue of sea bed methane release. This back and forth comes in the foreground of observed large (but not catastrophic) sea-bed emissions and what appears to be a growing Arctic methane release. A controversy that, in itself, does little inspire confidence in a positive outcome.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ol' Billy Boob has yet to post a link to a credible source. His asshole is definately not a credible source, which is where the great majority of his assertations come from.

Any source I would post or data would be immediately dismissed by you morons. Anything I would present and all the things I have presented you dismiss because it does not fit your dogma and religious belief. relying on you to define "Credible" is like picking up a piece of shit and you saying its not a piece of shit. IT doesn't work that way..

Your straw man is on fire..... Moron!

 

[westwall]

Talk about strawmen... let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argumkent seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

Say WHAT????!!! Water Vapor is THE dominant GHG! By orders of magnitude too.