What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

[jc456]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

Judith Curry is, what is your opinion of her ?

 

[westwall]

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

Proven by who? Links please....

There are plenty of links in this very forum. Knock yourself out. I'm tired of educating morons over and over and over.

 

[Dr Grump]

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

Proven by who? Links please....

ClimateChangePredictions.org – dud predictions about global warming

it's not all of them but it's a start

The biggest problem with this list is that some of these predictions do not come to fruition until the end of this century and the beginning of the next.

I also don't put much stock in "Ian" who started this website. An ex govt worker who is concerned about the monies spent on climate change. And this is the crux and why so many on the right hate climate scientists and the evidence. Everytime tax payer money is spent on studies they see it as a waste of their money. If you think all any scientist cares about is the money, you haven't met many scientists.

 

[Dr Grump]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

WTF? Have no horse in the race?


What are you some kind of fool? Name me one ....

So I say all of the above and all you can comment on i 'the horse in the race'. They don't. Scientists deal in facts, theories and experiments. The vast majority - vast majority - are interested in results without fear or favour. Anti climate-change folk would have you believe they go around doctoring results to meet their needs. Vast majority don't. There is the odd one or two, but as is usual with conservatives, they start treating these anomalies as the norm. They are not.

 

[Dr Grump]

There are plenty of links in this very forum. Knock yourself out. I'm tired of educating morons over and over and over.

You have nothing. No surprises there....

 

[jc456]

And, as has been shown over, and over, and over again they can't do simple math. EVERY prediction they have made has been wrong. You fawn all over these clowns and they have a worse predictive rate than known charlatans like Sylvia Browne. How does that make you feel?

Proven by who? Links please....

ClimateChangePredictions.org – dud predictions about global warming

it's not all of them but it's a start

The biggest problem with this list is that some of these predictions do not come to fruition until the end of this century and the beginning of the next.

I also don't put much stock in "Ian" who started this website. An ex govt worker who is concerned about the monies spent on climate change. And this is the crux and why so many on the right hate climate scientists and the evidence. Everytime tax payer money is spent on studies they see it as a waste of their money. If you think all any scientist cares about is the money, you haven't met many scientists.

The one thing never answered by a libturd is this, why are there no scientists funded by government money, a skeptic ? And the follow up why's there no warmer scientists not paid by government money?

 

[Dr Grump]

Judith Curry is, what is your opinion of her ?

Seems okay. Don't agree with a couple of things she says, but overall, she believes in the science of climate change ...

 

[Dr Grump]

The one thing never answered by a libturd is this, why are there no scientists funded by government money, a skeptic ? And the follow up why's there no warmer scientists not paid by government money?

Scientists funded by the govt follow the evidence and don't care about the govt agenda. The vast majority of warmer scientists are not climatologists and most of them are whackdoodles. I have lost count of how many 'papers' and 'opinions' written by climate change skeptics who have Dr in their title only to do research and find they have a doctorate in law, or ancient history, or something else completely unrelated to climatology. How many meet the criteria of getting govt funding? (most of which have strict criteria). Can you list names of climate scientists who have applied for funding from the govt and been denied based on their opinions? It's interesting you call them 'warmer' scientists and not scientists. That's your first problem....

 

[9aces]

That of course isn't settled either. When you use .00004% of the data sample, you're not exactly arguing for something that has credibility.

Really? OK. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and represents a clear and present danger. Against that we have fruitloops like you stating that you know better that most of the scientists in the world.

Ask one what the cause was for the temperature increase about 150,000 years ago. Just an eye blink in the cosmic scale of global temperature history. Then when they can't answer that one, ask what the reason was for the rapid decline about 30,000 years later.

When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

And you expect that to yield an accurate projection. And you're calling ME a frootloop?

My, you are a pretty stupid fellow, aren't you. Now, were you to take some lower division course in Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Biology, and Mathematics and get up to speed on basic science, you might not post such drivel.

Chemical Engineering major in college, kind of ahead of you there sport. I'd advise adding Systems Analysis to the list. Helps a lot.

Really? And yet you reject all the evidence presented by other scientists? Now I find that odd. In fact, I have yet to meet any of the professors I am taking classes from that state that AGW is not correct. Now they have different opinions as to the speed of progression, and what they primary dangers are. But as to the warming itself, and the cause of that warming, they are uninamous.

What evidence have I rejected? I've stated, clearly I had thought to anyone with an IQ over 4 that the data they're using is a micro fraction of the whole. Not just a fraction, a micro-fraction. I used the example previously that just going over the last 500 million years, they're looking at about 0.00004% of the time to base their assumptions.

Yes they're unanimous as to the cause of that warming, of course virtually all of their predictions predicated on that cause, even the short term ones are wrong.

Perhaps it's because they're using such a small fraction of the data on the climate history of the globe. Which I've sorta been pointing out.

That's why the Systems Analysis bit was important. So you'd learn to look at the whole picture, not just the micro fractions of it.

 

[jc456]

[QUOTE="O
When you figure out the data they're using for their models is based solely upon the last few hundred years, you'll figure out that's a micro fraction of the history of the globe.

So? That doesn't make it wrong...

Why does it make it right?

Because people who know a lot more about climate change, study it for a living, and have no horse in the race are all saying the same thing. Nobody on this board spends 40-60 hours a week studying it. Nobody on this board is a scientist who specialises in climate change. Nobody on this board can give a cohesive, fact-driven (backed up by peer review solid links) that negates what those that specialise in the field are saying. I listen to those who deal in the facts.

WTF? Have no horse in the race?


What are you some kind of fool? Name me one ....

So I say all of the above and all you can comment on i 'the horse in the race'. They don't. Scientists deal in facts, theories and experiments. The vast majority - vast majority - are interested in results without fear or favour. Anti climate-change folk would have you believe they go around doctoring results to meet their needs. Vast majority don't. There is the odd one or two, but as is usual with conservatives, they start treating these anomalies as the norm. They are not.

That's what science is supposed to be about, so why isn't that happening? Please post up the experiment concerning affects of 120 PPM CO2 on climate. You know, that science you're so aware of.

 

[jc456]

Judith Curry is, what is your opinion of her ?

Seems okay. Don't agree with a couple of things she says, but overall, she believes in the science of climate change ...

As does most everyone. Have you read her statements on the APS statement she was part of?

 

[Dr Grump]

As does most everyone. Have you read her statements on the APS statement she was part of?

No

 

[jc456]

As does most everyone. Have you read her statements on the APS statement she was part of?

No

Read it. What happened is the problem of what the fight is actually about. Ignored material and data.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The sun generates 1365W/M^2 at TOA. The earth receives about 185-265W/M^2 at surface depending on time of year and sun angle of incidence;. IR at sun down is not stopped by CO2 and infact speeds up the IR loss during the night time hours by displacing water vapor near surface.

Billy_Bob, you are missing IANC's point. He said the the sun provides 165 W/m^2. That already includes a yearly global average and takes into account the time of year and angle of incidence.

The warmth of the earth always radiates roughly 400W/m^2 LWIR. The difference between night and day is less than a 10% drop at night (global average), and that is taken into account in the 400W.

Given those two facts, and they are facts you can't dispute. How can the earth radiate 400W when it's only receiving 165W.

If you can answer that question you will understand a lot of the indisputable aspects of climate physics.

If you don't believe the earth radiates that much energy go to this site.
stefan boltzman 15 C - Wolfram|Alpha

Your making assumptions which are not supported by facts. 165 W/M^2 is a Tenbreth assumption, which I disagree with. When you improperly apply Stefan-Bolztman's equations and you fail to include convection and entropy an error of over 125% is easily made.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, by God, pay attention to them thar Sign Waves.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

What does that have to do with CO2? You can fry an egg on the hood of a car cause of the heat of the sun. Humans can suffocate in a sealed car. CO2 does not make it hotter

do you understand how the surface can radiate 400W when it only receives 165W from the Sun? or not? if this question leaves you baffled, then you should realize that you need to learn more, and perhaps talk less about things you dont understand even in simple form.

Ever think that perhaps your numbers are off? Climate science has proven itself perfectly capable, time after time of fooling itself with instrumentation...Your 165 incoming from the sun is directly from trenberth's cartoon which assumes a flat earth with no day and no night but a constant weak twilight 24 hours a day...I would suggest that that cartoon is about as close to point zero as one could get to the beginning of the error cascade that has landed climate science where it is right now....and you are still quoting it? Geez Ian....wake up and smell the bullshit that you are standing neck deep in right now.

DAMN! You made me go back and look at the parameters, Trenbreth made wild assumptions about a near zero entropy system simply by his set up. He attempted to make MMGW real by eliminating the primary item which destroys it. Just WOW... The Stefman Boltzman calculations are correct for a near zero entropy environment, the earth however, is not a near zero system so his conclusions and assumptions are dead wrong!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, by God, pay attention to them thar Sign Waves.

Ah Yes... A moron who denies that earth is a cyclical set of complex systems and has failed to show how a 120ppm rise of CO2 has affected the systems..

 

[9aces]

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

What does that have to do with CO2? You can fry an egg on the hood of a car cause of the heat of the sun. Humans can suffocate in a sealed car. CO2 does not make it hotter

do you understand how the surface can radiate 400W when it only receives 165W from the Sun? or not? if this question leaves you baffled, then you should realize that you need to learn more, and perhaps talk less about things you dont understand even in simple form.

Ever think that perhaps your numbers are off? Climate science has proven itself perfectly capable, time after time of fooling itself with instrumentation...Your 165 incoming from the sun is directly from trenberth's cartoon which assumes a flat earth with no day and no night but a constant weak twilight 24 hours a day...I would suggest that that cartoon is about as close to point zero as one could get to the beginning of the error cascade that has landed climate science where it is right now....and you are still quoting it? Geez Ian....wake up and smell the bullshit that you are standing neck deep in right now.

DAMN! You made me go back and look at the parameters, Trenbreth made wild assumptions about a near zero entropy system simply by his set up. He attempted to make MMGW real by eliminating the primary item which destroys it. Just WOW... The Stefman Boltzman calculations are correct for a near zero entropy environment, the earth however, is not a near zero system so his conclusions and assumptions are dead wrong!

You're not serious. Did earth just go into a clean room or something to remove all external influences and we missed it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

What does that have to do with CO2? You can fry an egg on the hood of a car cause of the heat of the sun. Humans can suffocate in a sealed car. CO2 does not make it hotter

do you understand how the surface can radiate 400W when it only receives 165W from the Sun? or not? if this question leaves you baffled, then you should realize that you need to learn more, and perhaps talk less about things you dont understand even in simple form.

Ever think that perhaps your numbers are off? Climate science has proven itself perfectly capable, time after time of fooling itself with instrumentation...Your 165 incoming from the sun is directly from trenberth's cartoon which assumes a flat earth with no day and no night but a constant weak twilight 24 hours a day...I would suggest that that cartoon is about as close to point zero as one could get to the beginning of the error cascade that has landed climate science where it is right now....and you are still quoting it? Geez Ian....wake up and smell the bullshit that you are standing neck deep in right now.

DAMN! You made me go back and look at the parameters, Trenbreth made wild assumptions about a near zero entropy system simply by his set up. He attempted to make MMGW real by eliminating the primary item which destroys it. Just WOW... The Stefman Boltzman calculations are correct for a near zero entropy environment, the earth however, is not a near zero system so his conclusions and assumptions are dead wrong!

You're not serious. Did earth just go into a clean room or something to remove all external influences and we missed it?

I just realized what the man did.... and I am speechless as a scientist. But hey, they expect what CO2 has done in a closed lab environment will act the same in the open atmosphere. I guess this kind of deception (dare I say fraud) should not surprise me... They have done it before and they will do it again.

 

[IanC]

The sun generates 1365W/M^2 at TOA. The earth receives about 185-265W/M^2 at surface depending on time of year and sun angle of incidence;. IR at sun down is not stopped by CO2 and infact speeds up the IR loss during the night time hours by displacing water vapor near surface.

Billy_Bob, you are missing IANC's point. He said the the sun provides 165 W/m^2. That already includes a yearly global average and takes into account the time of year and angle of incidence.

The warmth of the earth always radiates roughly 400W/m^2 LWIR. The difference between night and day is less than a 10% drop at night (global average), and that is taken into account in the 400W.

Given those two facts, and they are facts you can't dispute. How can the earth radiate 400W when it's only receiving 165W.

If you can answer that question you will understand a lot of the indisputable aspects of climate physics.

If you don't believe the earth radiates that much energy go to this site.
stefan boltzman 15 C - Wolfram|Alpha

Your making assumptions which are not supported by facts. 165 W/M^2 is a Tenbreth assumption, which I disagree with. When you improperly apply Stefan-Bolztman's equations and you fail to include convection and entropy an error of over 125% is easily made.

Hahahaha . I can't believe how pompous and stupid you are.

There are lots of things wrong with Trenberth's Cartoon. You have not pointed out any of them in a meaningful way.

Are you saying that the Earth's surface is not an average of 15C and therefore radiating 400W? Fine, show us alternate calculations. I don't think the number can be pushed more than 10% either way.

Are you saying that the average solar input is not 165W? Fine, show us alternate calculations. I don't think you can push the number 15% either way.

That still leaves a significant deficit that needs to be explained. Most or all of the scientific world believes it is made up by the atmosphere returning energy to the surface. What is your explanation?