Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

Of course it has been falsified. Every failed prediction falsifies it. The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified. The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.

The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it. The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.

Oh, I get it... Dueling talking points.

"

Models Predicted Too Much Warming, New Data Show | Heartlander Magazine

“The lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hotspot ...” Spencer explained.

So, basically, you are just parroting Dr. Roy Spencer....

Anyone can do that....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=340

"The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period."

Nope...I think spencer is a charlatan as well. He believes in the magic gas....he just doesn't believe the magic is as strong as you do. I bring up the hot spot because all climate models predict it and demand that it is the human fingerprint on global warming....it doesn't exist and as such falsifies the hypothesis.

From what I read, no models demanded that it is the human fingerprint on global warming.

 

[SSDD]

It's a dumb statement.

But, by all means, explain it with references. This I gotta read.

You really don't know what the heat of compression is? Strange thing not to know for one who claims to have a clue.

I know what the heat of compression is. I'm just waiting for you to explain how it supposedly fits in with CO2 experiments.

The two experiments above were both carried out in sealed containers. If you understand the heat of compression, then you should grasp how it applies to the above experiments.

already got the 2nd law wrong. Do demonstrate how badly you have heat of compression.

You are saying that the physics department at the Georgia State University doesn't know what the second law of thermodynamics says?

 

[SSDD]

From what I read, no models demanded that it is the human fingerprint on global warming.

Considering your sources and the censorship they are subject to, that doesn't surprise me.

 

[itfitzme]

You really don't know what the heat of compression is? Strange thing not to know for one who claims to have a clue.

I know what the heat of compression is. I'm just waiting for you to explain how it supposedly fits in with CO2 experiments.

The two experiments above were both carried out in sealed containers. If you understand the heat of compression, then you should grasp how it applies to the above experiments.

already got the 2nd law wrong. Do demonstrate how badly you have heat of compression.

You are saying that the physics department at the Georgia State University doesn't know what the second law of thermodynamics says?

No, I am saying that you don't know what the Georgia State University is talking about. You have misinterpreted it, taking it out of the context of the discussion that they present.

What I am saying is that your entire basis of knowledge is on a single page presented by the Georgia State University.

What I am saying is that, unfortunately for your, the Georgia State University made an error in wording that has led to your confusion.

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

On the other item, by all means, show us the calculations that show amount of heat that resulted from the measured pressure rise.

Oh, that's right, you don't actually have any proof that all the experiments were done in sealed containers nor have you made the calculations that prove that the temperature rise was due to pressure change. Nor can you explain, then, given that CO2 does absorb IR, how much of the temperature rise was due to pressure change and how much was due to the IR absorption.

Oh, and that is just assuming that your concept is even functional.

What you fail to understand is that your concept is not functional because you don't understand how thermodynamics functions and the conditions necessary to yield increased temperature from pressure. What you are confused about is that the experiments don't create pressure that then results in heating. Rather, even if your concept is marginally correct in the containers being sealed, it is the heat that is absorbed by the CO2 that results in a pressure change. This would then be actual demonstrated evidence that, in fact, the gas got hot as expected and that CO2 is a green house gas.

Ah, what the hell.

Here is how it works. A cylinder containing gas is compressed. The work that goes into the compression of the gas is turned into heat.

Here is the situation you are trying to apply it to. A cylinder containing CO2 is heated by shining IR at it. As the temperature increases, the pressure in the cylinder increases.

 

[mamooth]

The heavier gas (CO2) forces out the lighter gas (O2) thus raising the temps dummy.

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! -- Wolfgang Pauli

("That's not right. That's not even wrong!")

 

[SSDD]

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

Says the idgit who doesn't understand how the heat of compression applies to the experiments above. Excuse me while I laugh in your face.

 

[mamooth]

So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.

Of course, the theory then has a problem. It's still a tiny wisp of gas, so the tiny bit of heat given off is totally insignificant. It's overwhelmed just by the noise of the rest of the experiment.

That's why it's so funny. None of them has any practical ability, the experience necessary to understand the vast differences in the scales of the heat involved. Just a buncha ivory tower residents.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you really don't know what the heat of compression is? Strange thing not to know for one who claims to have a clue.

i know what the heat of compression is. I'm just waiting for you to explain how it supposedly fits in with co2 experiments.

the two experiments above were both carried out in sealed containers. If you understand the heat of compression, then you should grasp how it applies to the above experiments.

already got the 2nd law wrong. Do demonstrate how badly you have heat of compression.

you are saying that the physics department at the georgia state university doesn't know what the second law of thermodynamics says?

lol!

 

[IanC]

The hotspot is a necessary outcome of the physics behind CO2 theory. While its absence does not disprove AGW in general, it does disprove the correctness of the modeling. Just because this question has not been answered in the last decade, that does not mean it is any less important now than when it was first asked.

 

[itfitzme]

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

Says the idgit who doesn't understand how the heat of compression applies to the experiments above. Excuse me while I laugh in your face.

Well, I was going to say I would put the work into explaining the math for the heat of compression later.

But you just had to remind everyone what an asshole you are.

 

[bripat9643]

From what I read, no models demanded that it is the human fingerprint on global warming.

Considering your sources and the censorship they are subject to, that doesn't surprise me.

Warmist cult members like idiotme censor themselves. They simply don't read anything that contradicts their dogma. That's why they are so incredulous and enraged when they start posting in forums like this one and discover that opposition to their sermons is quite credible and quite strong.

 

[bripat9643]

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

Says the idgit who doesn't understand how the heat of compression applies to the experiments above. Excuse me while I laugh in your face.

Well, I was going to say I would put the work into explaining the math for the heat of compression later.

But you just had to remind everyone what an asshole you are.

So you aren't an asshole?

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

Man, you kill me, idgitme.

 

[orogenicman]

So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.

Of course, the theory then has a problem. It's still a tiny wisp of gas, so the tiny bit of heat given off is totally insignificant. It's overwhelmed just by the noise of the rest of the experiment.

That's why it's so funny. None of them has any practical ability, the experience necessary to understand the vast differences in the scales of the heat involved. Just a buncha ivory tower residents.

Notice how none of the deniers tried to address your point. The fact that they are trying to refute the greenhouse effect this late in the game is just sad.

 

[bripat9643]

Odd, because according to the university of texas,

So what do you mean by "The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. "

Egads but you are gullible. Want to buy some prime beach front property in colorado? How about central park in NY? The golden gate bridge? The london bridge? How about india? I'll make you a great deal on india.

Do you have any idea what those 10 to-the-22nd-figures mean. They claim an increase of .07 degrees over a span of 50 years....as if we could measure the average temperature of all of the oceans to a hundredth of a degree since 1955.

Again I ask....how f'ing gullible are you exactly? Take a guess.

He's also ignoring the point that prior to the year 2000 there is very little data to base such a chart on. Almost all the data is from a depth of 700 meters and up. In other words, they are basing their claims on measuring less than 1/5th of the ocean.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.

Of course, the theory then has a problem. It's still a tiny wisp of gas, so the tiny bit of heat given off is totally insignificant. It's overwhelmed just by the noise of the rest of the experiment.

That's why it's so funny. None of them has any practical ability, the experience necessary to understand the vast differences in the scales of the heat involved. Just a buncha ivory tower residents.

Notice how none of the deniers tried to address your point. The fact that they are trying to refute the greenhouse effect this late in the game is just sad.

Unlike YOUR Borg minions.. Not all of us skeptics agree.. We've beat each other up bloody trying to determine the truth.. And decided that there's enough fraud and misrepresentation in your position for us to STILL be on the same team..

I've got 10 pages of debate with SSDD.. We did not reach a mutual agreeable understanding. You should try it.. Rather than taking direction from the Clergy over at skepticalscience or the IPCC..

 

[SSDD]

Well, I was going to say I would put the work into explaining the math for the heat of compression later.

But you just had to remind everyone what an asshole you are.

As if I need a goofball like you to explain anything to me. I am to busy laughing out loud in your stupid arrogant face to ever take anything you say seriously. Perhaps if you took off the red wig, the big rubber nose and the size 73 shoes I might be able to take you more seriously.

 

[SSDD]

I've got 10 pages of debate with SSDD.. We did not reach a mutual agreeable understanding. You should try it.. Rather than taking direction from the Clergy..

I would think it was more than 10 pages and I thought we mutually agreed that we would never agree till such time as post modern science has had its time and you realize that you were wrong at which time you would humbly apologize.

 

[westwall]

So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.

Of course, the theory then has a problem. It's still a tiny wisp of gas, so the tiny bit of heat given off is totally insignificant. It's overwhelmed just by the noise of the rest of the experiment.

That's why it's so funny. None of them has any practical ability, the experience necessary to understand the vast differences in the scales of the heat involved. Just a buncha ivory tower residents.

Notice how none of the deniers tried to address your point. The fact that they are trying to refute the greenhouse effect this late in the game is just sad.

Uhhhh, that's where you're wrong olfraud, we don't have to prove anything. It's YOU that have to prove your theory. So far you are batting 0.00 with your predictions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've got 10 pages of debate with SSDD.. We did not reach a mutual agreeable understanding. You should try it.. Rather than taking direction from the Clergy..

I would think it was more than 10 pages and I thought we mutually agreed that we would never agree till such time as post modern science has had its time and you realize that you were wrong at which time you would humbly apologize.

Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective.

Is this what you're accusing flacaltenn of using?

 

[PMZ]

No reports of an explanation from Fox News scientists to explain the reason that the moon's climate is so different than earth's.

Perhaps, unlike real world science, they have no explanation. They're stumped.