New report on climate change released today

[angelo]

You ask that as if to state that the composition of the atmosphere has no impact on surface temperature. That is especially so since you follow with:




What are the characteristics of each of those various gases with respect to infrared radiation?

Look at Carbon 0.04%? If you think that minute trace element would possibly make any difference to world climate, then you must also believe homeopathic remedies work as well!

Percentage is irrelevant. You need to look at absolute amount of greenhouse gases.

If you take all 0.04% of CO2 and liquefy it, it would be roughly 4mm of liquid CO2 over the atmosphere which is a gigantic amount of matter capable to blank selected regions of spectrum

N2, O2, are two atom molecules and as far as infra-red concerned are 100% transparent.
H2O and CO2 are three atom molecules and because of that have additional degrees of freedom which are conveniently located in infra-red region corresponding to average surface temperature.

Astronomers have to launch their telescopes into space because of CO2 and H2O.

I was taught science as experimentation and observation not imputing computer modeling to get a desired result as is done by 99.9% of so called " climate scientists!"

By the way, I'm still waiting for just one catastrophe as predicted by the alarmists to befall the earth because of GW/CC over the last 40 years! to have come to pass. Just one!

So Far the global warming activists have a batting average of 0.000 in the predictions of GW/CC calamities. They literally haven't gotten a single prediction right yet. Doesn't that sow at least some sliver of doubt that is because there is no GW/CC crisis?

 

[angelo]

This is what is known as "junk science".

It really is a religion, a cult.

Are you under the illusion that your contentless sniping comments constitute a rebuttal?

We know that you don't think climate change is a real and serious issue. A shit ton of evidence has been presented that shows that it is; If all you have in rebuttal is these stupid reiterations of your unsupported personal belief, there is no reason whatsoever why anyone should start to agree with you, rather than with the scientific consensus.

Your belief has been noted and ignored as the valueless claim we can all see it to be. You can either start presenting some evidence for your position; Or STFU; Or continue to make a fool of yourself by coming up with variations on the theme of 'Nu-uh' like a stubborn three year old. It's your call.

What evidence would that be. The computer modeling trotted out every 4 years or so by a discredited UN and one of it's bodies?

 

[angelo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY

The clown prince extraordinaire of physicists. His attempt to get a laugh raises utter contempt of the man. Compare that clown to a real physicist..................................https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/freeman-dyson-and-the-irresistible-2009-04-30/

 

[AirPoh]

Percentage is irrelevant. You need to look at absolute amount of greenhouse gases.

If you take all 0.04% of CO2 and liquefy it, it would be roughly 4mm of liquid CO2 over the atmosphere which is a gigantic amount of matter capable to blank selected regions of spectrum

N2, O2, are two atom molecules and as far as infra-red concerned are 100% transparent.
H2O and CO2 are three atom molecules and because of that have additional degrees of freedom which are conveniently located in infra-red region corresponding to average surface temperature.

Astronomers have to launch their telescopes into space because of CO2 and H2O.

I was taught science as experimentation and observation not imputing computer modeling to get a desired result as is done by 99.9% of so called " climate scientists!"

Obviously you were taught before there was computer and your education sucked.

By the way, I'm still waiting for just one catastrophe as predicted by the alarmists to befall the earth because of GW/CC over the last 40 years! to have come to pass. Just one!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0QbuFd__IBgxwcIImAtVe6&ust=1547300550927730

So Far the global warming activists have a batting average of 0.000 in the predictions of GW/CC calamities. They literally haven't gotten a single prediction right yet. Doesn't that sow at least some sliver of doubt that is because there is no GW/CC crisis?

"global warming activists" = denialists, so you are right.

 

[repoman]

I DARE TSwizzle and angelo to watch some potholer54 videos on this topic with an open mind.


Here is the playlist



https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

If your stance is strong and justified then it will be easy to describe why potholer 54 is full of shit.

 

[TSwizzle]

Obviously you were taught before there was computer and your education sucked.

By the way, I'm still waiting for just one catastrophe as predicted by the alarmists to befall the earth because of GW/CC over the last 40 years! to have come to pass. Just one!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0QbuFd__IBgxwcIImAtVe6&ust=1547300550927730

LOL ! Wildfires in California are a natural and necessary phenomenon. The Camp fire was started by humans (wonky power line) and made worse by irresponsible forest management and city planners that choked escape routes with lane reductions that cost people their lives.

Pathetic you try to use this tragedy for point scoring.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll keep repeating, and no one here or elsewhere can prove me wrong. That it's far from been established that CO2 is causing warming. Climate science has completely ignored either unaware or deliberately that the normal global average temperature for nearl all of the last one billion years has been 2-3C warmer than today.

Not established?!?! What's causing the 14C of greenhouse effect the Earth currently experiences?? Unicorn farts?

even the discredited IPCC has established that temperature may have increased 1.5 F in 160 years.

I'm talking about the current greenhouse effect on Earth. Earth would be a pretty chilly place without it! Solar energy + albedo gives what our temperature should be without the atmosphere, we are 14C above that.

Is that so.......................

According to NASA, the gases in Earth's atmosphere include:
Nitrogen — 78 percent.
Oxygen — 21 percent.
Argon — 0.93 percent.
Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent.
Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor.

And how is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

The 14C greenhouse effect isn't controversial, it's simple thermodynamics. Why are you trying to deny it?

 

[barbos]

Percentage is irrelevant. You need to look at absolute amount of greenhouse gases.

If you take all 0.04% of CO2 and liquefy it, it would be roughly 4mm of liquid CO2 over the atmosphere which is a gigantic amount of matter capable to blank selected regions of spectrum

N2, O2, are two atom molecules and as far as infra-red concerned are 100% transparent.
H2O and CO2 are three atom molecules and because of that have additional degrees of freedom which are conveniently located in infra-red region corresponding to average surface temperature.

Astronomers have to launch their telescopes into space because of CO2 and H2O.

I was taught science as experimentation and observation not imputing computer modeling to get a desired result as is done by 99.9% of so called " climate scientists!"

Well, you were taught wrong then.
So you like experiments and observations? I have a proposal for one. On a sunny summer day get in you car, role up windows and stay there for a couple of hours and observe, then get back and report your observations.

By the way, I'm still waiting for just one catastrophe as predicted by the alarmists to befall the earth because of GW/CC over the last 40 years! to have come to pass. Just one!

You can wait for any stupidity. It's a free country.

So Far the global warming activists have a batting average of 0.000 in the predictions of GW/CC calamities. They literally haven't gotten a single prediction right yet. Doesn't that sow at least some sliver of doubt that is because there is no GW/CC crisis?

They have not gotten a single prediction wrong.

 

[repoman]

If man's contribution to carbon dioxide is miniscule, then why has the atmospheric level gone from 280 ppm to 406 ppm?

It is almost as if the 280 ppm was based on a steady fluxes from and to different parts of the atmosphere/ocean/land/vegetation.

Yes, those fluxes are very large numbers, but get your head in the game and realize how this actually works.

I wonder if Dave Rubin would still have this guy on, given the comments:

 

[angelo]

Obviously you were taught before there was computer and your education sucked.

By the way, I'm still waiting for just one catastrophe as predicted by the alarmists to befall the earth because of GW/CC over the last 40 years! to have come to pass. Just one!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0QbuFd__IBgxwcIImAtVe6&ust=1547300550927730

So Far the global warming activists have a batting average of 0.000 in the predictions of GW/CC calamities. They literally haven't gotten a single prediction right yet. Doesn't that sow at least some sliver of doubt that is because there is no GW/CC crisis?

"global warming activists" = denialists, so you are right.

Your link, like ALL links that try defending scientifically proven climate catastrophe doesn't work, because there are none!

 

[angelo]

If man's contribution to carbon dioxide is miniscule, then why has the atmospheric level gone from 280 ppm to 406 ppm?

It is almost as if the 280 ppm was based on a steady fluxes from and to different parts of the atmosphere/ocean/land/vegetation.

Yes, those fluxes are very large numbers, but get your head in the game and realize how this actually works.

I wonder if Dave Rubin would still have this guy on, given the comments:

Yet this rise has had no effect on GW/CC as the temperature has remained stable for over 20 years despite the nearly doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 406 ppm. Which should prove to any honest scientist [ who doesn't depend on government subsidies] that GW/CC has nothing to do with human activity, but is a natural effect of planet Earth's numerous glacial epochs over a billion years!

 

[angelo]

Michael Mann of the infamous " Hockey Stitch?" If that interviewer wished to have any credibility at all, Mr Mann would be the last person on Earth to interview! This man has about as much credibility as Al Gore!

http://leftexposed.org/2016/07/michael-e-mann/

 

[angelo]

deleted

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If man's contribution to carbon dioxide is miniscule, then why has the atmospheric level gone from 280 ppm to 406 ppm?

It is almost as if the 280 ppm was based on a steady fluxes from and to different parts of the atmosphere/ocean/land/vegetation.

Yes, those fluxes are very large numbers, but get your head in the game and realize how this actually works.

I wonder if Dave Rubin would still have this guy on, given the comments:

Yet this rise has had no effect on GW/CC as the temperature has remained stable for over 20 years despite the nearly doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 406 ppm. Which should prove to any honest scientist [ who doesn't depend on government subsidies] that GW/CC has nothing to do with human activity, but is a natural effect of planet Earth's numerous glacial epochs over a billion years!

Head-in-sand again, I see. The temperature has not remained stable for the last 20 years. What has happened is a major outlier--1998--has become basically the norm. Furthermore, you're ignoring the lag time inherent in a system as large as the Earth. If I go set the water heater to 160, open the drain and put my hand in it will I be burned? No, because setting it to 160 doesn't mean it immediately becomes 160.

 

[scombrid]

Yet this rise has had no effect on GW/CC as the temperature has remained stable for over 20 years

Except that it hasn't.

despite the nearly doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 406 ppm.

What is the source of all that CO2?

 

[Elixir]

...Yet this rise has had no effect on GW/CC as the temperature has remained stable for over 20 years

Oh yeah.... right.



More kool-aid needed!

 

[TSwizzle]

Yet this rise has had no effect on GW/CC as the temperature has remained stable for over 20 years

Except that it hasn't.

despite the nearly doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 406 ppm.

What is the source of all that CO2?

But it's not the runaway increase that the alarmists would have us believe either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except that it hasn't.




What is the source of all that CO2?

But it's not the runaway increase that the alarmists would have us believe either.

Look at that chart, specifically the 5 year average. See how it's alternating periods of shooting up (when nature and man are both on the up side) with periods of flat or decline (when man is up and nature is down.) Since we cleaned up the smokestacks (the change in the character of the graph we see in the 1960-1980 range) it's going up almost 1C per 50 years. That's shooting up in my book.

 

[angelo]

If man's contribution to carbon dioxide is miniscule, then why has the atmospheric level gone from 280 ppm to 406 ppm?

It is almost as if the 280 ppm was based on a steady fluxes from and to different parts of the atmosphere/ocean/land/vegetation.

Yes, those fluxes are very large numbers, but get your head in the game and realize how this actually works.

I wonder if Dave Rubin would still have this guy on, given the comments:

Yet this rise has had no effect on GW/CC as the temperature has remained stable for over 20 years despite the nearly doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 406 ppm. Which should prove to any honest scientist [ who doesn't depend on government subsidies] that GW/CC has nothing to do with human activity, but is a natural effect of planet Earth's numerous glacial epochs over a billion years!

Head-in-sand again, I see. The temperature has not remained stable for the last 20 years. What has happened is a major outlier--1998--has become basically the norm. Furthermore, you're ignoring the lag time inherent in a system as large as the Earth. If I go set the water heater to 160, open the drain and put my hand in it will I be burned? No, because setting it to 160 doesn't mean it immediately becomes 160.

The fact remains that for over 160 years the global temperature has increased by a measly 1.4 Fahrenheit. That's according to the buffoons at the discreteted UN run IPCC, and most of that rise in temperature has occurred before the industrial revolution when CO2 was around 280ppm as compared to over 400ppm today.

 

[angelo]

...Yet this rise has had no effect on GW/CC as the temperature has remained stable for over 20 years

Oh yeah.... right.

View attachment 19707

More kool-aid needed!

If you were a teacher at a uni or even a lower grade of education I was in charge of. I wouldn't let you anywhere near easily brainwashed students!