Working to cope with climate change

[Trakar]

Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?

Insolation was largely based upon surface measurements up until the late seventies/early eighties and aerosols largely masked many of the CO2 increase impacts of the time, until the clean air acts in US, Europe and most of the developed world in the '70s began clearing these aerosols out of the atmosphere and the beyond the atmosphere orbital solar obervatories began building much more accurate incident TSI information. The actual divergence of strongly correlated TSI and surface temps begins in the late '40s-mid '50s (when TSI significantly exceeds previous surface temperature correlation ratios - it isn't initially that solar irradiance declined, its that temps began to fall while TSI continued to increase - the signature of masking in association with the wartime activities and industrializations of many parts of the planet to support that war and in recovery from it).

 

[bobgnote]

AND, fathead has tricked you into working, to sustain his garbage-in, garbage out agenda.

He only wants to compute CO2 increments, to ignore the introduction of sequestered CH4, which results in the predicted upward swing, in warming, but soft! Fathead and friends want to call anything a 'hockey stick,' and now I would like him to offer his version of 'hockey stick' or even some real graphic analysis, which incorporates the several systems, including carbonic acid and methane.

But fathead is hedging, on all of us, and while you are penning him in, Trakar, let us see what fathead and the wingnut posse come up with. They won't even clarify their rant, against the dreaded hockey stick, while virtually spamming page after page, with puckey.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Couldn't find an experiment at 120PPM CO2.

I understand

And, by the way, the Warmers who have added the "atmospheric CO2 is making the oceans turn acidic" condition, not me.

Find? what do you mean?

I was trying to make it an easy to duplicate analogous experiment. If you insist upon the precise differences due to an additional 120ppm CO2, that only requires a few minor adjustments to the experiment.

Gradually heat the three samples to 95º C and maintain for approximately 30 minutes which should effectively de-gas the seawater. Replace the atmosphere in the first sample with a mix of Nitrogen and CO2 appropriate to equal 120ppm CO2, 280ppm CO2 in the second sample, and 400ppm in the third sample, might even run one at 2000ppm just for grins and giggles, aggitation the sample vigorously, allow to cool to ambient mean temperature, vigorously aggitate one more time, allow sample to settle, measure pH record data. Then repeat the experiment a few dozen times to build up a good preliminary dataset.

This does not provide a direct analogy to OA, but it does answer your requirements and generally produces results in accord with scientific understandings and considerations regarding many of the primary considerations of ocean acidification through increasing atmospheric CO2 ratios.

I've been asking for an experiment like this for years and so far, you are the only Warmer who came close to an honest answer.

You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?

I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans

 

[bobgnote]

I've been asking for an experiment like this for years and so far, you are the only Warmer who came close to an honest answer.

You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?

I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans

Maybe the answer is you have your head up your butt, and you want an incremental CO2 experiment, which may not even be relevant, since what we all want is an explanation for added methane, which accelerates warming, and for carbonic acidification, which absorbs CO2, but it kills oceanic life. You are looking for something stupid, not valuable, until we have a model, with all the exchanges, which you resist, with spam.

An increase in atmospheric CO2 of 120 ppm will increase carbonic acid concentrations, and putting that much in water will increase carbonic acid even more, stupid-as-stupid can be! Anybody you ask for anything cannot possibly take you seriously. Anybody who reads this thread end-to-end can see what a bitch you are.

Now that Trakar came up with an experiment, you need to go perform it, but we know you aren't that interested, you only wanted to take us all off, but Trakar got it out of the way and popped a list of tasks, at you, Crosstard.

Yeah, right, you'll go right over to special class lab and whip this up. Fuck you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wowww.. You're slow on the backswing OopieDoo.. That's the post I'm complaining about. You didn't answer my question, you mangled my comments on solar spectral observations, and otherwise blew off my comments on the premise that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you're not gonna debate..

So go back and try again. I'd LOVE to discuss with you. There might be learning accomplished.

I answered all of your questions. Here it is again:



You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that.



I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"

No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas.


Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.




Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.

??? It is. Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy. Jeez.

There you have it folks - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.
What do you need my approval for?

Reposting that original reply unmodified is kind of retarded OopieDoo.. And PROVES to me that you don't want a real discussion..

Is the .."science settled and the debate over" ?? Or are all scientific theories incomplete? Which is it ?

BTW GEnius:

Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?

Because the increase in GHGs in our atmospheres increased absorbtion of infrared that would have normally been reflected and radiated back into space. The effect well predicted by Arrhenius in 1896.

 

[westwall]

Trakar:


I'm dissapointed that you chalk up all my points to ignorance of science. You ASSUME I haven't this.

Yet YOU let loose with this gem about "every study I'm aware of". Maybe you haven't read enough studies pal. Or maybe your knowledge of the studies is filtered thru the Huffington Post for all I know.

I don't want to play at this level. You should trust ME more and I want to trust YOU more. That way we don't hurl links at each other that maybe we don't understand.

I DO understand this one however. Lemme do you a big favor tonight -- because after you read the follow study -- you will NEVER be able to claim that ....



Per my #Whatever on desert night-time low temperatures correlating with increasing CO2. I can't find the BETTER study that confirms this right now, but this one is easier to read anyway..


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data




Read the conclusion first and validate to your hearts content. Researchers are having a hard time confirming the increase in desert night-time lows that SHOULD BE in the temp record as CO2 increases. Maybe because the GH effect is coupled to changes in solar spectrum (my #whatever in the list)????

BTW: Pardon my frustration, I've posted this crap for so many different people, that I'm tired of the repetition..

Trakars knowledge of the subject is severly limited by a willfull ignorance on his part.

LOL. Funny on your part, Walleyes. Trakar's acedemic background and life expreriances far exceed yours. As the quality of his posts demonstrate.

Yes, he certainly is able to appeal to authority with the best of them. Not so much on original thought though. As far as life experiences go i am happy to post photo's from all over the globe showing my experiences and have done so. I have yet to see anything from him or you.

 

[westwall]

It seems your concerns are unfounded.....



On the linkage between tropospheric and Polar Stratospheric clouds in the Arctic as observed by space–borne lidar

P. Achtert, M. Karlsson Andersson, F. Khosrawi, and J. Gumbel
Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. The type of Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as well as their temporal and spatial extent are important for the occurrence of heterogeneous reactions in the polar stratosphere. The formation of PSCs depends strongly on temperature. However, the mechanisms of the formation of solid PSCs are still poorly understood. Recent satellite studies of Antarctic PSCs have shown that their formation can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds which have the ability to cool the lower stratosphere radiatively and/or adiabatically. In the present study, lidar measurements aboard the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite were used to investigate whether the formation of Arctic PSCs can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds as well. Deep-tropospheric cloud systems have a vertical extent of more than 6.5 km with a cloud top height above 7 km altitude. PSCs observed by CALIPSO during the Arctic winter 2007/2008 were classified according to their type (STS, NAT, or ice) and to the kind of underlying tropospheric clouds. Our analysis reveals that 172 out of 211 observed PSCs occurred in connection with tropospheric clouds. 72% of these 172 observed PSCs occurred above deep-tropospheric clouds. We also find that the type of PSC seems to be connected to the characteristics of the underlying tropospheric cloud system. During the Arctic winter 2007/2008 PSCs consisting of ice were mainly observed in connection with deep-tropospheric cloud systems while no ice PSC was detected above cirrus. Furthermore, we find no correlation between the occurrence of PSCs and the top temperature of tropospheric clouds. Thus, our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatice cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling.

ACP - Abstract - On the linkage between tropospheric and Polar Stratospheric clouds in the Arctic as observed by space?borne lidar

Please explain your understanding of the relevence of this reference to the discussion of this thread.

It destroys a central underpinning of the AGW theory. Knock out the foundation and the theory collapses....as it is doing worldwide.

 

[westwall]

Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?

Wowww.. You're slow on the backswing OopieDoo.. That's the post I'm complaining about. You didn't answer my question, you mangled my comments on solar spectral observations, and otherwise blew off my comments on the premise that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you're not gonna debate..

So go back and try again. I'd LOVE to discuss with you. There might be learning accomplished.

I answered all of your questions. Here it is again:



You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that.



I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"

No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas.


Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.




Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.

??? It is. Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy. Jeez.

Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday.THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge.

There you have it folks - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.

Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....

What do you need my approval for?

No, the theroy for AGW is unfounded because observations don't matchup to the predictions. And have never done so....well at least where the AGW crowd made a prediction on one side. They have made so many predictions on both sides that of course they'll get those correct, however all that really accomplished was to show that it is a pseudo science.

 

[flacaltenn]

<Trakar>

I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings.

You haven't read it yet, but you don't see anything inconsistent. Let me help you...

Did you miss Figure 1 where the night-time low temps in an arid desert don't even RESPOND to CO2 increases like they should in your FLAWLESS AOGCMs? Says above the Figure...

A least squares times series for the annual highs, lows and mean temperatures as well as the annual precipitation were computed. From these least squares derived time series TI was computed in the usual manner. As figure 1 illustrates, once individual station errors are minimized, there is a very strong correlation between precipitation and the TI of .77. However, the correlation between CO2 and TI is essentially nonexistent at -0.04

Seems like scientists who try to confirm CO2 greenhousing effects AT NIGHT have a hard time even finding the effect. This study is over a 60 year period. There are other similiar studies confirming. And this is but one example of where the models and theory seem to fail. I only threw up a short list of "holes" in your flawless complete and irrefutable science. Here's the CONCLUSION to this ONE mystery from the study... TI stands for Thermal Inertia -- shorthand for storage of heat between the daytime highs and the night-time lows.

It has been shown that the metric TI correlates well with the greenhouse effects of water vapor as indicated by precipitation. It was further demonstrated that TI could be used to discriminate between an increase in atmospheric thermal inertia (greenhouse effect) and an increase in input energy. This property was used to demonstrate that the warming trend between 1973 and 1994 was due to increases in input energy and not increases in thermal inertia. There was no significant correlation between the rise in CO2 and the TI metric.

The lack of correlation between the rise in CO2 and TI, suggest either the rise in CO2 has not appreciably increased any greenhouse effect, or atmospheric CO2 has not been increasing over New Mexico.

<<the bolding is for my stoner stalkers, and pseudo-scientists who need a little help>>

Assuming a well-mixed atmosphere the lack of correlation between CO2 and TI is troubling. The TI metric is sensitive to changes of at least tenths of a degree. Therefore any change in the temperature due to increased atmospheric CO2 inhibiting cooling has been less than a tenth of a degree over this time period.

In any event as more and more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the corresponding increase in greenhouse effect will become less and less until total absorption is reached at which time further additions of CO2 will have no effect. Thus we would expect the greatest detectable greenhouse response early on rather than later as it approaches total absorption. If the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is insufficient to absorb all the infrared energy in its excitation bands and there is an increase in CO2 but not in TI, then it may be that the effective excitation bands bandwidths are so narrow there is no appreciable energy retained.

That latter part .... "...it may be that the effective excitation bands bandwidth are SO NARROW that there is no appreciable energy retained." This couples with my OTHER LISTED skeptical concern about what we know in terms of Solar spectrum and trends in shifts of important spectral lines. We've only had access to accurate measurements of this for about 30 years as I'm about to explain to my buddy and pal OopyDoo when we chat about the width and placement of absorption bands in GH gasses.

 

[flacaltenn]

<flacaltenn>

Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"...

<Oopydoo>

I can't answer why someone said something without at least knowing who they are an exactly what it is they said.

See my answer below about WHO is trying to stop debate over AGW and disenfranchise science.

<Oopydoo>

Again, you need to be more specific about the study or persons you're talking about. Names and papers would help. I need to be able to verify the things you are saying.

My reply about Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore was in response to WHO EXACTLY was screaming about the science being settled and the debate was over. I simply can't believe you've managed to miss the whole CHORUS of people trying to short-circuit science. Is is because you idolize them or because you're embarrassed by them? Tell me the truth -- were you honestly unaware of the MASSIVE efforts to shove this AGW down our throats, hide the fraud and stop the debate? Were you unaware of all the demogoguing by folks like Pelosi and Gore?

<flacaltenn>

I need to know whether you still think "all theories are incomplete" or "the science is settled and the debate is over"...

<Oopydoo>

It is both in some cases.
example:
It is settled science that if we toss you off the Empire state building, you will fall.
Yet the theory of gravity is not complete.

You can honestly claim the relationship between gravity and other forces is not known. You can even probably claim that's it's incomplete. But it is a proven tool that works empirically. The predictive value is immense.

This is no where near the mess and uncertainty that man-made global warming (AGW) is in. We now have YEARS of studies built on intentionally falsied and manipulated data that will linger out there and add to confusion. Not to mention the fact that studies that FAIL to corrobate the religious mantra of AGW are largely ignored. And a pantheon of pinhead politicians trying to shut down folks that are truely trying to take the blinders and search for REAL reasons for the warming.

<flacaltenn>

Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum...

<OopyDoo>

What do the different colors cause? Its all thermalized when its absorbed by the Earth's surface.

Here's the fun part for me. The whole concept of a GH gas is that it DOES act as a blanket and storage to increase surface heating. However every gas contributes to this "heat filtering" in a different way. Most all of them except water vapor have very narrow color bands where they have any greenhouse effect at all. Take a look at the chart below. Just consider the horizontal "color" and the vertical axis "heat retention" for practical purposes.

Note that CO2 has GH power only at very specific wavelengths or colors. And the important part is that all but one (maybe two) of the colors are the same colors that water vapor trap on.. (Other props like heat capacity matter, but let's focus on spectrum).

Now sunlight is generally "all colors". Photographers consider it a "white reference". But it also has "nooks and crannies" where not all color strengths are equal. And our ability to catalog the changes in color strength was limited until satellites because the very gases we are trying to study ruined the measurement at the earth surface. You have to go above the atmosphere to accurately watch for fluctuations in frequency bands (colors) or make a lot of perilous assumptions about the filtering property of the atmosphere.

Bottom line -- if there are long term or short term shifts or cycles in the power that sun puts out at specific color lines -- it will change the absorption effect of the gases. We don't have enough years of satellite data yet to even begin to guess how they vary.

Secondly, the overlap of the CO2 absorption bands with the water vapor bands means that the higher GH "power" of CO2 is EXTREMELY sensitive to the amount of water vapor. Even tho CO2 is a "more powerful" GH gas -- water vapor by fraction of atmosphere dwarfs it and MAY completely mask the effect in some cases.

That's why (coming in full circle) those desert night-time Low temperatures are so important. GH theory says that night-time lows should be getting higher and tracking CO2.
And the desert part is important because you remove the effect of massive amounts of water vapor in the air. So nightime removes the sun effects, desert removes the water vapor effects.

They are having a hard time confirming ANY tracking under those conditions..
Any ONE unconfirmed observation about ANY theory is a killer til it's explained or the theory is modified. Those are the rules..

 

[Old Rocks]

Wowww.. You're slow on the backswing OopieDoo.. That's the post I'm complaining about. You didn't answer my question, you mangled my comments on solar spectral observations, and otherwise blew off my comments on the premise that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you're not gonna debate..

So go back and try again. I'd LOVE to discuss with you. There might be learning accomplished.

I answered all of your questions. Here it is again:



You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that.



I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"

No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas.


Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.




Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.

??? It is. Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy. Jeez.

There you have it folks - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.

Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....

What do you need my approval for?

No, the theroy for AGW is unfounded because observations don't matchup to the predictions. And have never done so....well at least where the AGW crowd made a prediction on one side. They have made so many predictions on both sides that of course they'll get those correct, however all that really accomplished was to show that it is a pseudo science.

Bullshit. At the time that you people were saying CO2 has no affect, and that there is no warming, Dr. Hansen wrote this paper. His predictions are pretty much spot on.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

I wasn't picking on you.. I like your style. I like simple experiments. Just trying to get to the punchline a little tiny bit faster...

If you meet somebody smart in Tennessee, send 'em over, even if he's a three-dollar-hillbilly, like you. YOU are not a smart man. Quote in quote in quote, gumption-junction.

YOU have failed, to understand acid, you finally admitted to OA, but you are an idiot, who won't understand the basic affinity of acid, for cold water, or evidence, of related die-offs, or urgency, for re-greening, but I do have a simple task for you, define the 'hockey stick.'

Then I'll put it up with the other tardy wingpunk rants, and we'll see if a consensus shows.

I only want to respond your crap that's relevent to science forum. your wasting major energy with all the rest of the B.S. I MAY be in Tenn now -- but I spent 20+ years in Silicon Valley, a stint at Kennedy Space Center, and about 5 years in complicated areas we can't even discuss.

I acknowledged OA as a concerning problem. I haven't yet signed on to your leap of faith that it's all due to man-made additions of CO2. If you read (and understood my posts, you'd know that there are MANY excellent alternate explanations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?

Insolation was largely based upon surface measurements up until the late seventies/early eighties and aerosols largely masked many of the CO2 increase impacts of the time, until the clean air acts in US, Europe and most of the developed world in the '70s began clearing these aerosols out of the atmosphere and the beyond the atmosphere orbital solar obervatories began building much more accurate incident TSI information. The actual divergence of strongly correlated TSI and surface temps begins in the late '40s-mid '50s (when TSI significantly exceeds previous surface temperature correlation ratios - it isn't initially that solar irradiance declined, its that temps began to fall while TSI continued to increase - the signature of masking in association with the wartime activities and industrializations of many parts of the planet to support that war and in recovery from it).

Not totally in evidence. If the particulate, aerosols, War Effects? (are you serious? only war effect I can think of that's relevant is atomic testing) had an effect on ground measurements of TSI -- it would work to LOWER THEM.

UNLESS -- the assumptions they were using to adjust the data based on guesses about the atmosphere were garbage. The divergence I see is consistent with advent of OSObservatories which set the record straight. At least for TSI. Still doesn't rule out TSI or my hunch that we don't know Jack about temporal changes in THE SPECTRUM of SI except for a meager 30 year record.

Don't really care about the graph. It only illustrates how sketchy historical records and proxies can get..

 

[westwall]

I answered all of your questions. Here it is again:



You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that.



I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"

No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas.


Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.




Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.

??? It is. Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy. Jeez.

There you have it folks - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.
What do you need my approval for?

No, the theroy for AGW is unfounded because observations don't matchup to the predictions. And have never done so....well at least where the AGW crowd made a prediction on one side. They have made so many predictions on both sides that of course they'll get those correct, however all that really accomplished was to show that it is a pseudo science.

Bullshit. At the time that you people were saying CO2 has no affect, and that there is no warming, Dr. Hansen wrote this paper. His predictions are pretty much spot on.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Fucking Sylvia Brown is more accurate than Hansen you dip shit.

 

[dsolo802]

Fucking Sylvia Brown is more accurate than Hansen you dip shit.

Don't dis Sylvia. She is spot on - as far as we can tell.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, the theroy for AGW is unfounded because observations don't matchup to the predictions. And have never done so....well at least where the AGW crowd made a prediction on one side. They have made so many predictions on both sides that of course they'll get those correct, however all that really accomplished was to show that it is a pseudo science.

Bullshit. At the time that you people were saying CO2 has no affect, and that there is no warming, Dr. Hansen wrote this paper. His predictions are pretty much spot on.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Fucking Sylvia Brown is more accurate than Hansen you dip shit.

I posted a whole article from over 30 years ago. You can go through the artcle and pick out major errors if you can find any.

All you have done is posted yap-yap with no referances. Notice the referance to the opening of the Northwest Passage?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been asking for an experiment like this for years and so far, you are the only Warmer who came close to an honest answer.

You have to wonder, why arent the labs and universities conducting experiments like this?

I suspect its because adding 120 PPM CO2 does not raise temperature nor does it acidify the oceans

Maybe the answer is you have your head up your butt, and you want an incremental CO2 experiment, which may not even be relevant, since what we all want is an explanation for added methane, which accelerates warming, and for carbonic acidification, which absorbs CO2, but it kills oceanic life. You are looking for something stupid, not valuable, until we have a model, with all the exchanges, which you resist, with spam.

An increase in atmospheric CO2 of 120 ppm will increase carbonic acid concentrations, and putting that much in water will increase carbonic acid even more, stupid-as-stupid can be! Anybody you ask for anything cannot possibly take you seriously. Anybody who reads this thread end-to-end can see what a bitch you are.

Now that Trakar came up with an experiment, you need to go perform it, but we know you aren't that interested, you only wanted to take us all off, but Trakar got it out of the way and popped a list of tasks, at you, Crosstard.

Yeah, right, you'll go right over to special class lab and whip this up. Fuck you.

Two things are obvious from your post:

1. You still haven't pointed to a single experiment that demonstrates any of what you've described. How much will pH drop be adding 120PPM CO2 to the atmosphere? Do they make numbers that small? Can you give us a ball park estimate?

2. You need to come to terms with your homosexuality. It's 2012. It's OK for you to come out

 

[bobgnote]

YOU have failed, to understand acid, you finally admitted to OA, but you are an idiot, who won't understand the basic affinity of acid, for cold water, or evidence, of related die-offs, or urgency, for re-greening, but I do have a simple task for you, define the 'hockey stick.'

Then I'll put it up with the other tardy wingpunk rants, and we'll see if a consensus shows.

I only want to respond your crap that's relevent to science forum. your wasting major energy with all the rest of the B.S. I MAY be in Tenn now -- but I spent 20+ years in Silicon Valley, a stint at Kennedy Space Center, and about 5 years in complicated areas we can't even discuss.

I acknowledged OA as a concerning problem. I haven't yet signed on to your leap of faith that it's all due to man-made additions of CO2. If you read (and understood my posts, you'd know that there are MANY excellent alternate explanations.

Hey, asshole. If I caught you on the payroll, anytime, anywhere, you'd be gone, you worthless shit-dangler.

You don't even read my posts. Which is why I have to keep cluing you. Our information of global warming is not sufficiently cumulative, to understand the entire effect of human stewardship, since any time frame, but we can have a good idea, if we don't re-green, we will join the endangered species list.

My position is and remains, so what about what percentage of emissions are human, when humans have been despoiling for so long, one lousy graph won't do the job, and you are wasting time with your spectral masturbation, since I keep seeing your posts, and you haven't tracked any of your stupid information, to include reflectivity or absorption indices, based on atmospheric density, with any sort of breakdown, with distance from sea-level.

You are a pompous shithole, daisy-chaining with your asshole-blow-buddy, Intestinalwally, who at least knows he should try to blow people off, instead of smear and stain, while spamming thread after thread. Wally knows he's a dumbshit, don't you, Wally. You keep trying to convince whoever reads your crap you have value. But you are shitty.

Really, you are a shitty asshole, who shouldn't have stolen money, mistakenly paid to you and people like you, who are ripoffs, and you deserve to be imprisoned, for fraud, I am certain, if you took any money, for anything you claim, as science. Fuck you and your fucktard-wingpunk posse.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. At the time that you people were saying CO2 has no affect, and that there is no warming, Dr. Hansen wrote this paper. His predictions are pretty much spot on.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Fucking Sylvia Brown is more accurate than Hansen you dip shit.

I posted a whole article from over 30 years ago. You can go through the artcle and pick out major errors if you can find any.

All you have done is posted yap-yap with no referances. Notice the referance to the opening of the Northwest Passage?

Refer to figure 7. None of it is correct. That's the only prediction in the whole paper that is meaningful, and it's wrong on all counts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

<flacaltenn>

Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"...

<Oopydoo>

I can't answer why someone said something without at least knowing who they are an exactly what it is they said.

See my answer below about WHO is trying to stop debate over AGW and disenfranchise science.

<Oopydoo>


My reply about Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore was in response to WHO EXACTLY was screaming about the science being settled and the debate was over. I simply can't believe you've managed to miss the whole CHORUS of people trying to short-circuit science. Is is because you idolize them or because you're embarrassed by them? Tell me the truth -- were you honestly unaware of the MASSIVE efforts to shove this AGW down our throats, hide the fraud and stop the debate? Were you unaware of all the demogoguing by folks like Pelosi and Gore?

<flacaltenn>

Sorry, I had expected you meant scientists had said this. Are we debating science? At any rate, what exactly is it that Gore and Pelosi said that got your panties all up in a bunch? Why are you and the skeptics so obsessed with Democratic celebrities?

<Oopydoo>


You can honestly claim the relationship between gravity and other forces is not known. You can even probably claim that's it's incomplete. But it is a proven tool that works empirically. The predictive value is immense.

This is no where near the mess and uncertainty that man-made global warming (AGW) is in. We now have YEARS of studies built on intentionally falsied and manipulated data that will linger out there and add to confusion.

I'm curious - do you even realize that you haven't provided evidence of any falisified data?

Not to mention the fact that studies that FAIL to corrobate the religious mantra of AGW are largely ignored.

You mean like how you're ignoring them right now by not even mentioning their authors and the year of publication?

And a pantheon of pinhead politicians trying to shut down folks that are truely trying to take the blinders and search for REAL reasons for the warming.

Sorry but how does the existence or lack thereof of "pinhead politicians" prove or disprove anything scientific?

<flacaltenn>

Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum...

<OopyDoo>

What do the different colors cause? Its all thermalized when its absorbed by the Earth's surface.

Here's` the fun part for me. The whole concept of a GH gas is that it DOES act as a blanket and storage to increase surface heating. However every gas contributes to this "heat filtering" in a different way. Most all of them except water vapor have very narrow color bands where they have any greenhouse effect at all. Take a look at the chart below. Just consider the horizontal "color" and the vertical axis "heat retention" for practical purposes.

Note that CO2 has GH power only at very specific wavelengths or colors. And the important part is that all but one (maybe two) of the colors are the same colors that water vapor trap on.. (Other props like heat capacity matter, but let's focus on spectrum).

Now sunlight is generally "all colors". Photographers consider it a "white reference". But it also has "nooks and crannies" where not all color strengths are equal. And our ability to catalog the changes in color strength was limited until satellites because the very gases we are trying to study ruined the measurement at the earth surface. You have to go above the atmosphere to accurately watch for fluctuations in frequency bands (colors) or make a lot of perilous assumptions about the filtering property of the atmosphere.

Bottom line -- if there are long term or short term shifts or cycles in the power that sun puts out at specific color lines -- it will change the absorption effect of the gases. We don't have enough years of satellite data yet to even begin to guess how they vary.

The GH effect is caused by radiation on its way OUT of the Earth's atmopshere being trapped, not on its way IN. The radiation leaving the Earth has been thermalized and does not possess the same spectra as the sun.

Secondly, the overlap of the CO2 absorption bands with the water vapor bands means that the higher GH "power" of CO2 is EXTREMELY sensitive to the amount of water vapor. Even tho CO2 is a "more powerful" GH gas -- water vapor by fraction of atmosphere dwarfs it and MAY completely mask the effect in some cases.

That's why (coming in full circle) those desert night-time Low temperatures are so important. GH theory says that night-time lows should be getting higher and tracking CO2.
And the desert part is important because you remove the effect of massive amounts of water vapor in the air. So nightime removes the sun effects, desert removes the water vapor effects.

They are having a hard time confirming ANY tracking under those conditions..
Any ONE unconfirmed observation about ANY theory is a killer til it's explained or the theory is modified. Those are the rules..

Sorry but I'm not going to look up the studies you are referring to for you. If you want to talk about something where a scientist with a name thought of it and wrote about it in a paper that can be read and verified that would be great.


While you're at it, please tell me what your calculation is for the GH forcing due to CO2.