Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 2:49 PM
354 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,053 Year: 28,659/21,208 Month: 725/1,847 Week: 100/475 Day: 10/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 301 of 452 (794660)
11-19-2016 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by foreveryoung
11-18-2016 7:01 PM


foreveryoung writes:

AGW falls on its face.

Wow, AGW disproved in 4 short sentences and a handful of simple numbers. All those scientists must feel like total fools!


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2016 7:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 302 of 452 (794661)
11-19-2016 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by foreveryoung
11-18-2016 7:01 PM


Are you actually sure that an increase of only 0.045% of solar radiation directly reaching the surface rather than being caught in the upper atmosphere is sufficient ?

Even assuming that the figures are correct, surely some of that energy caught by the ozone layer would have radiated downwards as heat.

And you will pardon me questioning the accuracy of figures when you use units of watts per second, which is rather obviously wrong. Perhaps, if you quote the correct figures - with the correct units, a comparison could be made


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2016 7:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 303 of 452 (794663)
11-19-2016 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by foreveryoung
11-18-2016 7:01 PM


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

http://www.bloomberg.com/...ics/2015-whats-warming-the-world

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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2016 7:01 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by foreveryoung, posted 12-04-2016 12:35 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 304 of 452 (794689)
11-19-2016 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by foreveryoung
08-04-2016 9:47 PM


I take this to mean that man made additions of carbon dioxide warm the planet. Where is your proof ...

for the evidence see Message 303

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by foreveryoung, posted 08-04-2016 9:47 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 305 of 452 (794692)
11-19-2016 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Modulous
11-19-2016 12:09 AM


By chlorofluorocarbons since WW2
This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2016 12:09 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Modulous, posted 11-20-2016 9:34 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 306 of 452 (794697)
11-20-2016 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by foreveryoung
11-19-2016 10:18 PM


By chlorofluorocarbons since WW2

Was that caused by a volcano eruption or giant undersea earthquake? I completely missed it.

See I thought that CFCs, that you credit the increased warming of the earth to, were anthropogenic compunds. But then you just finished telling me that anthropogenic global warming had fallen flat on its face.

AGW falls on its face.

Apparently it doesn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by foreveryoung, posted 11-19-2016 10:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2716
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 307 of 452 (794698)
11-20-2016 9:54 AM


Given that there is such a push for change right now how screwed are we really we are at 1.2 + got here from 0.9 + last year. And given that there is a tendency to be less alarmist then you should while doing research in global warming, a tenancy of even the worst models falling off the mark to actual measurements are we done for ?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by jar, posted 11-20-2016 10:03 AM frako has not yet responded
 Message 310 by Taq, posted 11-21-2016 5:30 PM frako has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 308 of 452 (794699)
11-20-2016 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by frako
11-20-2016 9:54 AM


solution is easy
Not if we stop measuring. If we didn't take all those measurements there would be no global warming.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by frako, posted 11-20-2016 9:54 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 309 of 452 (794720)
11-21-2016 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by foreveryoung
11-18-2016 7:01 PM


foreveryoung writes:

There is no need to imagine radiative forcing due to carbon dioxide when you have had almost 50 years of roughly 3% extra ultraviolet B radiation warming the ocean. The ultraviolet B radiation is roughly 1.5% of total irradiance from the sun.

How are we "imagining" the greenhouse effect? Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will trap more heat. Period. It is an inescapable fact of physics. If we have more heat coming in due to higher input from the Sun, then more of that heat will be trapped compared to an atmosphere with 25% less CO2. That would be a double whammy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2016 7:01 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 9:13 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 310 of 452 (794721)
11-21-2016 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by frako
11-20-2016 9:54 AM


Given that there is such a push for change right now how screwed are we really we are at 1.2 + got here from 0.9 + last year. And given that there is a tendency to be less alarmist then you should while doing research in global warming, a tenancy of even the worst models falling off the mark to actual measurements are we done for ?

Would you walk into a laboratory and drink the first liquid you came across? Perhaps you would grab a saline solution and be fine. Perhaps not. Is it worth the risk?

What we know is that we did very, very well with the climate from the last several thousand years. We also know that infrastructure and political power is based on certain regions having a certain climate. What happens if we change all that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by frako, posted 11-20-2016 9:54 AM frako has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 311 of 452 (795011)
12-04-2016 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by RAZD
11-19-2016 9:42 AM


You do realize the oceans emit carbon dioxide when they warm....the warmer, the more co2 emittance. You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans.

As for the ozone plot, all I see is arm waving, no concrete evidence. They don't state how much energy has been allowed to reach the surface, particularly the oceans, since the ozone began to be depleted. They state that ozone traps heat in the lower atmosphere and hand wave that this balances out any extra heat let in from the lower concentrations in the upper atmosphere.

No one, has proven that greenhouse gases warm the earth beyond what they warm at very low preindustrial concentrations. Wishful thinking and hubristic claims don't cut it. You have not proven co2 warms the atmosphere much less ozone in the lower atmosphere.

If given a steady amount of solar irradiance at the surface, any warming of the atmosphere is totally due to any slowdown in the release of long wave radiation at the edge of the atmosphere.

Show me your math on how greenhouse gases slow this release down beyond preindustrial levels. You have to take nitrogen and oxygen into account and convection and conduction into account as well. In particular, show how radiative processes involving co2 slow the long wave radiation release into space beyond what nitrogen and oxygen and conduction and convection already do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2016 9:42 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2016 12:55 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 313 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2016 1:12 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 314 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2016 8:39 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 312 of 452 (795013)
12-04-2016 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by foreveryoung
12-04-2016 12:35 AM


You do realize the oceans emit carbon dioxide when they warm....the warmer, the more co2 emittance. You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans.

But if this was what was going on, then the concentration of oceanic CO₂ would be going down. But it's going up.

If it's increasing in the atmosphere and in the oceans, where can it be coming from? Could we perhaps be emitting 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year by burning fossil fuels? I think that might be it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by foreveryoung, posted 12-04-2016 12:35 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10115
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


(4)
Message 313 of 452 (795014)
12-04-2016 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by foreveryoung
12-04-2016 12:35 AM


You do realize the oceans emit carbon dioxide when they warm....the warmer, the more co2 emittance. You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans.

True as far as it goes. It is certainly the case that CO2, like most gases, is less soluble in warmer water. But you are failing to see the consequences in perspective What you describe is part of the positive feedback that makes CO2 generation and release to the atmosphere a bad idea. Yes, warming does release some Co2 from the oceans, but that in turn produces more warming.

As for the ozone plot, all I see is arm waving, no concrete evidence. They don't state how much energy has been allowed to reach the surface, particularly the oceans, since the ozone began to be depleted

What I see is you jumping from excuse to excuse. Remember when your proposal was based on photons not existing.

No one, has proven that greenhouse gases warm the earth beyond what they warm at very low preindustrial concentrations

You sound just like a Tobacco Institute spokesman from the 60s and 70s when they insisted that no one has ever seen any element of cigarette smoke actually produce lung cancer. Prove is a not a scientific word. Not even the theory of general relativity has been proven. The best scientific explanation is AGW, and there is plenty of evidence for the phenomenon, and little reason other than wishful thinking to deny the explanation.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by foreveryoung, posted 12-04-2016 12:35 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 314 of 452 (795020)
12-04-2016 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by foreveryoung
12-04-2016 12:35 AM


You do realize the oceans emit carbon dioxide when they warm....

Among other sources of CO2 ...

Do you know where that CO2 in the oceans came from?

....the warmer, the more co2 emittance. You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans.

and why are the oceans warming? Hint: it rhymes with mobile warning ...

Show me your math on how greenhouse gases slow this release down beyond preindustrial levels. ...

Curiously the math is built into the models that show the effect of the various elements to global warming.

... You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. ...

You see a smooth curve rise of CO2 caused temperature from the mathematical model that fits well the the jagged curve of actual measurement of temperature (with daily and seasonal variations). That smooth rise curve is the result of the maths.

... You have to take nitrogen and oxygen into account and convection and conduction into account as well. In particular, show how radiative processes involving co2 slow the long wave radiation release into space beyond what nitrogen and oxygen and conduction and convection already do.

As noted in the article they took those and more factors into consideration, and the only causes that showed matches to the actual temperature pattern were the greenhouse gasses.

No one, has proven that greenhouse gases warm the earth beyond what they warm at very low preindustrial concentrations. Wishful thinking and hubristic claims don't cut it. You have not proven co2 warms the atmosphere much less ozone in the lower atmosphere.

These graphs demonstrate that the only match between cause and effect is the greenhouse gasses model rising curve to the actual temperature overall pattern.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by foreveryoung, posted 12-04-2016 12:35 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1592
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(7)
Message 315 of 452 (795823)
12-17-2016 6:52 PM


Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming
I ran across this on the Skeptoid website.

The Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming

It provides a very nice description of measurements and observations that show how the sources of carbon in the atmosphere are determined.

quote:
I'm not going to mention climate models, politics, predictions, economics, or how many scientists agree or disagree any of the topics on which there is debate. I'm only going to share a few of the most solid basics, the results of absolute measurements, over which there is no debate. These are the things nobody disagrees with, but so few people understand. Despite its contentious topic, this episode is intended to be and should be completely non-controversial.

The article also describes how measurements using spectrometry show that the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and ozone are the primary sources of heat in the atmosphere and what percentage of each is responsible.

quote:
Water vapor, which is the most prominent, defines the basic shape of the greenhouse spectrum. Most of the infrared radiation that escapes the Earth goes through a window left open by water vapor, which we call the infrared window.

quote:
Spectroscopy is hard science. We don't have to model or predict. Simply by pointing our instruments at the sky, we can, right now, directly observe and identify the greenhouse gases, and measure exactly how much radiative energy the atmosphere is absorbing and keeping here on Earth. This direct, non-ambiguous spectroscopic reading is the "smoking gun" that proves the excess heat energy being trapped in our atmosphere is due to CO2. That excess CO2 is produced by humans burning fossil fuels.

I couldn't see any obvious flaws in this article and it has a short list of references at the end.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2016 2:45 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded
 Message 317 by Taq, posted 12-20-2016 4:51 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017