Are Greenhouse Gases or AGW Real? (Split from, 'Climate Change')

[RiceAWay]

I found these links while deciding to take a look at climate change.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

 

I was wondering the vadidity of what they said.

Firstly, let's discuss the validity of saying anything is a "greenhouse gas". There's really no such thing short of very rare gases. O2 is 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent heat content. To suggest that CO2 which composes 400 ppm or .04% of the atmosphere has significant effects and that only 25% of that is the real culprit is bordering on idiotic.

 

Secondly, let's make it clear that warm periods occur every thousand years. We know of the Mycenaean, the Roman, the Medieval and the one we're presently in. Moreover this was began in 1886 long before man had the ability to effect anything.

 

Thirdly, this is a water planet. Water in liquid or solid states covers 70% of the globe and composes some 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous or droplets. Add to this that water absorbs virtually ALL of the visible wavelength which is the largest component of the Sun's emission and virtually the entire IR band which is reflected and self generated heat of the Earth it is easy to see that the infinitesimal absorption of CO2 which is almost exactly between the Sun's emissions and the Earth's reflection is stretching things far beyond the breaking point.

 

I have never seen 10 scientists in a room in which any one of them agreed fully with any other. And we're being told that 97% of scientists believe this? That was a fixed number from the outset. Of, what, 10,000 scientists questioned they used the opinions of only 77 of them to generate that silly number.

 

Remember that they haven't successfully predicted one single thing since Al Gore switched from the great coming Ice Age to AGW.

Edited January 15, 2017 by RiceAWay

[iNow]

Ignorance like the above is not appropriate in the Information Age.

[Raider5678]

Firstly, let's discuss the validity of saying anything is a "greenhouse gas". There's really no such thing short of very rare gases. O2 is 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent heat content. To suggest that CO2 which composes 400 ppm or .04% of the atmosphere has significant effects and that only 25% of that is the real culprit is bordering on idiotic.

 

Secondly, let's make it clear that warm periods occur every thousand years. We know of the Mycenaean, the Roman, the Medieval and the one we're presently in. Moreover this was began in 1886 long before man had the ability to effect anything.

 

Thirdly, this is a water planet. Water in liquid or solid states covers 70% of the globe and composes some 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous or droplets. Add to this that water absorbs virtually ALL of the visible wavelength which is the largest component of the Sun's emission and virtually the entire IR band which is reflected and self generated heat of the Earth it is easy to see that the infinitesimal absorption of CO2 which is almost exactly between the Sun's emissions and the Earth's reflection is stretching things far beyond the breaking point.

 

I have never seen 10 scientists in a room in which any one of them agreed fully with any other. And we're being told that 97% of scientists believe this? That was a fixed number from the outset. Of, what, 10,000 scientists questioned they used the opinions of only 77 of them to generate that silly number.

 

Remember that they haven't successfully predicted one single thing since Al Gore switched from the great coming Ice Age to AGW.

Well, considering upon your claim that 400 ppm wouldn't have that large of an effect on the atmosphere is just plain stupid, I am inclined to disagree with the rest of your post.

400 ppm of cyanide in water will stop your heart.

Even though it's mostly oxygen and hydrogen.

[Phi for All]

I have never seen 10 scientists in a room in which any one of them agreed fully with any other.

 

Coming from someone who is so clearly anti-science, I find this claim devoid of even a shred of intellectual honesty.

[swansont]

I have never seen 10 scientists in a room in which any one of them agreed fully with any other. And we're being told that 97% of scientists believe this? That was a fixed number from the outset. Of, what, 10,000 scientists questioned they used the opinions of only 77 of them to generate that silly number.

There is a huge gap between the consensus that AGW is real and a serious problem, and 100% agreement on everything. Scientists may disagree on how much global temperature will change — is it 3.0 degrees for a doubling of CO2, or is it 3.2 degrees? But they still agree that the temperature will go up. Putting that kind of framing one the issue is intellectual dishonesty.

[RiceAWay]

Ignorance like the above is not appropriate in the Information Age.

And yet you haven't any arguments against my posting beyond insults. You needn't take my word for anything:

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8

[iNow]

Please refresh me on what specific claim you've made that you'd like me to address that hasn't already been refuted by others. Please also note that YouTube can be used to supplement an argument, but not instead of one.

.

TBH, your position is so trivially false and easily disproven I thought perhaps you were either kidding or suffering from a learning disorder.

Edited January 23, 2017 by iNow

[RiceAWay]

There is a huge gap between the consensus that AGW is real and a serious problem, and 100% agreement on everything. Scientists may disagree on how much global temperature will change — is it 3.0 degrees for a doubling of CO2, or is it 3.2 degrees? But they still agree that the temperature will go up. Putting that kind of framing one the issue is intellectual dishonesty.

There is a GENERAL agreement that the mean global temperature has risen (some 60% agree with this.). That is a VERY long way from man is causing it with driving his cars around. What's more there is far too many questions about what is really going on. This 2016 was "the hottest year ever" conveniently leaves out the fact that this rise was 0.06 degrees C while the error bars are about one degree C. And the games that have been played with "ever" are also extremely questionable:

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

 

You will note that the vast majority of people agreeing with climate change are uneducated in the facts and are repeating one single article they read five years ago.

 

And this ALL ignores the fact that they identify CO2 as being man-made by measuring the amount of Carbon 14 in "man-made" vs natural. But that also leaves out the entire problem that there are some 200 known volcanoes on this planet that we know of, and many more we don't. (The "antarctic melting turns out to be nothing more than an unidentified undersea volcano erupting in a very small area. There are many unidentified along the mid-oceanic ridges). These Volcanoes burn through many layers of fossil fuel thereby making these sources of CO2 exactly the same as those generated by man.

 

Furthermore the rise in CO2 is known to occur about 800 years after a global warming period - in other words, this boiling out of CO2 from the oceans is directly on schedule from the end of the Medieval Warm Period.

 

The claim that CO2 has never been higher is totally fallacious since the atmosphere was approximately 50% at one time and the geologically demonstrated climate was not too different than now. Let me repeat - O2 has a higher latent heat content than CO2 which is 2/3rds Oxygen.And the "proof" of this is "proven" with ice cores. The fact is that ice cores only offer the broadest possible evidence. The Antarctica continent is the driest desert on Earth. Ice does not form there from snow storms but from the extremely slow build up of frost. During this entire time these areas remain porous and hence CO2 presence in ice is totally unreliable.

 

And add to this that not ONE single prediction predicated on AGW has occurred.

According the the World Health Organization, climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

 

Apparently the right to life and liberty isn't very high on the Republica

 

This is total bunk. Climate warming has already multiplied the farming all over the world. The additional CO2 has cause a world-wide bloom of the largest source of plants - plankton and with that all of the filter feeders. The Pacific Coast blue whale pods are now larger than they believed the entire world's population to be 30 years ago. With this additional CO2 the oceans are cleaning up and more and more food fishes are causing their predators to multiply as well. We have seen more white sharks within the US territorial waters than ever since records began being kept.

 

Rather than starvation we have seen increases in human nutrition. And the world's population is predicted to increase 16% in the next lucky 13 years. Plus the statistics show a steadily increasing average age at death.

Apparently the right to life and liberty isn't very high on the Republican totem pole.

 

So you think that it is increased life and liberty for the world's economy to be in the liberal dumps and the actual jobless rates to be over 10%?

Please refresh me on what specific claim you've made that you'd like me to address that hasn't already been refuted by others. Please also note that YouTube can be used to supplement an argument, but not instead of one.

.

TBH, your position is so trivially false and easily disproven I thought perhaps you were either kidding or suffering from a learning disorder.

I find it curious that you respond to a string of facts by calling names and asking me to repeat them.

Edited January 23, 2017 by RiceAWay

[swansont]

There is a GENERAL agreement that the mean global temperature has risen (some 60% agree with this.).

Citation for this claim? 60% of whom? Climate scientists, or a more general population?

 

That is a VERY long way from man is causing it with driving his cars around. What's more there is far too many questions about what is really going on.

Unspecific refutation. "It's complicated" is the mantra of denialism.

 

This 2016 was "the hottest year ever" conveniently leaves out the fact that this rise was 0.06 degrees C while the error bars are about one degree C.

It's funny how error bars are ignored when other claims are made (such as with the global warming "pause", or even claims of a cooling trend) and only cited when convenient. "Hottest year ever" is the summary for the popular science press. It's also a rebuttal of "it's been cooling since 1998". The value is the highest of what we've measured. Is it statistically significant? No. But that requires appreciating nuance many aren't capable of, or would be misused by people who have an agenda.

 

What the more savvy understand is that it's the trend that's important, along with the unlikelihood of three record years in a row being a fluke of statistical fluctuations.

 

And the games that have been played with "ever" are also extremely questionable:

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

 

You will note that the vast majority of people agreeing with climate change are uneducated in the facts and are repeating one single article they read five years ago.

I don't care what the popular opinion is.

 

 

And this ALL ignores the fact that they identify CO2 as being man-made by measuring the amount of Carbon 14 in "man-made" vs natural.

Do they now? I don't suppose you have a cite for this claim.

 

I would have thought that you could estimate the amount of fossil fuels being burned each year and extrapolating from that, at least as a sanity check

 

But that also leaves out the entire problem that there are some 200 known volcanoes on this planet that we know of, and many more we don't. (The "antarctic melting turns out to be nothing more than an unidentified undersea volcano erupting in a very small area. There are many unidentified along the mid-oceanic ridges). These Volcanoes burn through many layers of fossil fuel thereby making these sources of CO2 exactly the same as those generated by man.

Cite?

 

Furthermore the rise in CO2 is known to occur about 800 years after a global warming period - in other words, this boiling out of CO2 from the oceans is directly on schedule from the end of the Medieval Warm Period.

During past cycles, yes. Other factors drove warming, which increased CO2 as a result, and giving positive feedback for warming. What is the catalyst for the current warming? That's where the science is. Not in parroting denialist talking points.

 

 

The claim that CO2 has never been higher is totally fallacious since the atmosphere was approximately 50% at one time and the geologically demonstrated climate was not too different than now.

Who made that claim and in what context? Without a good citation, I will assume it's either made up or taken out of context.

 

And add to this that not ONE single prediction predicated on AGW has occurred.

Baloney. To use your phrase, "total bunk". The sea ice decline in the arctic, for one quick example, was predicted.

 

And the world's population is predicted to increase 16% in the next lucky 13 years. Plus the statistics show a steadily increasing average age at death.

And advances in medicine and science have nothing to do with that. It's all from CO2. Riiiight.

 

[RiceAWay]

Citation for this claim? 60% of whom? Climate scientists, or a more general population?

 

Unspecific refutation. "It's complicated" is the mantra of denialism.

 

It's funny how error bars are ignored when other claims are made (such as with the global warming "pause", or even claims of a cooling trend) and only cited when convenient. "Hottest year ever" is the summary for the popular science press. It's also a rebuttal of "it's been cooling since 1998". The value is the highest of what we've measured. Is it statistically significant? No. But that requires appreciating nuance many aren't capable of, or would be misused by people who have an agenda.

 

What the more savvy understand is that it's the trend that's important, along with the unlikelihood of three record years in a row being a fluke of statistical fluctuations.

 

I don't care what the popular opinion is.

 

 

Do they now? I don't suppose you have a cite for this claim.

 

I would have thought that you could estimate the amount of fossil fuels being burned each year and extrapolating from that, at least as a sanity check

 

Cite?

 

During past cycles, yes. Other factors drove warming, which increased CO2 as a result, and giving positive feedback for warming. What is the catalyst for the current warming? That's where the science is. Not in parroting denialist talking points.

 

 

Who made that claim and in what context? Without a good citation, I will assume it's either made up or taken out of context.

 

Baloney. To use your phrase, "total bunk". The sea ice decline in the arctic, for one quick example, was predicted.

 

And advances in medicine and science have nothing to do with that. It's all from CO2. Riiiight.

 

 

After using the term "denialist" you have taken yourself out of the running for any sort of person without an agenda

[swansont]

 

After using the term "denialist" you have taken yourself out of the running for any sort of person without an agenda

 

 

My agenda is rigor.

 

I build atomic clocks for a living. Complicated doesn't scare me. "It's complicated" is cop-out.

[swansont]

Firstly, let's discuss the validity of saying anything is a "greenhouse gas". There's really no such thing short of very rare gases. O2 is 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent heat content. To suggest that CO2 which composes 400 ppm or .04% of the atmosphere has significant effects and that only 25% of that is the real culprit is bordering on idiotic.

Since it's not the latent heat that's the problem, what is the relevance here? CO2 has several absorption peaks in the IR, right where the emission spectrum is the biggest. That blocks IR from radiating away.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z0099m2A1dI/Un9NrLLKIZI/AAAAAAAAAtU/oYmZOjynqPk/s1600/spectra.png

[iNow]

I find it curious that you respond to a string of facts by calling names and asking me to repeat them.

Thanks for sharing. Duly noted. Now, as for my actual request. Please refresh me on what specific claim you've made that you'd like me to address that hasn't already been refuted by others.

.

Was it this one, because we've known since the 1800s that some gases are transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared. Again, I thought you were kidding it was so trivially false:

Firstly, let's discuss the validity of saying anything is a "greenhouse gas". There's really no such thing short of very rare gases.

Or was it this one, where you seem to think percentage of atmospheric makeup is relevant. Would you equally allow us to fill your bedroom with 400ppm of toxic nerve gas? By your logic, that should be fine, saying we should not "bordering on the idiotic."

To suggest that CO2 which composes 400 ppm or .04% of the atmosphere has significant effects and that only 25% of that is the real culprit is bordering on idiotic.

Secondly, let's make it clear that warm periods occur every thousand years.

And nobody disputes that, but they had causes, none of which apply now. You're basically arguing that because forest fires sometimes have natural causes that it's impossible for humans to start one. That doesn't just border on the idiotic, it IS idiotic.

 

Thirdly, this is a water planet.

And the oceans are warming, too. Seriously, you're not kidding with this, are you? I feel like I'm explaining this to a toddler.

 

I have never seen 10 scientists in a room in which any one of them agreed fully with any other.

You need to visit more rooms with more scientists, apparently.

[RiceAWay]

 

 

My agenda is rigor.

 

I build atomic clocks for a living. Complicated doesn't scare me. "It's complicated" is cop-out.

So that is why you can't answer why CO2 is somehow a "greenhouse gas" despite the fact that O2 is 525 times more common, has a larger heat content and a lower heat transmission so that CO2 holds less head and transmits it more easily? And that the portion of CO2 that is supposedly critical is 1/2100th of the O2? Or that CO2 does not absorb in the emission band of the Sun or the warmth generated by the Earth? That water vapor absorbs almost the entire emission band of the Sun and that isn't important? After all it's also MUCH more absorbent and 100 times more common than CO2 JUST as free gas and particles in the atmosphere.

 

This is why you will tell us that the Arctic Ice Pack is to the level now that the Northwest Passage is open? Why do you think that its CALLED the Northwest Passage? Judging from the knowledge you have about this planet Earth I suggest you read books more your speed - Jack London would seem appropriate.

 

Or you won't bother to explain why things are so bad that as the glaciers in Iceland withdraw they discover the remains of farms beneath the ice? Perhaps Brachiosaurus were farmers.

 

I could go on but I'm waiting for you to get complicated rather than to call names.

Since it's not the latent heat that's the problem, what is the relevance here? CO2 has several absorption peaks in the IR, right where the emission spectrum is the biggest. That blocks IR from radiating away.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z0099m2A1dI/Un9NrLLKIZI/AAAAAAAAAtU/oYmZOjynqPk/s1600/spectra.png

Perhaps you ought to actually think before posting? CO2 absorbs in the infrared which is only a very small part of the emissions of the Sun. O2 absorbs infrared right in the middle of the emission bands of the Earth.

 

The overwhelming majority of the emissions of the Sun are in the visible light spectrum. That is why virtually all animals have evolved to see in these bands.

 

IF O2 were to absorb in the visible light spectrum far less heat would strike the ground and it is likely that life would never have evolved upon this planet. So O2 actually is in the absorption band MOST likely to retain atmospheric heat.

 

If you're going to look specifically for a chart that appears to somehow show your point perhaps you ought to find a chart that proves your point.

 

https://cosmoscon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/atmospheric_transmission.png

[swansont]

So that is why you can't answer why CO2 is somehow a "greenhouse gas" despite the fact that O2 is 525 times more common, has a larger heat content and a lower heat transmission so that CO2 holds less head and transmits it more easily?

I asked you what the latent heat has to do with this. The CO2 absorbs a photon and then releases it, sometimes back toward the earth. Latent heat is not the issue. It's re-radiation that's warming the earth, not the energy retained in the CO2 molecules.

 

And that the portion of CO2 that is supposedly critical is 1/2100th of the O2? Or that CO2 does not absorb in the emission band of the Sun or the warmth generated by the Earth?

I posted a link to a picture of the absorption spectrum, so you can see how blatantly false this claim is. The tiny bit of CO2 absorbs more than all that O2 does in the emission band of the earth. (That it doesn't absorb in the emission band of the sun makes the greenhouse effect more dramatic)

 

That water vapor absorbs almost the entire emission band of the Sun and that isn't important? After all it's also MUCH more absorbent and 100 times more common than CO2 JUST as free gas and particles in the atmosphere.

I never said water wasn't important. But the amount of water the atmosphere can hold is limited, and it has a tendency to condense and fall back to earth. CO2 doesn't have such a limit, as it's not liquid (or solid) at the temperatures it experiences. Once water gets to 100% humidity, no more increase in water vapor.

 

 

This is why you will tell us that the Arctic Ice Pack is to the level now that the Northwest Passage is open? Why do you think that its CALLED the Northwest Passage? Judging from the knowledge you have about this planet Earth I suggest you read books more your speed - Jack London would seem appropriate.

You claimed that no predictions came true. I gave you one. All you're doing here is attempting to move the goalposts.

 

Protip: if you're going to complain about being insulted, it's poor form to fling them yourself.

 

 

Or you won't bother to explain why things are so bad that as the glaciers in Iceland withdraw they discover the remains of farms beneath the ice? Perhaps Brachiosaurus were farmers.

No citation, of course, and Iceland is a proxy for the whole world, so sure. If ice covered a farm in Iceland that means it was like that throughout the world.

 

I could go on but I'm waiting for you to get complicated rather than to call names.

That would imply that I called you names already.

 

[RiceAWay]

Thanks for sharing. Duly noted. Now, as for my actual request. Please refresh me on what specific claim you've made that you'd like me to address that hasn't already been refuted by others.

.

Was it this one, because we've known since the 1800s that some gases are transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared. Again, I thought you were kidding it was so trivially false:

 

Or was it this one, where you seem to think percentage of atmospheric makeup is relevant. Would you equally allow us to fill your bedroom with 400ppm of toxic nerve gas? By your logic, that should be fine, saying we should not "bordering on the idiotic."

 

And nobody disputes that, but they had causes, none of which apply now. You're basically arguing that because forest fires sometimes have natural causes that it's impossible for humans to start one. That doesn't just border on the idiotic, it IS idiotic.

 

And the oceans are warming, too. Seriously, you're not kidding with this, are you? I feel like I'm explaining this to a toddler.

 

You need to visit more rooms with more scientists, apparently.

Again you avoid "refuting" things that you really and quite obviously don't understand.

 

Exactly how is it relevant that poison gas is poisonous? One single "death cap" mushroom can kill you. Can you explain how THAT would any relevance?

 

In order to explain to a toddler you would first be able to explain to yourself and talking about poison gas being toxic and hence believing that in some manner proves anything makes me wonder if you write comic books for a living.

 

I AM a scientist. I have worked in high energy nuclear research. I worked on the first heart/lung machine. I was part of Dr. Kary Mullis' team for automating DNA analysis through polymerase chain reaction. He received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I worked on blood analyzers to identify HIV in the blood banking system. I designed both liquid and gas chromatography instruments. I increased the power of the Berkeley Lawrence Laboratories cyclotron. I programmed military instruments that others couldn't get to work.

 

Tell me - what do you do for a living?

[swansont]

Again you avoid "refuting" things that you really and quite obviously don't understand.

 

Exactly how is it relevant that poison gas is poisonous? One single "death cap" mushroom can kill you. Can you explain how THAT would any relevance?

 

 

 

It's a refutation of the lame argument that something in small concentrations can't have a large effect.

[RiceAWay]

I asked you what the latent heat has to do with this. The CO2 absorbs a photon and then releases it, sometimes back toward the earth. Latent heat is not the issue. It's re-radiation that's warming the earth, not the energy retained in the CO2 molecules.

 

I posted a link to a picture of the absorption spectrum, so you can see how blatantly false this claim is. The tiny bit of CO2 absorbs more than all that O2 does in the emission band of the earth. (That it doesn't absorb in the emission band of the sun makes the greenhouse effect more dramatic)

 

I never said water wasn't important. But the amount of water the atmosphere can hold is limited, and it has a tendency to condense and fall back to earth. CO2 doesn't have such a limit, as it's not liquid (or solid) at the temperatures it experiences. Once water gets to 100% humidity, no more increase in water vapor.

 

 

You claimed that no predictions came true. I gave you one. All you're doing here is attempting to move the goalposts.

 

Protip: if you're going to complain about being insulted, it's poor form to fling them yourself.

 

 

No citation, of course, and Iceland is a proxy for the whole world, so sure. If ice covered a farm in Iceland that means it was like that throughout the world.

 

That would imply that I called you names already.

 

 

1. So "denialist" was meant as a compliment?

 

2. And I posted a link that is FAR more indicative of the real case. CO2 absorbance bands are below the emission bands of the Sun and above the emissions of the Earth. What's more the SCALE of those lines is entirely incorrect in order to show their presence. Most of the scales are improperly shown not to avoid anything but to show the lines in their proper places.

 

3. The 4% is an AVERAGE. And this globe being covered over 70% with water means that it doesn't radiate enough to be significant. The humidity in the tropics is FAR above 4% and that above the arctic circle is less. But the angle of incidence of the Sun's emissions is a great deal less. It is the absence of energy that causes the ice packs and not global warning causing meltdowns. Surprise - the Milankovitch Cycles effect this.

 

4. The sea ice decline WAS NOT a prediction. It was nothing more than an observation due to the present warming pattern. I predict that it will rain someplace today.

 

5. I suggest that you would not be insulted if you could recall that turn about is fair play.

 

6. https://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/ https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/receding-swiss-glaciers-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-warmists-try-to-suppress-findings/ http://www.archaeology.org/issues/105-1309/letter-from/1165-glaciers-ice-patches-norway-global-warming

 

There are more evidence from ALL over the globe that any claims that glaciers are permanent is preposterous on the very face of it.

[iNow]

Exactly how is it relevant that poison gas is poisonous? One single "death cap" mushroom can kill you. Can you explain how THAT would any relevance?

 

In order to explain to a toddler you would first be able to explain to yourself and talking about poison gas being toxic and hence believing that in some manner proves anything makes me wonder if you write comic books for a living.

 

I AM a scientist. I have worked in high energy nuclear research. I worked on the first heart/lung machine. I was part of Dr. Kary Mullis' team for automating DNA analysis through polymerase chain reaction. He received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I worked on blood analyzers to identify HIV in the blood banking system. I designed both liquid and gas chromatography instruments. I increased the power of the Berkeley Lawrence Laboratories cyclotron. I programmed military instruments that others couldn't get to work.

 

Tell me - what do you do for a living?

I'm happy for you. Thanks for sharing.

 

Since you seem to have missed it, the toxic gas reference was to demonstrate how silly your claim was that CO2 couldn't possibly influence the climate since it only represents 400ppm of the overall atmosphere.

Edited January 24, 2017 by iNow

[swansont]

I AM a scientist. I have worked in high energy nuclear research. I worked on the first heart/lung machine. I was part of Dr. Kary Mullis' team for automating DNA analysis through polymerase chain reaction. He received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I worked on blood analyzers to identify HIV in the blood banking system. I designed both liquid and gas chromatography instruments. I increased the power of the Berkeley Lawrence Laboratories cyclotron. I programmed military instruments that others couldn't get to work.

 

Then you have no excuse for not supporting claims with evidence or making fallacious arguments. You should already know better.

[RiceAWay]

 

Then you have no excuse for not supporting claims with evidence or making fallacious arguments. You should already know better.

And you have no excuse for not stating your professional credentials when arguing things that you so obviously don't understand. "I make atomic clocks"? And I worked on the first large scale time sharing computer on which the Internet was based. So what?

 

You could be the most brilliant person around but if you do not study the subject you are arguing about of what use is "intelligence"? I have an IQ of 145 - does that mean I can argue organic chemistry?

Edited January 24, 2017 by RiceAWay

[Phi for All]

And you have no excuse for not stating your professional credentials when arguing things that you so obviously don't understand. "I make atomic clocks"? And I worked on the first large scale time sharing computer on which the Internet was based. So what?

 

I can answer this one. The atomic physicist bothers to back himself up with reputable science and credible evidence, while the whatever-you-are doesn't. That part is really, really obvious. You're wrong a LOT, which is much more important than what you've done in the past.

I have an IQ of 145 - does that mean I can argue organic chemistry?

 

Ahhh, I was wondering when this would get mentioned. So credible. Next is Galileo.

[swansont]

Perhaps you ought to actually think before posting? CO2 absorbs in the infrared which is only a very small part of the emissions of the Sun. O2 absorbs infrared right in the middle of the emission bands of the Earth.

I didn't say anything to contradict this, so I'm not sure why you feel I didn't think before posting. Perhaps you misread something?

 

Funny how you contradict this in your later post. And the CO2 absorption, in the IR emission band, is bigger than the Oxygen one (which I'm pretty sure is Ozone; they are combined in the graph)

 

The overwhelming majority of the emissions of the Sun are in the visible light spectrum. That is why virtually all animals have evolved to see in these bands.

 

IF O2 were to absorb in the visible light spectrum far less heat would strike the ground and it is likely that life would never have evolved upon this planet. So O2 actually is in the absorption band MOST likely to retain atmospheric heat.

O2 does absorb some light in the visible, and the amount of light striking the earth is significantly less than what is incident on the upper atmosphere.

 

If you're going to look specifically for a chart that appears to somehow show your point perhaps you ought to find a chart that proves your point.

 

https://cosmoscon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/atmospheric_transmission.png

 

Yep, that's the one that clearly shows CO2 with a big ol' absorption band at 15 microns, right in the earth's blackbody emission curve. And small oxygen absorption bands in the visible.

 

1. So "denialist" was meant as a compliment?

Did I actually call you a denialist?

 

2. And I posted a link that is FAR more indicative of the real case. CO2 absorbance bands are below the emission bands of the Sun and above the emissions of the Earth. What's more the SCALE of those lines is entirely incorrect in order to show their presence. Most of the scales are improperly shown not to avoid anything but to show the lines in their proper places.

The 15 micron absorption is clearly within the earth's emission band.

 

3. The 4% is an AVERAGE. And this globe being covered over 70% with water means that it doesn't radiate enough to be significant. The humidity in the tropics is FAR above 4% and that above the arctic circle is less. But the angle of incidence of the Sun's emissions is a great deal less. It is the absence of energy that causes the ice packs and not global warning causing meltdowns. Surprise - the Milankovitch Cycles effect this.

4% may be an average concentration, but it's bounded. There is a limit to how much water the atmosphere can contain. That's not the case for CO2.

 

 

4. The sea ice decline WAS NOT a prediction. It was nothing more than an observation due to the present warming pattern. I predict that it will rain someplace today.

No? (bold emphasis added)

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=593

 

"Changes in sea ice: There will be substantial loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Predictions for summer ice indicate that its extent could shrink by 60% for a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2), opening new sea routes. This will have major trading and strategic implications. With more open water, there will be a moderation of temperatures and an increase in precipitation in Arctic lands. Antarctic sea-ice volume is predicted to decrease by 25% or more for a doubling of CO2, with sea ice retreating about 2 degrees of latitude"

 

Gosh, those look like predictions to me.

 

5. I suggest that you would not be insulted if you could recall that turn about is fair play.

 

6. https://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/ https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/receding-swiss-glaciers-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-warmists-try-to-suppress-findings/ http://www.archaeology.org/issues/105-1309/letter-from/1165-glaciers-ice-patches-norway-global-warming

 

There are more evidence from ALL over the globe that any claims that glaciers are permanent is preposterous on the very face of it.

 

Last I checked none of those are Iceland. Further, Iceland was settled in the late 800's, so an alleged 4000 year-old forest is the wrong time period for your claim. Most importantly none of those are Arctic sea ice. You're the one who brought up glaciers, not me. Local warming or glacier retreat is not global warming. You asked for a prediction of the IPCC that has come to pass, and I gave you one. Stop moving the goalposts.

And you have no excuse for not stating your professional credentials when arguing things that you so obviously don't understand.

 

I can obviously read a graph better than you. Let's start with that (and ignore that your statement makes no sense. I think you should have omitted the "not")

[iNow]

And you have no excuse for not stating your professional credentials when arguing things...

One doesn't need an excuse since credentials are irrelevant. What matters here is the assertions we make and the evidence we use to support them, not what classes we've taken or what labels are by our name.

 

You're essentially arguing in favor of the fallacy of appeal to authority. It doesn't matter if Einstein says it or if Stephen Hawking or Charles Darwin says it. It matters only if it's correct and supported by evidence.

 

I could, in fact, draw comics for a living. The point you appear blissfully oblivious to is that it doesn't matter.

[RiceAWay]

I didn't say anything to contradict this, so I'm not sure why you feel I didn't think before posting. Perhaps you misread something?

 

Funny how you contradict this in your later post. And the CO2 absorption, in the IR emission band, is bigger than the Oxygen one (which I'm pretty sure is Ozone; they are combined in the graph)

 

O2 does absorb some light in the visible, and the amount of light striking the earth is significantly less than what is incident on the upper atmosphere.

 

 

Yep, that's the one that clearly shows CO2 with a big ol' absorption band at 15 microns, right in the earth's blackbody emission curve. And small oxygen absorption bands in the visible.

 

Did I actually call you a denialist?

 

The 15 micron absorption is clearly within the earth's emission band.

 

4% may be an average concentration, but it's bounded. There is a limit to how much water the atmosphere can contain. That's not the case for CO2.

 

 

No? (bold emphasis added)

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=593

 

"Changes in sea ice: There will be substantial loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Predictions for summer ice indicate that its extent could shrink by 60% for a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2), opening new sea routes. This will have major trading and strategic implications. With more open water, there will be a moderation of temperatures and an increase in precipitation in Arctic lands. Antarctic sea-ice volume is predicted to decrease by 25% or more for a doubling of CO2, with sea ice retreating about 2 degrees of latitude"

 

Gosh, those look like predictions to me.

 

 

Last I checked none of those are Iceland. Further, Iceland was settled in the late 800's, so an alleged 4000 year-old forest is the wrong time period for your claim. Most importantly none of those are Arctic sea ice. You're the one who brought up glaciers, not me. Local warming or glacier retreat is not global warming. You asked for a prediction of the IPCC that has come to pass, and I gave you one. Stop moving the goalposts.

 

I can obviously read a graph better than you. Let's start with that (and ignore that your statement makes no sense. I think you should have omitted the "not")

 

Following your lead give us a citation for the percentage of the Sun's emission are in the high absorption band of CO2. And demonstrate how the tiny percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere can have any effective increase in GMT.

 

It was not about Iceland because you made the claim that somehow the growth of the glaciers on Iceland were NOT universal. And in those article of Greenland it showed artifacts of human habitations before the expansion of the glaciers almost entirely in the little ice age. Or do you simply make things up as you go along?

 

As for the claim that there is a limit to how much water the atmosphere can contain - I'd really like a citation on that. It is probable ice ages are brought about by a growing growing cloud base that eventually shuts off most the the Sun's emissions and almost world wide coverage of clouds especially in the upper stratosphere. That means that you have NO idea how much water CAN be contained in the atmosphere.

One doesn't need an excuse since credentials are irrelevant. What matters here is the assertions we make and the evidence we use to support them, not what classes we've taken or what labels are by our name.

 

You're essentially arguing in favor of the fallacy of appeal to authority. It doesn't matter if Einstein says it or if Stephen Hawking or Charles Darwin says it. It matters only if it's correct and supported by evidence.

 

I could, in fact, draw comics for a living. The point you appear blissfully oblivious to is that it doesn't matter.

 

You can assert anything without the slightest idea what you're talking about. As you seem so capable of doing. In case you didn't know, climatologists who were PAID to assert that there is proof of climate change when the direct cause is already known to be otherwise has NOTHING to do with Einstein and the rest whose theories have been proven again and again. And by the way - Hawkings standard model of quantum theories and Charles Darwin's theories of evolution have been proven deeply flawed.