Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Ace Otana]

I can't stand global warming deniers.

[KichigaiNeko]

It's the AGW bit I have issue with.

The Climate WILL change and just what the fuck do YOU (puny little man thing) can do about it??





zilch.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Sciworks]

[CapnAwesome]

I happen to believe that the rainforest is cutting itself down, it has nothing to do with man. We know that areas naturally become forested and deforested, it's been going on like this for years. Here is a confusing chart with some wiggily lines to impress you.



Now that you are very impressed with my squiggly line chart, you can clearly see I am right. That stupid rainforest.

[Aractus]

Wish I could say the same about how you reached your conclusion. A very lazy google search would bring up a wiki and dozens of articles - including a NYT article, which was mined for one quote earlier- where he specifically and unequivocally states that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that we're releasing it into the atmosphere, and that this should warm the climate. He has a theory (that competing theory bit we'll get to in a moment) as to how all of this is handled by our rock, but at no point does he dispute that our activities have effects. His view, Aract, is that the earth is capable of counteracting the warming that we cause...... Again, he is a not an AGW skeptic, but a catastrophic AGW skeptic. He disputes the predictive power of the models offered up, not the science. What may have happened here (and this happens often) is that you've bought into the propaganda that anyone who is skeptical of any part of the predictive models we see being advanced politically is a "climate science denier". It's easier to call someone a climate science denier (imply that there are a nut - essentially) than it is to address a persons criticisms of a predictive model. You wanted an AGW skeptic, Lindzen is not such a person - though there has been an effort to paint him as such - by the very people who would dismiss your criticisms out of hand, and unfortunately it seems to have worked......

OK. I've seen Lindzen talk many times, including last year live in a TV interview. You seem to be twisting his position somewhat. He takes the default scientific position on AGW, and furthermore he does not believe that CO2 is the cause of the 2th century warming trend. He believes CO2 should have caused some warming, but as the Earth is always warming and cooling anyway it's practically impossible to discern the amount from the natural climate change activity. That's his position.

Of course you don't need one, but it's useful in attempting to explain or describe the same demonstrable fact that your opponents are attempting to explain or describe - which is precisely what he was doing in.

Don't be ridiculous.

In his case, it was the iris hypothesis. Again, Lindzen does not make the claim that AGW is not credible, he doubts the predictive power of the models offered by what he considers climate alarmists. I'll say this again because it clearly isn't sinking in. Lindzen -does not- make the claim that AGW is not credible, quite the opposite...as his hypothesis was an explanation of how the earth would react to this warming by essentially lowering it's sensitivity.

You really aren't giving up are you? Lindzen is one of the biggest opponents to the theory regarding positive feedback from water vapour that there is. He doesn't believe water vapour contributes to CO2's warming power ... and as such he doesn't believe that the present climate trend is derived "solely" by anthropogenic gasses since the climate modelling requires positive feedback from water vapour. His exact words on the matter are something along the lines of expecting a positive feedback from water vapour is like hitting the breaks in your car and expecting a positive feedback from the velocity and momentum of the vehicle.

This "thesis" has already been tested, starting waaaay back in the 1600's continuing on to the 1820's by Jan Baptista van Helmont and Joseph Fourier (the discoverers of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect respectively). Continuing on until the late 1800s the basis of all of this was expanded upon, observed, experimented with, repeated, passed review, and holds to this very day. Something tells me that you won't be shaking the foundations of climate science here on AF but I'll bite anyway.

So what? General Relativity has its basis way back at the dawn of the 20th century, and despite its success, it has its flaws and we don't expect it to be a complete theory.

What I asked is how much is the greenhouse effect, the truth is that nobody knows exactly. Yes we try to model it and calculate it, but really nobody knows exactly how much warming the greenhouse effect itself actually has. However, most believe it is about 33 degrees (Celsius). CO2's contribution, most believe, is between 5-10% of that total. So 1.7-3.3 degrees. So even if the contribution to the greenhouse effect is as much as 10%, climate alarmists are imagining that increasing the level of CO2 by 1/4 will cause it to DOUBLE or TREBEL its contribution to the greenhouse effect! Of course that's entirely counterintuitive, and moreover, unrealistic.

2. Numbers get bigger, numbers get smaller, this is what data "says", but you didn't really want to argue over my choice of words or anything did you? You had a healthier objection I'm sure........

The UHIE may account for some of the trend.

3. Yes we do, it's called the greenhouse effect, which again, has been understood for well over 200 years, has stood up to scrutiny more pertinent and well informed than what little you're attempting to offer - and has long since passed into the territory of a fact.

You seem to be having an argument over whether or not the Earth has a greenhouse effect........ ..........

• You can stuff as many words and requests into this criticism as you like, but please understand that you are arguing against the greenhouse effect - so at least give me something to chew on.

Total nonsense. I just don't think it's possible to increase the greenhouse effect so easily using trace gasses.

5. In what way would you argue against the greenhouse effect by reference to the medieval warm period? For the very last time, you aren't having an argument over whether or not warming can be achieved naturally (unless, again, it;s with yourself) but whether or not the current warming we see is an effect of a natural cycle or our activities. Focus.

Again, I want to point out the level of evidence that Mann requires to reach his conclusions. Mann tells people that he's sure and certain that the MWP was localized. He thinks the science is totally settled on that.

Were you under the impression that the only thing operating in the greenhouse effect (or GW) was ir absorption by carbon?

I'm under the impression that CO2 and H20 make up the vast majority of the effect as far as mean surface temperature is concerned. O3 has almost zilch effect to mean surface temperature (in fact it probably decreases it rather than increases it since it absorbs IR straight from the source and not the reflection of it from the Earth).

In any case, in good faith, when you hear explanations of ir absorption you've missed something. When carbon absorbs radiation - it doesn't just go away. Eventually the molecule releases that radiation and this is where increased levels of carbon can cause some trouble. When it releases that radiation another carbon molecule (which as you have mentioned - is pretty damned good at absorbing radiation) can pick it up, and the initial molecule is free to absorb some more.

That's absolute nonsense, I don't know who explained the greenhouse effect to you! How do you expect to create heat AND re-radiate the same IR out?

I've gotta say amigo, for an attempt to "pick apart" a post......that was dismal.

You have a way to go yet.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, Aract, I'm having an argument over whether or not the earth has a greenhouse effect, and whether or not we are dumping metric shitloads of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere exacerbating this effect. Do you know why? Because that's one portion of what AGW -is-. It's not the doomsday models, it's not the political agenda. For one shining moment it seemed like we might find some common ground as you seem to be in opposition to the models, the agenda - but then - if I'm reading you correctly, you casually mentioned that you just don't see how it's possible to achieve or enhance the greenhouse effect using trace gas? Being that the trace gas in question is a greenhouse gas - which has been demonstrably shown (in principle, in the lab, in commercial application, in environmental sciences - there is no dispute as to what greenhouse gas does - none- it's settled) to have such an effect- I'm at a loss to explain this to you in any other way.....

Regardless of whether or not the earth is in a natural warming cycle - the greenhouse effect will be -in effect-. Enhancing this effect in any way (like, say, dumping metric shitloads of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere) means that we are responsible for this portion of whatever warming we experience. It does not mean that the models you see are accurate. It does not mean that the legislation you see is prudent. It would be dismally easy to discredit this, all we have to do is pump a dense amount of greenhouse gas into an area and observe a cooling in temperature (won't happen). All we have to do is observe a mechanism operating here on the earth counteracting the effect (like Lindzens iris) - hasn't happened.

[Sciworks]

[SteelCurtain]

[Minimalist]

He probably works for a coal company.