Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

I've provided an answer to this in response to another of your posts. There is plenty of evidence that light propagates through empty space.But for the third time here I ask you to show us Ward's exposition on this. I refuse to believe that he holds the beliefs you express here. These beliefs are not required to make an argument that we need to use plank's constant to calculate photon energy.

I did not say that, and it does not follow from my statement. What my statement does suggest is that people who believe that they've found a simple concept that all AGW scientists routinely miss are unlikely to be correct. If something is missed it is unlikely to be something like failing to properly calculate photon energy.Is that clear? Already addressed.

The reason for doing this is that in the popular press, much is made of the extent of the ice as an indicator of global warming. For reasons given here, that's probably a bogus thing to do because the extent can increase even when the overall ocean temperature decreases.The result is people like ICANT making a bogus argument despite the fact that they accept that the earth's temperature is increasing.Edited by NoNukes, : Change 'the' to 'they'

Do you have any evidence that the sun is growing every year? I am not aware of any scientific evidence of that, and of course 2 Peter 3:12 does not say anything about the sun growing before the point at which heavens catch on fire.And isn't a bit ridiculous to suggest that the sun is growing every year and then to argue that the ice extent shows something different? Obviously you do not believe that the ice extent is an argument against global warming, regardless of its cause.

ICANT, you are simply doing a poor job of reading. My statement says that right or wrong, scientist who believe accept AGW are not idiots.It is completely silent about the characterization of anyone else. In fact the statement leaves open the possibility that AGW is not real.Besides that, the context was pretty clear. Scientist who believe in AGW do not do so because they have missed something ICANT and foreveryoung can easily find.ABE: I just re-read my original message and I see that i did provide exactly the context your untruthful posts claims i omitted. If you want to make something more out of something i did not say after two explicit clarifications, my next response will be personal.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The sun's expansion over the last 50 years is negligible. It is not an explanation for the earth warming.

It does not matter why the earth is getting hotter. If you believe earth is warming then you know that your ice sheet argument is bogus and cannot mean that the earth is not warming

Yes I can do that.The greenhouse effect is not in any way controversial. The greenhouse effect is the reason why temperatures on earth are moderate. Absent the effect the earth would be too cold to live on.Generally the earth receives heat from the sun via radiation of all frequencies and loses heat primarily by radiation of infra red energy. The frequency based asymmetry difference occurs because of the far lower temperature of the earth. You may have observed for yourself that lower temperature radiating bodies give off a redder radiation than do higher temperature bodies. It is also the case that radiative heat transfer is proportional (roughly) to the fourth power of the absolute temperature.The greenhouse effect is an asymmetry that allows a substance in the atmosphere to decrease the rate of heat transfer from the earth by a larger amount than the substance decreases the energy transfer to the earth. Accordingly the balance between heat out and energy in occurs at a higher earth temperature that it would without the effect. This observed effect is named after the effect of glass in a greenhouse because glass allows much of the sun's radiated solar energy to pass through freely but is more resistant to infra-red radiation that is re-radiated by surfaces within the greenhouse.So that's the thermodynamic definition and there is no doubt
1) that the effect itself is real and that it occurs on earth. In fact we could not live on earth without the effect.
2) that gases such as methane and carbon dioxide can produce the effect
3) that the answer to your question can be found in any dictionary worth looking at. Why in the world you think that either I or real climate scientists are this particular kind of idiot is an idea I find hard to take seriously. I expect that kind of stuff from ICANT, but you ought to know better. Haven't you had a heat/light/sound type of physics course already if not a full blown thermodynamics course?Find some other point of denial. The one you've chosen is hilarious.

Thank your lucky stars that you aren't NoNukes.I have the reputation of being some kind of a physics idiot, so perhaps it will turn out that not only don't I know the definition of greenhouse effect, but I also won't look at wikipedia before answering the question.

It would be asinine to try to avoid AGW by trying to control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. The fact that we have oceans and a water cycle makes that impossible. Man has essentially no effect on the average amount of water in the atmosphere; the amount of moisture in the atmosphere cycles up and down on a relatively short cycle.What we see here is a conspiracy theory based on a pretty silly idea that has absolutely no science behind it. The fact that water vapor plays a large role in the green house effect does not prevent methane and CO2 from being gasses worthy and even appropriate targets for reduction.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just which one of your BS theories about the cause of global warming are we supposed to take seriously? You are just flitting from one piece of bad science to another without making any effort to critically analyze whether what you are backing makes the least bit of sense.

This last argument is probably an example of one that AGW defending folks should not use. It is a weather not a climate argument and the very next coldest day record that shows up is going to be used as a counter argument.Or maybe I am wrong. Can someone make the case that pointing to a particular warmest day on record isn't a bad argument?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course. That's why I accept most of the paragraph and only pick on the final claim which is about a particularly warm day last week.On further review though, I think the entire paragraph with the exception of the initially claim about temperatures this past century is quite questionable. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just to be clear. I think the understanding that 2015 was the hottest year on record and that thirteen of the last fourteen such years were in this century is a statement about climate rather than weather.OTOH I do question the validity of statement about how cold or hot it was last week as evidence for climate change regardless of its cause. Such statements are not helpful. You might just as well be showing a snowball in front of Congress or arguing about your pipes having frozen last year as some have done here.

Well known, and explained in excruciating detail in any number of sources. What kind of argument is this? Of course global warming is not necessarily caused by increased solar incoming radiation. It can also be caused by greenhouse gasses. Density is one factor of course, but density density alone is not the issue. It obviously matters what gases make up that extra mass per volume, because it is well known that from observations in the lab that some gasses are more effective at acting as a blanket than others. Gasses like water vapor, methane, and CO2 are all well known to have this effect.How do your statements help make your case rather than the case that greenhouse cases are of concern?I note that you were quick to ask frako for proof. Of course he can provide evidence but something less than proof. But you owe us some evidence for your contention that rising CO2 levels have never been a factor in an extinction event over the the last billion years or so.I seem to recall some unanswered questions left from the last time you were here. Are those answers forthcoming?