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

I am very aware of all of this. However it makes many unwarranted assumptions.Heres one: " The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ..."He completely ignores the possibility that instead of radiating heat back to the surface, co2 could give its heat to other molecules and thereby heating the atmosphere to an even higher degree as you even saw. He didnt even stop to think that perhaps reflectinv some of its heat back is not powerful enough to cause the temperature of todays earth.

Nobody has ignored any such thing.Sounds like you are just wishing things to be true. I challenge you to show me the failure to properly account for heat transfer in the models which predict global warming.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well you live in "Walkerstan," so no state rebates, but you could still be eligible for the federal tax credit (until Trump and gang do away with it). I paid no taxes last year with most of the tax credit left for this year and the next.Without the grants and tax rebates my installation cost was $13k and I use about $750/year, so I am about half your costs in both cases.The way I look at it, the $13k is an investment with a return of $750/year tax free. That is a return of 5.7% on investment. It is difficult to find a guaranteed investment with a 5.7% return in the stock, bond, mutual fund market these days. I also oversized my installation so that I can take my gas water heater and gas boiler off line and replace them with an electric water heater (hot water is hot enough for my radiant floor heat), keeping my gas water heater as backup in case of power outage. This will reduce my gas bill by $800/year, so then I will get a $1,550/year tax free return, or 11.9% ... a rather stunning return that is guaranteed every year. This also reduces my carbon footprint substantially.Tax on dividends is ~10% per year so the tax free return would mean that 5.7% is worth 6.3% after taxes for a comparable stock investment, and the 11.9% is worth 13.1% after taxes.In your case, looking at it as an investment, you would get $1,300/year tax free return on $25k investment, or 5.2%, and after taxes would be worth 5.7% return on investment. The question for you is whether or not you have current investments that are doing worse than this, and can you switch them at little cost (ie -- ira early withdrawal penalty, broker fees, etc).Another option is to do it yourself to reduce installation cost, and then you can also do it piece-meal, adding to the array periodically. I run my sump pump on an entirely isolated system that I installed. It has two panels with voltage regulators that put out 12vdc for the whole day (peak output of the panels is 21vdc, and the regulators cut that back to 12, but then I also still get 12vdc on cloudy days). Each one charges a deep cycle marine battery and they run a marine bilge pump. Because of high water table here this pump cycles every 5 minutes in the rainy period. Everything bought on-line. If you can wire a car battery you can do it.My next installation will be large enough to power the fridge during a power outage through an inverter, and I am thinking of using a 24 vdc system that can also pump the hot water through my floor heat piping. My roof panels have no battery backup and no way to directly use them when the grid goes down (RI regulation requires it to shut down to protect line workers).Check out Unbound Solar — Solar Products & DIY Advice by Our Experts -- it is "100% employee owned. Each of us has a personal stake in providing outstanding service to our customers. We thrive on your success!"Enjoy

And the objective empirical evidence says yes. Again I direct you to the article What's Really Warming The World?. You can see the graphs in Message 333 as well.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity. Your "scenario: is a fantasy that is contradicted by data. See the Bloomburg article.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity. Denying the evidence that global warming is man-made via greenhouse gases (including CO2) does not make it go away. See the Bloomburg article.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.Until you deal with the evidence clearly presented in the Bloomburg article your arguments are irrelevant.Enjoy

Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379. Perhaps because the evidence did not show that to be the case.Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.Until you deal with the evidence clearly presented in the Bloomburg article your arguments are irrelevant.Let me quote from Message 333 reformatted slightly:

quote:

---

This article goes through ALL the purported causes of climate change to show which ones cause how much change.

​

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

​

I know this is a bare link, but all I can do is take screenshots:

​

​

When you add them all together you get a very very very strong match between the model and the observed data, and the only element that significantly adds to the warming is the greenhouse gases. And it would have been worse if we had not banned aerosols.

---

Should be pretty self-explanatory because the explanation actually matches the actual data.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

What exactly has been shown to be substantially correct? Please be specific. The data shows nothing of the kind. I gave you my argument and the evidence for it. It explains the data much better than the fairytale you presented.

Here is what your bloomberg article failed to look into as for reasons for warming since 1850:" Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles (41.7%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (38.0%) and increased atmospheric water vapor (20.3%)."Does co2 match the temperature record by 98%? No, it doesn't. Levels of high reflecting low level clouds, ocean cycles including ENSO, and levels of water vapor do.See Dan Pangburns article here: provide sound reasoning why it is wrong.Climate Change DriversEdited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Again I ask.You did not address what I asked.
Show me the information in the article that is wrong. The specific information. You are making blanket assertions but are not addressing the particular article I posted.
This should be simple. Quote part of the article and refute the point they are making.

quote:

---

Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.

---

Hmmm ... taken down because it is falsehoods? So I googled itYou should change your pet link to Climate Change Drivers

quote:

---

Licensed mechanical engineer, MSME, ASME Life member, first GW related paper was made public in 2008 at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html.

---

He is also listed as an Aerospace Engineer. Can you tell me what qualifies him to talk about climate science? It looks like his listings on Google Scholar amount to vanity press publications - in a magazine he is a member of, and which did not appear to have a single bonafide climate scientist. Curious. Do you know of any article in a peer reviewed climate science publication?Also I tried to look him up on wikipedia but there was no article about him or that mentioned him. Doesn't sound like a credible source to me, sorry.

quote:

---

Approximately 98% of atmospheric molecules are non-ghg nitrogen and oxygen. They are substantially warmed by thermalization of the photonic energy absorbed by the ghg molecules.

---

In other words greenhouse gases account for warming the atmosphere and that energy is transferred to other molecules in the air, warming them in the process. It would be shocking if only some gases heated up.Thanks that's all I need. Nope. Increased water vapor is due to the atmosphere being warmer, not the other way around. He/You are looking at symptoms of warming and claiming they are causes. It did look at sun temperature that includes the effects of sunspots ... That dead flat yellow line is just about as zero a driver of climate change as one could find.

quote:

---

wiki: In physics, thermalisation (in American English thermalization) is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction. In general the natural tendency of a system is towards a state of equipartition of energy or uniform temperature, maximising the system's entropy.

​

The page "Reverse-thermalization" does not exist.

---

When someone tries to baffle you with scientific sounding nonsense, they are trying delude you. Again, water vapor is a symptom of climate change not a cause. Putting more water vapor in the air than it naturally carries does not warm it, it results in precipitation.In addition no scientist I know would make the extrapolations see here:

quote:

---

---

Where the drop at the end is pure fantasy and not properly supported by the data. Note that several volcanoes are listed as data points. In contrast we have, from the Bloomberg article again: That looks like zero or negative effect effect to me, rather than explaining the warming trend.When ALL the natural causes are combined you get: And the result is zero or negative effect, so ALL natural causes do not explain climate change.Conversely when you combine the man-made components with the natural ones you get: If Pangburn's "thermalized" and "reverse-thermallized" water vapor is not included in these graphs, then why do they match the data so well? Is it included in the natural causes (and hence is not important) or is it included in the man-made causes (in which case it is AGW) ... inquiring minds want to know.Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that actually explains this data differently, then the information is un-refuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.Until you deal with the evidence clearly presented in the Bloomburg article your arguments are irrelevant.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added

That global warming is caused by human activity. See the information in Message 333 that is repeated in Message 379 and referred to again in Message 380 and repeated again in Message 384.Continuing to ignore rather than explain these graphs with your alternate reality does not make them go away nor benefit your alternate reality. An argument devoid of substance or explanation. Except that it doesn't explain the graphs at all. See Message 384. It refutes your guy's quack alternate science.Enjoy

DeleteEdited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

He can, of course - but the difference is that if you're seeking to refute a scientific conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of scientists in the field, the bar is set higher than if you're simply reciting the established conclusion.Dana is riding the coat-tails of the vast majority of scientists in the field - credibility is already established. You need to establish credibility for a minority view.Unfair maybe, but you know that's how science works - and rightly so.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Search results for dan pangburn Dana Nuccetelli blogs about climate and co2 over at the Guardian. He also works at Tetratech as an environmental scientist. What qualifies him to talk about climate science? Here is a link to his linked-in page listing his resume:https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447 .So, he is not a professional climate scientist. The paper he is published in doesn't have any professional climate scientists in it. If Dana Nuccitelli can get paid to blog about climate science while being in another branch of science, why can't dan do the same as a mechanical engineer? I can go on google scholar and see all the articles in climate science publications. AGW is a flawed theory. Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming. Why would I post that stuff here? No pro AGW article I have ever seen even attempts to address any of the issues Dan brings up. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. A person or organisation can be right about 90% of the time and still be wrong on some things because what they are wrong about is foundational to the rest of their conclusions. Climate change is one of those things. The argument can be totally sound but still be false because the foundation has serious flaws in it.Another point is that climate change is a controversial topic and so sources for both sides of an issue can be equally credible. That's all you need for what? You think he made your point for you? All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground. How does that make your case for co2 being the cause of a warmer atmosphere than would be without it?

I will take your lack of addressing the actual issues of the article as evidence that you have no argument to refute the article.Thanks for playing.

What issues? Does it deal with any of the issues my article brought up? No? Who cares then?