Some scientists think extreme weather events connected to climate change

Some scientists think extreme weather events connected to climate change
Credit: NOAA.gov

Recent heavy rains in Texas and the deadly heat wave in India are indicators that climate change, brought on by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is most likely enhancing the effects of these extreme weather events, according to climatologist Jim White, director of CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research.

"There is so much additional in the atmosphere today that our climate we know is modified by greenhouse gases – by the additional energy that comes from that," White said. "The in India is quite consistent with what we expect to see in the future. Heat waves, in general, we expect to increase, not only in areas like India, but we expect them to increase in the United States as well."

According to a new study by Swiss researchers published in Nature Climate Change, world-wide are increasing with regularity, indicators that these events are becoming part of the Earth's over-all climate pattern.

But, White says, it's one thing to know these events will happen in the future but predicting when and where they will happen is something we can't do.

"We can generally say that we expect more precipitation in a warmer world because the atmosphere just holds more moisture," he said. "That's not terribly comforting, however, because where it rains is really important. Because if it's raining out over the ocean that doesn't do us any good. And so predicting where it rains is not an easy thing to do. What we do think is going to happen is as the atmosphere warms up we'll get more rain per event. So convective storms - thunderstorms – we expect to get stronger."

There are other aspects of that White says are up for debate. One is the increase of cutoff lows – a weather event similar to what happened in Colorado in 2013, that caused widespread flooding along the Front Range.

"There are other aspects of climate and weather that we argue about having to do with slower moving storms - more of what we call 'cutoff lows' where you have a low pressure system that is cut off from the jet stream," White said. "It just idles and continues to dump rain or snow in one location. Features like that we argue about but we do expect features like that to increase in the future."

White says right now there are two things happening that can be directly attributed to climate change – rising sea levels caused by melting glaciers and the shrinking arctic ice sheet.

"The Arctic is warming up," he said. "Sea ice in the Arctic is going away. Sea level is rising and that is also quite attributable to a warmer world. And it's very difficult for people to grasp just how dynamic that impact is. So we expect a significant rise over the next several hundred years just from the CO2 we have in the atmosphere today. The amount of we expect is something on the order of 10 to 20 meters. So you are talking 30 feet or more."

According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest one percent of storms has risen nearly 20 percent on average in the United States—almost three times the rate of increase in total precipitation between 1958 and 2007. According to the report, the Northeast alone has seen a 74 percent increase in the amount of rain or snow falling in the heaviest storms.


Explore further

This has been a month of extreme weather around the world

Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Citation: Some scientists think extreme weather events connected to climate change (2015, June 3) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-scientists-extreme-weather-events-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
167 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 03, 2015
"A pirate shortage caused global warming."
http://www.buzzfe...p0Vorqje
"One of the first things you learn in any statistics class is that correlation doesn't imply causation."

Jun 03, 2015
If you could understand science...
But I little bit understand when something is more to beliefs than to science.
"gunpowder in a chamber and a bullet exiting the barrel" has a direct correlation, irrefutable.
But 0.04% (400 parts per million), hard to prove direct correlation, controversial.

Jun 03, 2015

That's like claiming that explosions of gunpowder in a chamber and a bullet exiting the barrel at high velocity are probably unrelated. If you could understand science, you would see why this comparison is valid.
]

On the other hand:
That's like claiming weather and Global Warming are probably related. If you could understand science, you would see why this comparison is not valid.

Jun 03, 2015
I live in Colorado, the floods were the worst anyone has ever seen in there life time.
Thankfully not a lot of people died.
Last time the mountain canyons flooded was in the 70s. They said the flood was so bad, it was a one in 1000 year event, I couldn't go home from work for 3 days because all the bridges were underwater. This May it rained for days apon days, creating the coolest May since record keeping began.

Climate change literally means the climate is changing. I don't know if that will manifest itself in the form of more rain in Colorado, but I guess I'm actually kind of excited to live and find out. Maybe in 50 years there will be different grasses, trees in new places, new reptiles, birds, and amphibians ect

Jun 03, 2015
But 0.04% (400 parts per million), hard to prove direct correlation, controversial.


No, not hard at all, and that 0.04% is closer to 1% in reality as 99% of the atmopshere is transparent to IR (O2 & N2).
We've even measured it's effect (via spectroscoptic analysis) - and it's increasing in line with AGW expectations .........

http://phys.org/n...ect.html

Jun 03, 2015
"A pirate shortage caused global warming."
http://www.buzzfe...p0Vorqje
"One of the first things you learn in any statistics class is that correlation doesn't imply causation."


This would be relevant if we didn't have a good understanding of the physical mechanisms behind climate change and weather, but we do.

The fallacy you note only arises if a correlation is used as the MAIN evidence for a causal relationship, which is not what the scientists are doing.

Rather, they are proposing that one of the predictions of global warming--that of an increase in the number of sever weather events --seems to be happening just as predicted.

Jun 03, 2015
Everyone knows that the increased CO2 has caused a large increase in extreme rainfall events and droughts.

There was no droughts or floods before 1980 when CO2 levels became important.

Jun 03, 2015
Of course climate change brings on weather change.

What is bothersome is that we don't not know exactly why the changes are happening. There are far too many variables to point to one thing, and the lack of temporal data does not allow us to benchmark climate activity.

It is a crime that this change is being used to terrorize and tax the people, and cripple economies that believe wealth distribution is a personal choice to be marketable or not. A war against independent citizens and capitalism is being waged, with climate as one of the weapons.

Meanwhile, Mother Nature watches us in our futile efforts to blame each other for her actions; she is content in her knowledge that what we perceive as her cruelty is nothing but love. Love that we can neither influence, nor determine. Love that is given freely for reasons that only she can know.

Jun 03, 2015
]What is bothersome is that we don't not know exactly why the changes are happening. There are far too many variables to point to one thing, and the lack of temporal data does not allow us to benchmark climate activity.

One again, denglish, old son, not knowing all of the variables is not equivalent to not understanding part of something well enough to form a conclusion about it. For example, we don't know all the variables governing, say adult onset diabetes, either, and yet, we can very competently prevent it and control it.

God, I am so tired of this canard. And you guys just keep repeating it over and over regardless of what people tell you.

I'm going to try something different. It has never worked before, but hey, it might work now. What WOULD you consider evidence that reducing carbon emissions WOULD affect climate change. And, what WOULD you consider evidence AGAINST your claim that climate scientists are charlatans?

Jun 03, 2015
Recent heavy rains in Texas and the deadly heat wave in India are indicators that climate change, brought on by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere....Jim White


Now that's a White lie if I ever saw one.

Jun 03, 2015
What WOULD you consider evidence that reducing carbon emissions WOULD affect climate change.

Consensual agreement from all sides, meaning that both sides claim the same facts. Predictions being proven via observation.

And, what WOULD you consider evidence AGAINST your claim that climate scientists are charlatans?

I don't believe climate scientists are charlatans. I believe their masters are. There is reason to believe that there is too much focus on one contributor to the climate change. That contributor falls in the lap of bodies that seek to regulate. There is A LOT of money being made in by bureaucrats and there is A LOT of economic misery because AGW laws have been passed. Finally, the masters do not practice what they preach.

Jun 03, 2015
Consensual agreement from all sides, meaning that both sides claim the same facts. Predictions being proven via observation
@deng
you mean like having an entire community of scientists actually agreeing on something regardless of cultural, class, religious or other variables which can affect perceptions?
you already ignored that argument: http://iopscience.../article

Even if you don't agree with that study, the underlying fact that the bulk of the evidence shows everything pointing in one direction, so you are ignoring THAT whole point
I don't believe climate scientists are charlatans. I believe their masters are
you mean by the gov't funding of research and how rich all the scientists are getting?
WTF?
1- show me a rich climate scientists who got that way thru gov't funding (not books, etc after the studies)
2- the gov't is mostly AGAINST climate change because they're listening to big oil/$$, etc


Jun 03, 2015
There is A LOT of money being made in by bureaucrats
@deng
politicians making money off of science is NOT new, nor is it justifications for calling science unrelated, charlatans, unbelievable or anything else you've been doing
there is A LOT of economic misery because AGW laws have been passed
again, this is POLITICAL, and not science
Finally, the masters do not practice what they preach
does ANY gov't official?
again, you're arguing POLITICS as though it refutes the science

it doesn't

also: politicians follow the money
PERIOD
that's how they get elected

the MONEY is against AGW
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
that is a proven study

YOUR ARGUMENT is against the political motivations and operators, which is a good one... BUT

there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that the science is wrong based upon your political beliefs

NONE

Jun 03, 2015
Consensual agreement from all sides, meaning that both sides claim the same facts. Predictions being proven via observation.

Thank you for answering. So, let me drop my condescension for a moment and explain to you why I think this is an unreasonable requirement, and see if this makes any sense to you.

From my perspective, there are two sides here, the one based on solid science, and the one based on political pandering. The first side, not just climate science, but other fields in physics) overwhelmingly shows that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will exacerbate GW. Now, whether I am correct in saying this is another issue, and we can certainly discuss that, but you can at least be aware that when you say that all sides must be in agreement it sounds, well, like creationists saying that we can't teach evolution because their flavor of Christianity conflicts with evolution.

(to be continued)

Jun 03, 2015
Some scientists think extreme weather events connected to climate change


Of course they do, they wouldn't be the good little propagandists they are if they didn't.

Jun 03, 2015
(continued)
In other words, there is another side, but they have no good reason for complaining. They only have wishful thinking to back their claim up.

This is why I feel that your requirement is unreasonable. Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine if I swore that Earth was flat, and that even when you showed me photographs of Earth taken from space, and reputable sources showing that the earth is an oblate spheriod, I still resisted and said that all sides needed to be considered. This is what it is like for me. Hence my condescension.

I am not saying that your denial is necessarily on par with that, but I am saying that, to me, that's how it appears, and if you could provide evidence from reputable climate scientists, not bloggers, not lawyers, but those actually educated in this stuff, and not taken out of context, then I would certainly consider it to be evidence.

I don't need all sides to agree. Just the majority of those who know enough to be taken seriously.

Jun 03, 2015
and if you could provide evidence from reputable climate scientists, not bloggers, not lawyers, but people actually educated in this stuff, and not taken out of context, then I would certainly consider it to be evidence.
@thefurlong
thanks for putting this into words AGAIN...

i can't speak for anyone else, but i follow the evidence

so far, the BULK of the posters here tend to promote a political or a known debunked/fallacious argument which is not scientific at all
and usually it is motivated by politics, religion or some other non-science based emotional response

it boils down to the direction the evidence takes us
the evidence based upon using the scientific method to establish a protocol that removes bias as well as provides for methodology of validation (or refutation)


Jun 03, 2015
you already ignored that argument: http://iopscience.../article

Science by populism. No.

Even if you don't agree with that study, the underlying fact that the bulk of the evidence shows everything pointing in one direction, so you are ignoring THAT whole point

Nope

the gov't funding of research and how rich all the scientists are getting?

No, how rich the politicians are getting, and how crippling the legislation is to economies.

WTF?

Exactly

1- show me a rich climate scientists w

Why?

2- the gov't is mostly AGAINST climate change because they're listening to big oil

Wrong.

politicians making money off of science is NOT new

Then why are we (you) falling for it again?

again, this is POLITICAL, not science

Yep

there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that the science is wrong

http://c3headline....com/.a/

Jun 03, 2015
I am not saying that your denial is necessarily on par with that, but I am saying that, to me, that's how it appears, and if you could provide evidence from reputable climate scientists, not bloggers, not lawyers, but those actually educated in this stuff, and not taken out of context, then I would certainly consider it to be evidence.


This guys is pretty level-headed:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/


Jun 03, 2015
@denglish
Here is another thing to keep in mind. Suppose that you did provide me with evidence from a reputable climate scientist, and I found it to well researched and plausible. Even then, as a scientist, I should still not be persuaded by that alone. It would just lower my level of certainty in my position from 99% to, say 98.9% and puzzled. I would then do further research on your source and see if I could find corroborating studies. If I couldn't, that's where my level of certainty would remain. On the other hand, if I could find other solid studies disputing your source, well, then my confidence level goes back up to 99%.

But assuming the worst and that the study you provided was not supported by further evidence, I would at least ACKNOWLEDGE that you had furnished evidence in your stance's favor.

Does that sound fair?

Jun 03, 2015
I am not saying that your denial is necessarily on par with that, but I am saying that, to me, that's how it appears, and if you could provide evidence from reputable climate scientists, not bloggers, not lawyers, but those actually educated in this stuff, and not taken out of context, then I would certainly consider it to be evidence.


This guys is pretty level-headed:

http://www.drroys...manmade/


Thank you. Now, before examining this guys claims, let's get some things out of the way. Suppose I point to several reputable sources that offer plausible reasons why this guy's claims are incorrect, and furthermore that he's insincere. Will this make a difference at all to you? I am not asking whether your overall opinion will change. That's unfair. But will you, for example, be less likely to believe that Dr. Spencer's claims should be used as evidence?

Jun 03, 2015
Science by populism
@deng
a study that reviews other studies is not science by populism
quit being an idiot
Why?
your implications above
Then why are we (you) falling for it again?
i'm not
i follow the science
NOT the politics, which is the whole point of my argument
http://c3headline....com/.a/
besides a broken link, it is NOT scientific evidence refuting AGW
it is also NOT a reputable study in a reputable journal etc
get the point yet?
This guys is pretty level-headed
then why is he publishing on a BLOG instead of a study?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE

see thefurlongs comments above also: it is easy to find evidence when you WANT to believe in something
https://www.googl...=Faeries
About 1,130,000 results (0.44 seconds)

another good example of prejudice and religion driving belief over science is JVK
see ANY article about evolution or mutations here on PO

Jun 03, 2015
Thank you. Now, before examining this guys claims, let's get some things out of the way. Suppose I point to several reputable sources that offer plausible reasons why this guy's claims are incorrect, and furthermore that he's insincere. Will this make a difference at all to you? I am not asking whether your overall opinion will change. That's unfair. But will you, for example, be less likely to believe that Dr. Spencer's claims should be used as evidence?


That's the problem with it all. Both sides are saying the other is wrong.

Who to believe? One side is taking money and shutting companies down, the other side is encouraging further discussion.

Its very political. *Too* political.


Jun 03, 2015
@denglish
As a token of sincerity, let me assure you that I know nothing about Dr. Spencer. I had heard his name mentioned, but I don't know what he claims. Thus, from my perspective, it's quite possible that he's correct. Now, I suspect he isn't. I can't really help that, being human as humans are prone to confirmation bias, but I can at least acknowledge this bias, and do what I can make sure to make sure that he gets a fair trial.

Jun 03, 2015
quit being an idiot


Stopped there.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

Jun 03, 2015
2deng cont'd
Then why are we (you) falling for it again?
let me explain something else:
the WHOLE reason that there are charlatans promoting non functional AGW policies or things/policies that will not/do not work are because of people specifically like you, deng

the reason is simple
because you
-refuse to read and acknowledge the science
AND
-ignore the empirical data
AND
-accept the perspective of paid for shills or liars which fly in the face of the BULK of the published science
THEN it is easy to manipulate the politicians into thinking that there is a large contingent of populace which don't agree with the science and motivate them to policies which are based upon greed or stupidity

so YOU are the primary cause of the dissemination of false information
you can see that for yourself above

just because 1 person doesn't agree with the tens of thousands of others with empirical evidence, you are willing to ignore ALL publications for your faith based conjecture

Jun 03, 2015
One thing Dr. Roy has is DATA.

http://www.drroys...ratures/

Jun 03, 2015
@denglish

You didn't answer my question. If I can find reputable studies that dispute Dr. Spencer's claims, will it make a difference to you? Will it, for example, lead you to doubt that Dr. Spencer can be trusted.

Let's turn this around. Suppose that I, instead, acknowledged that Dr. Spencer had a point. What would it mean to you?

Who to believe? One side is taking money and shutting companies down, the other side is encouraging further discussion.


Well, I don't agree, but would it surprise you to say that I can sympathize with your frustration? I feel this way about aspartame. In my experience, it's really difficult to find a study on aspartame I can place my trust in, because for every study decrying the effects of aspartame, there is another study showing that it's harmless. Furthermore, it's clear, at least to me, that there are powerful special interests invested in either side.

Jun 03, 2015
That's the problem with it all. Both sides are saying the other is wrong.

Who to believe?
@deng
how about just ignoring the politics and reading the science for once?

go with the one who has EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Stopped there.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect
nope
it is a label that asserts you are refusing to accept empirical evidence over your personal politics

like i said above

also:
you've made the exact same argument for as long as you have been here to many different posters

to date:
posters like thefurlong, myself and many others have given you empirical evidence
YOU have provided nothing but politics and anything that supports your perception (like dr roy above) while ignoring the empirical evidence which demonstrates dr roy is wrong, and that you are hostile to science

that is a label, not a pejorative

you are intentionally obfuscating the science and using lies to do it for your own personal trolling

Jun 03, 2015
@denglish
Now the case for AGW is very different from that of aspartame. In particular, we don't have a nice seemingly 50/50 split down the middle of expert opinion, but a super majority of one side who is against your claims. Furthermore, even looking at this from a socio-political standpoint, while I acknowledge that green energy stands to gain from curbing emissions, multinational oil companies are FAR more powerful than they are, with deep pockets that have been shown to unfairly sway the political process, and media coverage of topics.

So, to me, on the one side, you have a majority of climate scientists trying to do their job, and yes, a smattering of politically motivated idiots, but on the other, you have giant, powerful, multinational corporations poisoning the well.

Jun 03, 2015
one last point @deng
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.
you also resort to pejoratives as long as you can get a rise out of someone, as demonstrated in other threads... shall i link it?

the problem i see is this:
you are making the same circular argument over and over and completely ignoring all the evidence presented

sometimes you might "see" a point
then later, you resort back to the exact same argument sans evidence

you continually resort to political arguments in a science thread but ignore the science over political dogma

SO what should we do?
start ignoring you and reporting your political posts?

technically, you are trolling because you are intentionally trying to elicit responses and ignoring the topic as well as the science, so it is trolling
it is also spam

best case scenario is you are trolling but are ignorant to the science (and ignoring it, too)

worst case is it is intentional

Jun 03, 2015
In my experience, it's really difficult to find a study on aspartame I can place my trust in...
@thefurlong
relevant AND interesting

try related items as well as aspartame because related studies will likely include aspartame in their reviews or studies
Related Topics include:
Dipeptides
Butyramides
Amino acid derivatives
Propionates
Sweeteners
Aromatic compounds

also, try looking up aspartame on google scholar
https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

not exactly helpful with the bulk of the studies, but perhaps you can find a gem that specifies food substances
If you need access to a ScienceMag article, PM me
Also, inquire to AA_P or Mike with biology and food degree's (respectively)

you can contact me at SciForums or Sapo's Joint and send a Private Message to get my e-mail

PEACE

Jun 03, 2015
@denglish
As a token of sincerity, let me assure you that I know nothing about Dr. Spencer. I had heard his name mentioned, but I don't know what he claims. Thus, from my perspective, it's quite possible that he's correct. Now, I suspect he isn't. I can't really help that, being human as humans are prone to confirmation bias, but I can at least acknowledge this bias, and do what I can make sure to make sure that he gets a fair trial.

I don't doubt your sincerity.

I don't doubt anyone's sincerity. That's what makes it such a controversial topic.

There's just one huge red flag: the bureaucrats are profiting, and their interests are being met.

Read what Spencer says. He's very middle of the road I think.

Jun 03, 2015
I don't doubt your sincerity...

You still haven't answered my questions. It would help if you answered them.

Jun 03, 2015
@thefurlong
relevant AND interesting

try related items as well as aspartame because related studies will likely include aspartame in their reviews or studies

Excellent suggestion, Captain. I hadn't thought of that. I'll look into it.

Unfortunately, while I know a lot of physics, in terms of chemistry, I am just a layman. So, I don't know if just consulting google scholar will help. A good controversy is a product of technical details, not simple, accessible facts. So, when it comes to deciding on actual controversial issues, my strategy has invariably been to look at paper trails, as it is impractical actually try to understand the nuances of the subject at hand. The idea is that I should get a good idea of who is honest, and worth listening to, and who isn't. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked for aspartame. There seem to be liars on both sides.

Jun 03, 2015
You still haven't answered my questions. It would help if you answered them.


Will this make a difference at all to you?

No.

be less likely to believe that Dr. Spencer's claims should be used as evidence?

I don't know enough to decide who's evidence has the most veracity. All I know is that there is another side that seems to make sense, and that the politicians are raking in the dough while wrecking industries.

Did I cover your questions?


Jun 03, 2015
@denglish

Read what Spencer says. He's very middle of the road I think.


Actually, Spencer comes with political and religious baggage and what he writes on his blogs needs to be seen through that prism.

He also starts with anti AGW bias that has led to some bad science.

http://www.thegua...accurate
http://theevoluti...ony2.php
http://scienceblo...ientist/
https://www.heart...-spencer
http://www.source...nstitute


Jun 03, 2015
No.

Then how was it helpful for you to provide Dr. Spencer's research as evidence? It clearly isn't helpful to you, since evidence challenging it would have no bearing on your belief. And, assuming that I find it to be unsatisfactory, it isn't helpful to me, because disputing it will not make a difference in your belief.

In fact, the only way in which this would make a difference is if I found it to be credible and couldn't find any evidence disputing it, which, let's be honest, is not very likely, knowing me. In other words, you are being unfair.

You have nothing to lose because if I dispute it, you can just ignore it. You need not do further research to counter my counter claims. On the other hand, I do have something to lose, for to dispute your claim, I must do research, but this would be in vain, since any research I do to counter your claim would be for naught.

Hence, ultimately, you are asking me to do one of two things: acquiesce, or waste my time.

Jun 03, 2015
Hence, ultimately, you are asking me to do one of two things: acquiesce, or waste my time.

Right. And vice versa, and same with the experts on both sides to boot. No-one can agree. Both sides present evidence that the other side says is bunk. Red-Flags galore.

Yep, this one is so political its absurd. meanwhile, the bureaucrats get rich, and the dependent class grows. My company requires a strong oil market to be well off. We had lay-offs last week? AGW regulation related? Yes.

You bet I'm concerned that not everyone is agreeing on a very complex subject and that there are victims and victors already.

Jun 03, 2015
Hence, ultimately, you are asking me to do one of two things: acquiesce, or waste my time.


Right. And vice versa, and same with the experts on both sides to boot. No-one can agree. Both sides present evidence that the other side says is bunk. Red-Flags galore.

The stuff that Spencer says that rings true with me is, "We just don't know. We haven't turned over enough stones". Not who is wrong and who is right.

Yep, this one is so political its absurd. meanwhile, the bureaucrats get rich, and the dependent class grows. My company requires a strong oil market to be well off. We had lay-offs last week? AGW regulation related? Yes.

You bet I'm concerned that not everyone is agreeing on a very complex subject and that there are victims and victors already.

Jun 03, 2015


My company requires a strong oil market to be well off. We had lay-offs last week? AGW regulation related? Yes.

It had nothing to do with the plunge in crude prices?


Jun 03, 2015
Well, isn't this what I've been saying?

Increase CO2, or insulation, you get warmer, moderated weather.

Increase actual heat, you get more extreme weather. Weather has to move around in response to Le Chatlier's Principle.

QED

Jun 03, 2015
So, this is where WaterDummy/Alche is hiding. He has not made a single comment on the article that blows his entire premise on combustion heat being a driver instead of CO2.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Is it possible he just missed it? No, it is not. He scours these articles to spout his lack of understanding of radiant heat transfer and he just does not dare show his face in the comments on that article.

So, WP/A what is keeping you from commenting there?

Jun 03, 2015
Right. And vice versa,

No, "not vice versa." Don't project your personal qualities on to me. I am not interested in confirming my own bias (at least not intentionally). And you shouldn't be either.

Now, I am willing to have a discussion where I learn something and possibly change my view. I am not saying my overall opinion would change in the near future, but it's entirely possible, as I am a neophyte in the technicalities of climate change, that you could present me with something that forces me to question beliefs that I hold, which might not be on such firm ground.

But what I am not willing to do is engage in a conversation that consists of variations of "I'm right, and you're wrong, and that thing you just said is wrong because I have an unshakable worldview."

So, you have two choices. You could agree to have a respectful, open minded discussion, or we could go back to me assailing you with penis jokes because, frankly, the latter is far more amusing.

Jun 04, 2015
This week's Global Warming propaganda piece, right on schedule. I would worry if there was one week without a new one.

Jun 04, 2015
Well, isn't this what I've been saying?

Increase CO2, or insulation, you get warmer, moderated weather.

Increase actual heat, you get more extreme weather. Weather has to move around in response to Le Chatlier's Principle.

QED


AAaaahhh waterclowney, so glad you're back, you've been missing out on the fun and we so desperately want to poke some more fun at you.... lets not waste time and get you started... oopp.. i see Thermodynamics just sent you a bright new shiny red nose, (you can ditch the old one.. ;) WaterMonkey's got some catching up to do.... :D

C'mon manup and mn your antigoracle's monkey acount as well, show us your inner monkey :D

Jun 04, 2015
Robgobbed himself right in the face with that last comment... and got a stellar 1 out of 5 for it.
This weeks Article Got it right on target and the Scientific Emperical Evidence is always there to back it up.

Jun 04, 2015
Who to believe?

@deng
how about just ignoring the politics and reading the science for once?

go with the one who has EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


Well said Captain, Stop crying and try to and understand the clear words Captain spoke above.

Jun 04, 2015
WillieWard claimes with usual unthinking jibe as a paid flunky
"One of the first things you learn in any statistics class is that correlation doesn't imply causation."
The far more correct cliche is of course:-
"Correlation doesnt necessarily prove causation" because WillieWard the obfuscator (who should be banned for being obtuse & anti-science) that without the physics/maths combination

The whole point about AGW is paid flunky robots like WillieWard CANNOT physics, they didnt get an education in heat & especially enthalpy.

There is correlation between CO2, heat & enthalpy beyond small mass of atmosphere, this correlation is given causative import by virtue of the physics.

The link WillieWard offered re bizarre correlations excellently shows nil physic connections eg pirates <-> AGW which is correct because there is obviously NO physics connection

AGW is founded on experimental evidence, proven physics & is irrefutable, science of heat is Settled

Jun 04, 2015
ROBTHEGOB FAILs to delineate science from propaganda with this one-D blurt
This week's Global Warming propaganda piece, right on schedule
Prove it, you come across as a mindless robot, software can replace your jibes easily, just as unintelligent, just as futile, just as scripted, nil dialectic ie ugly !

ROBTHEGOB explain this
"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2, with well proven & irrefutable thermal properties to the atmosphere, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity - ie Heat retention ?"

ROBTHEGOB claimed
I would worry if there was one week without a new one.
No. You don't care you come across so easily and transparently as a paid flunky.

You are following a commercial/political agenda and ignoring the settled Science, in particular:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

AND
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

ROBTHEGOB this site is not the equivalent of marching along the streets with placards, its for Science !

Jun 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Well, isn't this what I've been saying?
No, you straggled the fence with each way bet, you claimed CO2 acts as an insulator making for less extreme weather because your reasoning was more ven heat but, you FORGOT existing temp differentials will remain in place for a while whilst extremes re equatorial vs polar increase overall, eg India 1100+ died from about a dozen days > 48 C !

Water_Prophet claims
Increase CO2, or insulation, you get warmer, moderated weather
Moderated how/why ?

Water_Prophet contradicts Increase actual heat, you get more extreme weather Keh ? Your problems; nil detail, nil physics results in flawed rationalisations, faulty logic, no foundation in critical thinking because you have no grounding in (critical) Physics, your posts evidentiary !

Appeal to your 'authority' of "4 technical degrees" failed dismally, you proved you are a LIAR & flake & rely on google !

Show your calc of 0.00009W/m^2 for CO2 ?

Jun 04, 2015
"It is a crime that this change is being used to terrorize and tax the people, and cripple economies that believe wealth distribution is a personal choice to be marketable or not. A war against independent citizens and capitalism is being waged, with climate as one of the weapons."

That was a five star comment.

Meanwhile in LaLa Land California just passed the law requiring more renewables and higher energy efficiencies. Brilliant, they just solved the water problem as flocks of businesses leave and jobless people go to greener pastures.

Jun 04, 2015
WillieWard claims
But I little bit understand when something is more to beliefs than to science
No. That is an immense & tangential oversimplification coming from; uneducated, untrained & undisciplined mind clouded by operant conditioning of paid flunky who values meager income ahead of integrity & investigation into truth that only thigher mature approach to the Scientific Method offers = Your "bit understand" !

Science CONNECTs the data with Physics & Statistical analysis, sets up controls, eliminates effects of variables & crafts definitive experiment CONVERGE on the essential truth.

Politics/Commercial interest that gain income regardless of Physics find a lazy path to marginalise Science !

WillieWard states
"gunpowder in a chamber and a bullet exiting the barrel" has a direct correlation, irrefutable
No. There is a correlation but, without the Physics AND the many experiments have provide a framework the scientific theory as such is reliable

cont

Jun 04, 2015
Willieward FAILs in his claim
But 0.04% (400 parts per million), hard to prove direct correlation, controversial
No !
You have come across as immensely lacking in integrity because, if you had actually bothered to gain any education in Physics in all the time since you joined phys.org in 2011, you wouldn't blurt what is clear activity as a paid flunky spreading ugly obfuscation & dumb/stupid propaganda, how obviously paid can you be ?

Prove your claim that its 'hard to prove' ? eg direct correlation, its easy, starts with Physics/Maths
https://en.wikipe...transfer

With more detail here
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

As experiment proves

Unfortunately the vast bulk of AGW deniers have NO education in the Physics of Heat, yet they can't see they are stupid to make Scientific claims.

Williward you have NO credibility & FAILED again, this is a science forum not street placard day !

Jun 04, 2015
Direct correlation: "More CO2 Means More Plant Growth"
It can help reducing "World Hunger" as well stopping future Glaciations.
"Perhaps the best known consequence of enriching the air with CO2 is that plant growth and development is enhanced. This is because, at a fundamental level, carbon dioxide is the basis of almost all life on Earth;..."
"Consequently, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow, be they terrestrial or aquatic. Such has been the conclusion of literally hundreds of laboratory and field experiments conducted over the years."
http://www.plants...emid=325

Jun 04, 2015
WillieWard claims
Direct correlation: "More CO2 Means More Plant Growth"
Incomplete, not under all cases, some food plants produce cyanogens ie poison when CO2 goes up Eg Cassava & Clover for cattle - want to eat mean if its contaminated by HCN byproducts. Besides more plant growth means more source for wild fires too, its NOT simple as you imagine, try Science !

WillieWard claims
It can help reducing "World Hunger" as well stopping future Glaciations
Hunger has more to do with

WillieWard quotes
"Perhaps the best known consequence of enriching the air with CO2 is that plant growth and development is enhanced. This is because, at a fundamental level, carbon dioxide is the basis of almost all life on Earth..."
Naive incomplete simple speak for school kids !

CO2 & H2O as inputs subject to equilibria Eg > CO2 needs more water, climates shift so does rain, drought & flood propensity & immensely complex & temps still go up

Learn plant biology & Science !

Jun 04, 2015
"A new study, the first of its kind, performed by researchers at the University of California, Davis, demonstrated the inhibition of wheat crops to convert nitrate into a protein, due to increased CO2 levels, which affects its nutritional value. In the past, studies have exhibited this reaction in plants, but this is the first time it is shown in field grown crops. Lead author of the new study and plant scientist Professor Arnold Bloom said "Food quality is declining under the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that we are experiencing." Plant protein is vital to the entire food chain because humans assimilate it from the plants, or from animals that eat the plants, into energy."
Read more at http://guardianlv...WkghD.99

Jun 04, 2015
WillieWard quotes as if to claim
"Consequently, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow, be they terrestrial or aquatic. Such has been the conclusion of literally hundreds of laboratory and field experiments conducted over the years."
http://www.plants...emid=325
Again naive incomplete unscientific opinion dumbed down for those of mental age of (middle) school kids.

More CO2's doesn't guarantee better growth, they shift equilibria for many reasons consequence of millennia at lower CO2 Eg. More food in humans results in obesity there is NO guarantee more food makes people more powerful or smarter, you are suffering from vain hope as you don't have a basic science education and are driven robotically by commercially inspired graft, bribes as part of propaganda.

Prove the completeness of all your claims ?

Please learn & STOP obfuscating Science !
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Jun 04, 2015
But what I am not willing to do is engage in a conversation that consists of variations of "I'm right, and you're wrong, and that thing you just said is wrong because I have an unshakable worldview."

That makes sense, especially since I have no desire to do the right/wrong thing either. I am far from qualified to do so. That doesn't stop me from saying that AGW as the driver of climate change is pretentious, driving very poor decisions that have far reaching effects to humanity, and not the only game in town.

So, you have two choices. You could agree to have a respectful, open minded discussion, or we could go back to me assailing you with penis jokes because, frankly, the latter is far more amusing.

Open minded is the only thing I've been promoting. None of us is qualified to talk nuts and bolts of climate change, and evidently, even the experts admit there is a lot that isn't understood.

I'm glad you like penis jokes. I don't get it, but I'm still glad for you.

Jun 04, 2015
"It is a crime that this change is being used to terrorize and tax the people, and cripple economies that believe wealth distribution is a personal choice to be marketable or not. A war against independent citizens and capitalism is being waged, with climate as one of the weapons."

That was a five star comment.


I love how "5 star comment" in phys.org has evolved to mean "comment not supported by solid research, but which confirms my bias so hard that I fist pump the air and do my best Howard Dean scream"

You clearly aren't interested in hearing rebuttals, nor are you interested in actually thinking deeply about your own reasons for your opinions. You've already formed them, and it doesn't matter if we reveal solid evidence that your sources are insincere, or don't understand basic climate science, or have no degrees in the subject.

I mean, why even bother pretending to make arguments? Arguments are for debate. And you guys aren't interested in that.

Jun 04, 2015
Open minded is the only thing I've been promoting.

But if you were open minded, you wouldn't have answered no to my question above. An open minded person acknowledges that a rebuttal to his own argument might sway him, even a little. An open minded person is interested in having a thought provoking conversation ON BOTH SIDES. And that is what I am offering to you (and any other denialist commenting here).

As cathartic as mockery of you guys is, I'd like to think that there is some way to bridge the gaping ontological chasm between us. I don't know about you, but I think it's rather depressing that two people could live on the same world and form such diametrically opposed models of it. Don't you think it would be better for us to figure out what the reality is rather than forming biases and endlessly confirming them to ourselves?

Jun 04, 2015
Mikey, since you aksed so nice for once, here is something back for you:

So wat is the difference between warming due to CO2 vs fossil fuels?

Well, one is passive, in other words, the heat is retained longer, rather than generated. I think we both agree retention is the effect of CO2.

But what are the effects of this mechanism? They must be increase in temperature via moderation, I think we both agree.

Contrarily, the effects of release of heat from fossil fuels is an active mechanism. This should cause imbalances or dynamics effects. I think we both agree that this must be true.

The question is what is observed?

Do we have warmer moderated weather, or a warmer more active weather? Is it behaving as if sustained or as if pumped?

Is there more variation or less?

Jun 04, 2015
So wat is the difference between warming due to CO2 vs fossil fuels?

Well, one is passive, in other words, the heat is retained longer, rather than generated. I think we both agree retention is the effect of CO2
A bit oversimplified, but a qualified yes to that.
But what are the effects of this mechanism? They must be increase in temperature via moderation, I think we both agree.
Impossible to assess .. what you claimed doesn't have a clear meaning.
Contrarily, the effects of release of heat from fossil fuels is an active mechanism.
Need clarification on definitions of "active/passive" in context
This should cause imbalances or dynamics effects.
That claim requires strong proof, unless you are just giving your definition of "active".

What is missing here is a mechanistic explanation of your claims. Physically, combustion heat and heat retained from unbalanced GHE are not mechanistically different in how they are distributed environmentally.

Jun 04, 2015
Contrarily, the effects of release of heat from fossil fuels is an active mechanism. This should cause imbalances or dynamics effects. I think we both agree that this must be true.

1) Learn about the green house effect (radiative forcing)
2) Think about how much radiation we get from the sun per year, and how much of it is trapped by greenhouse gases, instead of being reflected back out into space
3) Compare that to the amount of heat released by burning fossil fuels
4) Realize how preposterous is was to suggest that the release of heat from fossil fuels has anything to do at all with global warming.

Also, read this: http://carboncycl...eat.html

God, you guys are terrible at research. Do you understand how google works? I could give you a tutorial, if you need it.

Jun 04, 2015
Well, isn't this what I've been saying?

Increase CO2, or insulation, you get warmer, moderated weather.

Increase actual heat, you get more extreme weather. Weather has to move around in response to Le Chatlier's Principle.

QED

Not even close .. Le Chatlier's principle explains how a system in chemical equilibrium will respond to external pressure. I will agree that it should be extensible (in limited context) to cover systems in thermal equilibrium as well, however the Earth is nowhere near being at thermal equilibrium. The best that we can hope for is "local thermal equilibrium" or LTE, but that is really a misnomer; a better descriptor (especially for a chemist) would be "thermal steady state", where the inputs and outputs are in close enough balance that the observable properties (temperature, pressure, density, etc.) are not changing. Also, the importance of the "local" part of LTE should also not be overlooked; it does not hold globally.

Jun 04, 2015
The only EXTREME, caused by climate change, is the stupidity in the AGW Cult's Chicken Little.

Jun 04, 2015
antigoracle, someone could replace you with a chatbot, and nobody would be the wiser.

Jun 04, 2015
An open minded person is interested in having a thought provoking conversation ON BOTH SIDES. And that is what I am offering to you (and any other denialist commenting here).


Cool. I say there is enough information on the "denier" side to make the AGW side questionable to the extent that citizens should not be taxed, and economies should not be wrecked.

That the predictions of AGW bodies have not been observed casts doubt on the claim that AGW science is settled.

The climate is far more complex than to be suited to a one-answer fits all soltuion, and the Earth has been going through climate change since day one, every day.

There is not near enough information yet to tell either side of the question that they are absolutely wrong. Therefore, taxation and economic policy based entirely on either side's beliefs are folly at best and criminal at worst.


Jun 04, 2015
aaaahhh so nice to have all the monkeys together again (even if antigoracle monkey puppets all the accounts) now... let's play.... :D

Willieward needs to stop playing with donglishe's little donglish and learn science, not that hard, i promise you both will fare better at mental school if you focus on learning... ;)

Waterclowny feeling too insecue posting more questions and cannot make sense of the Scientific evidence given to him countless of times, those 2 braincells just ain't enough to formulate a 3d reality for him, atta monkey, another bannana to cool those 2 braincells down... ;)

Antisciencegorilla's brain underwent an extreme change, basically shrinking it to support 2 braincells only..... calm down monkey, one liners ain't going to get you more bannanas... so thump that chest harder and make that monkey noise loud.. ! :D


Jun 04, 2015
OOooooohoooo! this circus is on fire tonight.... the monkeys giving their dumbest shots all together in one spot, i couldn't be more happier, adding long nails into big oil's coffin word by word.. :D

Jun 04, 2015
Cool. I say there is enough information on the "denier" side to make the AGW side questionable to the extent that citizens should not be taxed, and economies should not be wrecked.

Whoa, whoa, hold on there.

We need to establish some rules. Otherwise, we'll just talk past each other.

Here is what I propose:
1) Each party may only make 1 argument at a time. I can't, for example, say, AGW occurs because of radiative forcing, AND that big oil companies poison the well. This discourages debate ballooning exponentially into incompletely explored ideas.
2) If an argument is made, there are three options for the opposing party:
-make a counter argument to that argument
-acknowledge that the argument is a good point, even if it isn't yet convincing
-concede the current set of arguments
3) No party may, at any time, change the subject before the current argument has been resolved.
(to be continued)

Jun 04, 2015
4) the debate is to be respectful at all times. Accusations are all right, but only if they are related to the conversation at hand. Personal attacks are not allowed.
5) If one side asks for sources of a claim, the other MUST provide said sources or RETRACT the claim.
6) Sources that cannot be demonstrably backed by accredited experts are not allowed. For example, If I want to use a page that lists arguments for AGW, they must cite peer reviewed research, public domain data, or expert opinion.
7) Paraphrasing of expert opinion is ok, but personal extrapolation of facts from expert opinion is not allowed. Taking quotes out of context is not allowed.
8) An exception can be made for 1, 2, and 3, if one of the participants wishes to argue that the opposing party is violating one of the rules.

Does this sound reasonable?

Jun 04, 2015
Oh, for 2, there should be one other option:
-Admitting that you are too ignorant/incompetent/unwilling to do research on the argument made.

This should be considered a concession by omission. If, for example, I admit I don't know enough about something, it doesn't mean I automatically agree with what you said, but it does provide EVIDENCE that maybe I am not justified in taking my own position.

Also, to be clear, agreeing with someone's point falls under "acknowledge that the argument is a good point"

Jun 04, 2015
Does this sound reasonable?

Wow man, do you have a job, kids, or beer?

I got all three. I don't have the time for that.

Besides, like you said. In the end, we either acquiesce, or waste our time.

I'm going to fall back on the knowledge that there are two sides, and from what I have seen, both sides have points; to the extent that both need to be considered. It is far too early to be taking money and creating policies.

Jun 04, 2015
I got all three. I don't have the time for that.

What don't you have time for? These rules are constructed to SAVE time because they force you to stay on topic.

They discourage debate from ballooning exponentially into a multitude of unresolved arguments. They allow those debating to focus.

I didn't place a time limit on this. We're all busy. You can take a minute to answer an argument or days. I don't care.

Besides, like you said. In the end, we either acquiesce, or waste our time.

Well, if we do it this way, that's not how it will work out, because it forces the claimant to confront his own argument.

I guess, though, I am not particularly surprised at your refusal to have a proper debate though. That's how we arrive at the truth, but clearly you aren't interested in doing that.

Jun 04, 2015
Does this sound reasonable?

Wow man, do you have a job, kids, or beer?

I got all three. I don't have the time for that.

Besides, like you said. In the end, we either acquiesce, or waste our time.

I'm going to fall back on the knowledge that there are two sides, and from what I have seen, both sides have points; to the extent that both need to be considered. It is far too early to be taking money and creating policies.


Naaa what you do have in three though are braincells ;) and the above answer reaffirms it quite thoroughly, apparantly emperical evidence are not words they can teach him in mental school.

Jun 04, 2015
...I don't know if just consulting google scholar will help
@thefurlong
understood
when you find something on gogle scholar, take the study and then try to find data on it with medical or nutrition sites: the best would be medical (as they feed/study nutritional data and studies but nutritional studies are not always medical)
Plus, you can also either talk to the study authors directly for interpretations of data OR feed the data to a medical source and then request specific information (like health benefits, or whether it is carcinogen, or feeds production of destructive proteins, or exacerbating Alzheimer's, whatever etc)
who is honest, and worth listening to, and who isn't. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked for aspartame
stick with reputable medical sites and medical training colleges or FDA reports with links (or NIH in the USA- http://NIH.gov )
I prefer the former or NIH myself

Jun 04, 2015
Hence, ultimately, you are asking me to do one of two things: acquiesce, or waste my time
Right. And vice versa, and same with the experts on both sides to boot. No-one can agree. Both sides present evidence that the other side says is bunk. Red-Flags galore
@deng
except that it is not vice-versa

one side is fueled by analytical and scientific studies which point towards a direction and the other is full of personal conjecture as well as political bias

that is NOT the same thing, nor is it the same type argument

your argument stems from a fast "belief" that is not based upon actual scientific data, but political rhetoric which means your arguments are subjective to the observer and biased

the AGW argument is based upon scientific studies which are based upon experimental, observed empirical evidence

the scientists may not in total agreement on what is to be done,
but all agree that curbing CO2 emissions is a good start and will not harm the future

Jun 04, 2015
Well, isn't this what I've been saying?

Increase CO2, or insulation, you get warmer, moderated weather.
@ALCHE
no that is NOT what you've been saying
in fact, you've been challenging CO2 as the "insulation" and suggest it is entirely water vapor

you also claim that increased CO2 will promote stable weather and less extreme events
shall i dig those posts out and prove you an idiot yet again?

You clearly aren't interested in hearing rebuttals, nor are you interested in actually thinking deeply about your own reasons for your opinions. You've already formed them, and it doesn't matter if we reveal solid evidence that your sources are insincere, or don't understand basic climate science, or have no degrees in the subject
@thefurlong
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
they don't want answers
they want peer support and accolades so that they feel important for selecting their "side"

Jun 04, 2015
DLK, your googled intellect is spoiling a conversation between me and Mikey, I think we both agree; that's a new low, even for you, yourself and you.

If you don't have anything to contribute, have you thought about being silent? because; anyone could make ankle-biting comments. It takes an adult to have a conversation.

Just for example, Le Chatelier's Principle is more about how a systems responds, not your slug-brained argumentative and well argumentative interpretation. It's even used in principle in economics. Are you smart enough to be embarrased?

(Rhetorical)

Jun 04, 2015
I guess, though, I am not particularly surprised at your refusal to have a proper debate though. That's how we arrive at the truth, but clearly you aren't interested in doing that.


Egad! Ya got me! :-(

Here's your money for the environmental crimes I'm committing. Oh, yes, here's my job too. Thanks for the food stamps, and $450 per month.

Jun 04, 2015
antigoracle, someone could replace you with a chatbot, and nobody would be the wiser.
@thefurlong
actually, i think it is a chat bot with the occasional special input from the user/programer/troll

and don't expect deng to stay on topic... it is too easy to be challenged in his belief or to have his belief upset

I say there is enough information on the "denier" side to make the AGW side questionable...
@deng
that is only if you agree that any personal conjecture and any unsubstantiated claim can be considered as viable and equal to empirical evidence and thus equal to scientific studies

again, to date, you have supplied plenty of conjecture and blog links (even dr roy) but no studies that refute the bulk of the science
even dr roy isn't putting studies out because of the peer review will not allow fraudulent claims or bad data, that is why monckton etc went to a chinese startup to get published

the quality of evidence is NOT the same between the topics

Jun 04, 2015
Egad! Ya got me! :-(

Here's your money for the environmental crimes I'm committing. Oh, yes, here's my job too. Thanks for the food stamps, and $450 per month.
@thefurlong
sorry but:
told ya

when dealing with people who are so entrenched in their belief system that they refuse to see any data that challenges their world view, the only method that works against them is to ignore them and simply insure that there is enough data posted that demonstrates how their ignorance and faith in a belief restricts their ability to learn or see reality

that way at least someone who is visiting can see the science and read it and learn
THAT should be the target audience of your work, furlong

not the dengs
the fundamental religious always refuse reality that doesn't conform to their holy book or tenets
(see creationists, conspiracy theorists or jvk for evidence)

you can't rock deng's boat until the political entity he votes for acquiesces


Jun 04, 2015
Ah, furlong, the Sun changes about 1/1366 every 11 years. That 1/1366th is enough to change the climate, and it is cyclical.

If you consider that fluctuation amounts to 1/1366 of 1/2 (half the Earth at a time) of 255 Watts/m2 then that figure is 0.09Watts/m2, and that fossil fuels release about 0.04Watts/m2. It really is an impressive figure.

Then you consider WHERE it is released, in the Northern Hemisphere, you should be suitably convinced.

To calculate fossil fuel emissions, you need only look up power consumed worldwide and convert units, then divide by the surface area of the Earth.

Now, what do you think you can tell me about the GHE and radiative forcing?
Honestly, there isn't alot of room for a GHE, is there?
QED.

Jun 04, 2015
Rut Roh Shaggy!

Data tampering!?!?! Say it ain't so! SAY IT!!!

http://dailycalle...-hiatus/

O_o

Jun 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
.. Sun changes about 1/1366 every 11 years. That 1/1366th is enough to change the climate, and it is cyclical
He means Total Solar Insolation (TSI), its variation is far LESS than that added by CO2's radiative forcing, there is no evidence of 11yr climate change, this proves Water_Prophet is wrong in his first sentence already

Water_Prophet claims
If you consider that fluctuation amounts to 1/1366 of 1/2 (half the Earth at a time) of 255 Watts/m2 then that figure is 0.09Watts/m2, and that fossil fuels release about 0.04Watts/m2. It really is an impressive figure
Wrong, the really impressive figure is from experimentally proven thermal properties of GHG's, especially CO2 well described here
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Water_Prophet claims
Then you consider WHERE it is released, in the Northern Hemisphere, you should be suitably convinced
Not about belief or 'being convinced', it SHOULD be founded on Physics

cont

Jun 04, 2015
Ah, furlong, the Sun changes about 1/1366 every 11 years. That 1/1366th is enough to change the climate, and it is cyclical.

If you consider that fluctuation amounts to 1/1366 of 1/2 (half the Earth at a time) of 255 Watts/m2 then that figure is 0.09Watts/m2, and that fossil fuels release about 0.04Watts/m2. It really is an impressive figure.


You're getting in the way of "politics" with this. You should be ashamed of yourself coming to a site like this & posting scientific data that is not straight from the political funny farm science ascribed to by so many of the above who have never seen a Rate of Reaction Equation they could solve.


Jun 04, 2015
Hmm, here's some more reasonable doubt!

http://wattsupwit...pancies/

Oh, what the heck, here's more of my money.

Jun 04, 2015
continued
Water_Prophet says
To calculate fossil fuel emissions, you need only look up power consumed worldwide and convert units, then divide by the surface area of the Earth
So what ?

Water_Prophet always fails to calculate CO2's radiative forcing, at present its > 1.5W/m^2

Despite Water_Prophet claiming its easy & anyone can do it.

Gets worse Water_Prophet cannot refute physics & experiments which prove CO2's figure described:-
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

How can anyone trust Water_Prophet, he's obtuse with middle school naive attempts at proportionality calcs to arrive at imagined figure of 0.00009W/m^2 but has NEVER shown his working !

Water_Prophet cannot explain or even understand why he ignores this key proven Physics of heat
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Water_Prophet claims
.. tell me about the GHE and radiative forcing?
Yet he cannot, adds double speak
isn't alot of room for a GHE, is there?
so sad

Jun 04, 2015
Not about belief or 'being convinced', it SHOULD be founded on Physics.....cont


Yeah, you're right. So how many of you in the the Community of the Funny Science Crowd living on this site have ever seen a Differential Equation in Einstein's GR that you could follow? Plug a vote for that one.

Jun 04, 2015
Benni claims re Water_Prophets naive middle school attempt (again) to make a case
You're getting in the way of "politics" with this
Satire there ;-)

Benni
You should be ashamed of yourself coming to a site like this & posting scientific data that is not straight from the political funny farm science ascribed to by so many of the above who have never seen a Rate of Reaction Equation they could solve
You can see his offering is naive, immature & ignores details of comparative combustion vs radiative transfer !

So, since you often blurt claims of solving unknown differential equations & popping up again reaction rate calcs but NEVER actually show anything & ONLY use that to boost your ego & as obtuse "Appeal to Authority", then lets see if you can plug in the figures for either relative or absolute radiative forcing here:-

https://en.wikipe...transfer

Relative or Absolute - which is more pertinent ?

Jun 04, 2015
You're a bad boy Benni, I like it.

Denglish,
Yeah, Wattsup and Skeptisciencde are hack sites. FYI. If you believe their almost sciencey stuff, well do more research and look for lies. If you still believe, you're just a new name for someone who was banned.

Mikey, the log scale for radiative forcing is wrong, a little calculus demonstrates this, can you show me a good derivation for it?

And explain how that much energy will not dramatically and inarguably, even to the most headstrong denier, change the globe?

Please?

Jun 04, 2015
DLK, your googled intellect is spoiling a conversation between me and Mikey, [further insults snipped]

Just for example, Le Chatelier's Principle is more about how a systems responds, not your slug-brained argumentative and well argumentative interpretation. It's even used in principle in economics.
All you have in insults? Typical .. I thought you might try honestly responding to inquiries and criticisms for a change ... that's what actual scientists do, for example. Ah well .. I think you seriously need to brush up on your Le Chat's, as well as on your economics .. there ARE equilibria in economics after all, so it's not surprising Le Chat's might be used in that context. Water off a duck's back with you tho.
Are you smart enough to be embarrased?
Yes, in fact, my meticulous posting style is a pre-emptive tactic to avoid future embarrassment. You might try the same, since you are constantly wearing an egg-mask, and you have yet to catch an outright error of mine.

Jun 04, 2015
I offhand wonder what percent of all the above posters know the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2?

And, do you also know it is being blamed for increasing rainfall just south of the Sahara Desert in Africa? Yeah, it's true, the Sahara Desert has been getting smaller since the "1998 Year of the Holy Hockey Stick". It's in today's Nature, go read it.

Jun 04, 2015
Ah, furlong, the Sun changes about 1/1366 every 11 years. That 1/1366th is enough to change the climate, and it is cyclical.

If you consider that fluctuation amounts to 1/1366 of 1/2 (half the Earth at a time) of 255 Watts/m2 then that figure is 0.09Watts/m2, and that fossil fuels release about 0.04Watts/m2. It really is an impressive figure.

Then you consider WHERE it is released, in the Northern Hemisphere, you should be suitably convinced.

To calculate fossil fuel emissions, you need only look up power consumed worldwide and convert units, then divide by the surface area of the Earth.

Now, what do you think you can tell me about the GHE and radiative forcing?
We could tell him everything, if he'd only listen .. WP's reverting to type, parrotting the same thoroughly debunked drivel in unmodified form. A couple of facts, and a whole lot of fairly porous speculation that collapses under scrutiny. If only he had the character to answer scientific challenges.

Jun 04, 2015
DuckLord, don't like sarcasm? Stop posting argumentative statements that are failing to show how smart you are.

Since you and your sockpuppets won't be polite, why shouldn't I be disrespectful of your educational inadequacies?

And speaking of intellectual inadequacies: http://en.wikiped...rinciple

You'll note there's a bit about economics.

The principle is so well used it is "understood" to be analogous everywhere. But that is the kind of thing a googled intellect can't know.

You want polite, be an adult, and not an ankle-biter.

Enough sarcasm for me, until you start again, fair?

Jun 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
.. the log scale for radiative forcing is wrong, a little calculus demonstrates this, can you show me a good derivation for it
No. You have claimed "4 technical degrees" including that of "Physical Chemistry" AND you made up a figure of 0.00009W/m^2 yet you have NEVER proved or show the working.

Onus on you to
1. Prove your imagined 0.00009 W/m^2 (not 0.0009 which you often repeat erroneously)
2. Prove your claim log scale is wrong, especially WHY you ignore proven beer-lambert physics
https://en.wikipe...bert_law

Water_Prophet asks
And explain how that much energy will not dramatically and inarguably, even to the most headstrong denier, change the globe?
It is changing & takes time - doh !

You imply that only 1.5W/m^2 will change it very soon or "fry us" - it IS frying us but, because oceans are immense & Ice's latent heat of fusion is high its going to take several decades !

Learn Physics Water_Prophet please !

Jun 04, 2015
Benni askes
I offhand wonder what percent of all the above posters know the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2?
Its easily found, why not offer something re differential equations to derive the radiative forcing re my last question, you do LOVE to claim you can do them at the drop of a hat

Lots of claimers here, very few that can actually prove their claims yet on the anti-science pest control watch DarkLordKelvin, Captain_Stumpy, runrig, thermodynamics & others in the majority are way ahead of all the uneducated AGW deniers its sad you are wasting your time with mere claims when sound reasoned articulation of a position is paramount to understanding Physics & Maths in Science !

Benni states
And, do you also know it is being blamed for increasing rainfall just south of the Sahara Desert in Africa? Yeah, it's true, the Sahara Desert has been getting smaller since the "1998 Year of the Holy Hockey Stick"
Of course changing climate, no said its ALL bad

Jun 04, 2015
I offhand wonder what percent of all the above posters know the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2?

And, do you also know it is being blamed for increasing rainfall just south of the Sahara Desert in Africa? Yeah, it's true, the Sahara Desert has been getting smaller since the "1998 Year of the Holy Hockey Stick". It's in today's Nature, go read it.


I had second thoughts expecting the Funny Farm Science crowd living here to actually go off on their own & go to the Nature site & look for the article on their own, so here's the link:

http://www.nature...664.html

Jun 04, 2015
Mikey, the log scale for radiative forcing is wrong, a little calculus demonstrates this, can you show me a good derivation for it?
What's wrong with it? You can plot ANYTHING on a log scale, for Pete's sake! It doesn't change the meaning of the data at all .. it just makes it easier to see changes over a broad scale. For example, any plot of absorbance (remember Beer's law?) is has already been converted to a log scale, since absorbance=-log(transmission) ... transmission is what is actually measured instrumentally.

And explain how that much energy will not dramatically and inarguably, even to the most headstrong denier, change the globe? Please?
Since you said please, I will reiterate that the MEASURED imbalanced in incoming vs outgoing radiation is ~ 0.8 W/m^2 ... that is due to the GHE, for those keeping score at home. So, the 1/20th of that contributed by fossil fuel combustion can be safely neglected .. at least until bigger fish have been fried.

Jun 04, 2015
And speaking of intellectual inadequacies: [link snipped]

You'll note there's a bit about economics.
And you'll note that it's in the context of economic EQUILIBRIUM, which was (of course) my entire point from the beginning. Was this sort of multi-step distraction from the scientific content really necessary? Are you going to respond, and answer why you think Le Chat's can be applied to a system like the Earth, which is far from being at equilibrium? Can you give an example of Le Chat's being applied to systems out of equilibrium, in scientific contexts of course ... let's leave economics aside.
The principle is so well used it is "understood" to be analogous everywhere
No, it is understood to be broadly applicable to systems IN EQUILIBRIUM (are you picking up on the theme yet? Am I getting through?
You want polite, be an adult, and not an ankle-biter.
That you refer to emphasis on correct statements that way is revealing.

Jun 04, 2015
Benni askes
I offhand wonder what percent of all the above posters know the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2?
..........
Its easily found
........it sure is. So why do so few of you know what it is? Maybe you're waiting for me to tell you?


Jun 04, 2015
Mikey, I proved it by order of magnitude effects, of being less than some other effect.
If you weren't paying attention then, then why are you bothering me about it now?

Beer-Lambert, although exponential, shows us pretty clearly the effects of CO2 are insignificant.
Here: What is the concentration of CO2? 400ppm right? Up from 280ppm?
Without knowing what the effect is even, then we know it is proportional to exp(400/1000000) right? This is Beer-Lambert.
Then, understanding exponents we understand the ratio (from exp(280/1000000) can tell us the increase, right? All other factors cancel? Right?

So, taking the ratio the increase is some factor less than 1.0001 or 0.0001. The "less than" being of course from CO2 having an effect less than 1.

So, this is a second unrelated approach to the 0.00009W/m2, Which is ~ 0.0001Watts/m2, which is good agreement, is it not?
If 1.5W/m2 then we have what? 1.5W/m2/1.0001 = 1.49985W/m2, which also fails logic.

Jun 04, 2015
Ah, and yet another one of my posts demonstrates DLK putting his foot in his mouth, including desperate attempts not to look like a fool in previous evasions.

I didn't even do it on purpose. We just posted at the same time. And so quick after we promised to be polite.

Jun 04, 2015
Benni claims
........it sure is. So why do so few of you know what it is? Maybe you're waiting for me to tell you?
No, I asked you first re your claim to do differential equations yet you failed again to understand the DE here:-
https://en.wikipe...transfer

CO2 concentration is all over the place, the site misused by AGW deniers here
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

This more frequently updated
http://co2now.org/

But of course you will need regional maps re distribution, which you can find for a change but, why not
include atmospheric temps generally correlated with CO2 rise and causatively supported by physics per radiative transfer
http://images.rem...ies.html

How banal are you Benni, plug in values in the radiative forcing equation, then tell us why this graph is correct & how to expand its function re other wavelengths etc
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Jun 04, 2015
Water_Prophet with banal mixed up word salad double speak
Beer-Lambert, although exponential, shows us pretty clearly the effects of CO2 are insignificant.
Here: What is the concentration of CO2? 400ppm right? Up from 280ppm?
Without knowing what the effect is even, then we know it is proportional to exp(400/1000000) right? This is Beer-Lambert.
Then, understanding exponents we understand the ratio (from exp(280/1000000) can tell us the increase, right? All other factors cancel? Right?
Wrong. Dead wrong. It cannot be done that way at all.

You have a flakey approach to Physics/Maths ande Never studied beyond high school, your facebook page shows it
https://www.faceb....m.tyler

No uni, employment or business references

Rather than make up naive CO2 maths, explain why million+ students of physics who study heat AND experimental proof should NOT use

https://en.wikipe...transfer

WHY ?

Jun 04, 2015
Mikey:
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Riddle me this, what is the optical depth of CO2 in the atm.?

I am only asking because I don't think you know.

And what is the application of this to the atmosphere? I mean you are essentially calculating flux, right, so how would you recommend we apply this?

Jun 04, 2015
@Muttering Mike:

As I suspected, I was going to have to tell you because you very well know you can't come up with the math that justifies the stupendous claims for a gas that makes up a mere 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere.

Jun 04, 2015
Mikey, you were asked germane questions first.

How are they wrong, Mikey? Answer them, or I will simply assume you can't and use this as proof you can't, and demo you can't whenever you rag on me.

It should be very simple, as to radiative transfer, what portions are you referring to, and can you demo how say "I" or "s" applies to our atmosphere?

This to is a very simple exercise.

Jun 04, 2015
Ah, and yet another one of my posts demonstrates DLK putting his foot in his mouth, including desperate attempts not to look like a fool in previous evasions.

I didn't even do it on purpose. We just posted at the same time. And so quick after we promised to be polite.


If you are referring to your "Beer-Lambert" post, what that proves is that you are so laughably and obviously confused about basic physical principles, and so utterly unwilling to learn, that you are simply not worth the time I spend replying to you. It's a mite galling that you INSIST in public that you are right, and call me all sorts of insulting names, but whatever, I can't make you learn this stuff. If you are going to be so stubborn about making an ass of yourself on a science forum where actual scientists are trying to discuss things with you, then I guess there is no solution for it. I have better things to do than waste time trying to get you to see sense.

Jun 05, 2015
If you are going to be so stubborn about making an ass of yourself on a science forum where actual scientists are trying to discuss things


.....so who are these "actual scientists" on this forum? I'm still waiting to see evidence that anyone from the Holy Hockey Stick crowd even know that CO2 is a trace gas that comprises only 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. Muttering Mike, your favorite "scientist" on this site, he won't even admit to knowing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, instead he wants even to equivocate & dismiss that just so he can keep moving along with his "funny farm science" talking points.

So, here you are, someone with a theistic occultic sign on handle trying to convince this Electrical/Nuclear Engineer you are a scientist of some kind? I just don't buy into your dark religion Revelations that the world is coming to an end based on small concentrations of a trace gas that is enhancing growth of vegetation along the periphery of the Sahara.

Jun 05, 2015
Ah, and yet another one of my posts demonstrates DLK


If you are referring to your "Beer-Lambert" post, what that proves is that you are so laughably and obviously confused about basic physical principles, and so utterly unwilling to learn, that you are simply not worth the time I spend replying to you. It's a mite galling that you INSIST in public that you are right, and call me all sorts of insulting names, but whatever, I can't make you learn this stuff. If you are going to be so stubborn about making an ass of yourself on a science forum where actual scientists are trying to discuss things with you, then I guess there is no solution for it. I have better things to do than waste time trying to get you to see sense.


Yohooo atta watermonkey... thump that chest the world enjoys the show... this must be the funniest comment i've seen, Well said DLK waterclown desperately showing off his confused perception of reality. :D

Jun 05, 2015
Donglish tampering with his donglish... a...aa...aaaaahh :D didn't i say to stop that and try to focus in mental school ? now now dong monkey you and waterclown going to the corner with the pointy hat...Now ! :D

Jun 05, 2015
Now now Benni you know mental patients aren't taken seriously on a Science site... here, have another bannana....a aaaa.. first you must jump through the hoop... ;) now quick... jump back to your waterclownprophet sockpuppet account and type something funny, you need to perfect your monkeythump, the world is watching you, so perform your very best ... ;) .... :D

Jun 05, 2015
Yeah, DuckLord, show me how my manipulation of exponents is wrong. This'll be good for a laugh.

Be forewarned I will be mocking all the steps you say I skipped by understanding HOW exponents work, as any person above high school at least vaguely remembers. I will also be mocking the criticisms of the approximation short cut I used. Which is simply that diffusion by CO2 is not perfect.

But please proceed. Mikey chime in as well. I am very happy to show the world your ignorance in a thoroughly embarrassing way. And your fighting for serious marbles, so be succinct.

Hint: K*exp([C]) = exp(kC) and exp(kC1)/exp(kC2)

Jun 05, 2015
Watermonkey mocking... lol ? a monkey trying to mock a scientist ? thump that chest little monkey give it all ya got, we got a present for you.... cooome aaannd get it ... ;) :D

Jun 05, 2015

Denglish,
Yeah, Wattsup and Skeptisciencde are hack sites. FYI. If you believe their almost sciencey stuff, well do more research and look for lies. If you still believe, you're just a new name for someone who was banned.


Your friends are un-approved of. Change your ways or you will be removed from society.

Its fascist crud like this that makes the AGWs look even worse.

Jun 05, 2015
It's not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's how much is there in the atmosphere and how much can it affect climate. CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978, there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn't true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948, not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.

Ice cores clearly show that CO2 increases always follow warming, not precede warming as would occur if CO2 caused the warming.

Jun 05, 2015
The rate of warming from 1860 to 1880 was 0.16°C per decade and the rate from 1910 to 1940 was 0.15°C per decade, both prior to the increase in CO2 that occurred after 1945. The rate of warming from 1975 to 1998 was 0.166 °C per decade, virtually the same as the 1860-1880 and 1910-1945 warming. What this means is that two periods of warming identical to the more recent warming occurred before the rise of human CO2 emissions.

https://wattsupwi...0022.jpg

Jun 05, 2015
CO2 also lags short-term warming, showing that warming causes rise in CO2, not the other way around.

https://wattsupwi...e014.jpg


Jun 05, 2015
Temperatures from 44 of the latest computer climate models plotted against UAH and RSS satellite temperature measurements.

https://wattsupwi...e004.jpg

If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong.

Jun 05, 2015
From Kofi Annan:

"The global livestock industry is indeed a major threat to the climate as it represents 14.5% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

And of course there are alternative sources of protein. For example, raising insects as an animal protein source. Insects have a very good conversion rate from feed to meat. They make up part of the diet of two billion people and are commonly eaten in many parts of the world. Eating insects is good for the environment and balanced diets."

OK! Who wants to trade their steak in for insects? Follow the great example set by the poorest countries in the world. C'mon! Let's see your commitment!

Jun 05, 2015
Here's another good one. The New World Order. Lowest common denominator? ...anyone?

Kofi Annan:

"End the free rides: Australia, Canada, Japan and the Russian Federation should set a clear course for zero emissions by 2050, with deep reductions by 2030. These countries might consider the far higher level of ambition set by Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda."

Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda...paragons of modern humanity's progression.


you can't rock deng's boat until the political entity he votes for acquiesces

Jun 05, 2015
@WP .. Well, the main problem is that your "analysis" is irrelevant, because CO2 absorbance through the atmosphere is saturated after passing through a fairly short distance (I forget if it is 10's or 100's of meters) compared to the overall thickness of the atmosphere. Heat transfer via emission/re-absorption of IR is the most meaningful phenomenon until you get to the tropopause, where emission dominates. As for your math, well *part* of your problem is that
Hint: K*exp([C]) = exp(kC)
is simply, inarguably wrong .. K is not a constant, but a function of C [specifically, K=exp((k-1)C) ] when written that way.

As for the rest of it, the argument of an exponential has to be dimensionless, so you need to be in the proper units, and: [ exp(kC1)/exp(kC2) = exp(k(C1-C2))] Nothing cancels .. you still need to account for the absorptivity and pathlength (the terms contributing to 'k', in your notation) in the correct units to get a meaningful comparison.

Jun 05, 2015
So how many of you blah bblah blah have ever seen a Differential Equation blah blah you could follow?
@beni-troll
glad you brought this up, benni-troll, because we know that you are definitely not one for being able to do math
we know you can't do differential equations by this link:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

we know you can't do basic math by this link:
http://phys.org/n...als.html
(a galactic year equal to milankovitch cycles? really?)

your continued attempts to establish self authority or that you are some special nuclear engineer have only proven that you like to brag and cannot substantiate the bulk of your claims


Jun 05, 2015
WP's reverting to type, parrotting the same thoroughly debunked drivel...collapses under scrutiny
@DLK
absolutely true

the point i made to thefurlong (about deng) is also true of ALCHE and benni, and all the rest of the anti-science posters here

it is not important to try to convince THEM of the actual science because they will refuse to accept the data as it is conflicting with their delusional world view

Until their peers, or their political party, or their religion, or their conspiracy theorist companions come to accept the science, they will continue to be the ignorant (or blatantly stupid) trolling poster regurgitating rhetoric that has been scientifically debunked

the people you should target your posts for are the ones reading the comments who want actual science over speculation

continue to debunk the denier camp, but remember: the target audience is the lurkers reading for science and content, not the actual deniers entrenched in their faith


Jun 05, 2015
Mikey, I proved it by order of magnitude effects, of being less than some other effect
@ALCHIE/& socks et al
you have proven nothing because you do not take into consideration the effects of combining WV and CO2
also- had you proven anything with any type of validity or scientific method there would be changes to the studies which directly refute your claims, like this one:
http://www.scienc...abstract

you can't come up with the math that justifies the stupendous claims for a gas that makes up a mere 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere
@benni-TROLL
if you were capable of reading beyond the grade school level, you would see that the link given above to alche demonstrates how CO2 can affect the temperature due to its cyclical nature and feesback mechanism with WV

maybe you can tell the scientists like Lacis that they don't know how to do differential equations and get them to change the study just for you?

Jun 05, 2015
so who are these "actual scientists" on this forum?
@benji-TROLL
here are a few that i know for sure:
Antialias_physorg, runrig, Q-Star, Axemaster, Thermodynamics, and there are more that i can validate
(but no- i am not sharing their personal information here on PO for you to troll them at home, so forget it)
trying to convince this Electrical/Nuclear Engineer
and again, may i point out that you have yet to demonstrate that this is valid

considering your inability to do basic math (linked above)
OR the precious differential equations (also linked above)
THEN perhaps you worked on a sub as a non-com in the engine room, or on a nuke plant -BUT- you are no nuclear engineer with a degree and valid certification or license

you can't even figure out how to send messages to the admin on this site!

just because you worked around a nuclear engineer doesn't mean you are one
nor does it mean your techno-babble is relevant or accurate


Jun 05, 2015
...blah blah really stupid comment blah there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate.
Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn't true
@deng
yes, it IS true, because CO2 has a cyclical feedback with WV, and that is demonstrated in the Lacis et al study linked above

it is not JUST that CO2 is a GHG, or that WV has the power it does, it is the COMBINATION of the both of them in a feedback cycle that is what is dangerous

had you read the studies i linked (starting above) you would have learned that

this (and many other) study has been linked as well as validated by numerous other studies and shows the power of the CO2/WV cycle and feedback mechanism which directly refutes your claims (and alche's too)


Jun 05, 2015
"this (and many other) study has been linked as well as validated by numerous other studies and shows the power of the CO2/WV cycle and feedback mechanism which directly refutes your claims (and alche's too)"

If these studies were correct the earth would have never recovered from the eras when the Co2 levels were 4000PPM. The fact that we exist pretty much proves that the earths climate is self correcting for variations in trace gasses. Also, the fact that climate changes preceded changes in Co2 levels proves that other factors greater than Co2 levels control the climate.

Jun 05, 2015
Let's face it guys the whole raison d'être for reduction in Co2 emissions is based on "Tipping Points" which have never been proven. This is a government sponsored religion and not a science. The earth is a robust self-regulating system and we are just a speck of dust in the greater scheme of things.

Jun 05, 2015
The fact that we exist pretty much proves that the earths climate is self correcting for variations in trace gasses
@MR
OR
it proves the major emissions of CO2 dropped and there was a long period of time for correction

there is also evidence that mass extinctions can happen due to climate (Vernon et al or Dr. Carmichael and Waters, et al)
This supports our conclusions regarding the warming in our environment and the possible threats

Also note
the rapid warming is dangerous as it outpaces evolution (natural) and can kill large amounts of life, with NO guarantee of it's revival
(case in point: Denovian period mass extinction - see Dr. Carmichael and Waters, et al Appalachian State University)
the whole raison
so do nothing?
so-
why bother with QM?
why try to learn something more because it will never work for us, right?
(hyperbole & satire mixed with ridicule)

if science had that attitude, we would still be praying away epileptic seizures or Polio

Jun 05, 2015
This is a government sponsored religion and not a science.
@mr
no, science is nothing like religion
and you are simply arguing a political point that doesn't have any scientific validity except in your own delusional belief system

if you can irrefutably prove that there is no danger, then why aren't you on page 1 news?
why isn't CNN and everyone else touting your evidence as proof that AGW doesn't exist and there are no threats?

the reason is simple:
your argument is one of ignorance, passionate belief without evidence and faith in a fundamental belief system that ignores empirical evidence to the contrary

observation, empirical evidence and repeated, validated science are a better method for making decisions than "this political/religious/conspiratorial/other entity made this claim therefore it must be true"

try it on for size one day
maybe you will learn something?

Jun 05, 2015
lol... donglish beleives everything that is said to him so it must be true, failing to put in the effort to find the real truth for himsels, as always well said Captain and DLK

c'mon donglish, give us sum more insight from those 2 hard thinking braincells, the crowd wants a showstopper, can be from you or any of your puppets aka antisciencegorilla, waterprophetclown or donglish... :D

Jun 06, 2015
MR166 gives us yet another data point into the reactionarity of some AGWers.

The fact is, termites change the climate, asteroids change the climate, volcanos change the climate, and the human race is far more profound than any of them. (Maybe not as extreme.)

To say that we are no profoundly affecting the Earth is irrational.
The problem really is how.

Why is everyone so wound up in denying, an irrational stance, or only ONE thing? It's like democrats/republicans, worship god or go to hell:

No real choice, but lots of arguments and arguing.

The truth is very simple and measurable; it usually is.

Let's measure CO2 w/ Beers law, which says absorbance (/diffussion-CO2 diffuses) is an exponent of concentration. Concentration of CO2 is 400/1000000 up from 280/1000000, that means the change from Beer's Law is just the ratio. This is worst case, and it maxes out at only +0.012% of 280ppm.

And, it's previous effect is only 0.5% of the thermal spectrum, again, max.

Jun 06, 2015
The fact is, termites change the climate, asteroids change the climate... (Maybe not as extreme.)

Yes. Maybe not as extreme. Perhaps you should ruminate on that for a while.

And because beavers cut down trees, and humans cut down trees, we shouldn't worry about deforestation, right?

Also, I would like to note what happened the last time an asteroid large enough to change the climate crashed into the earth. Hello? Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event? Does that ring a bell?

Sure, nature adapted, but it took a while. But the dominant species that were around then didn't live to see it.

Nothing could be done about the asteroid. But something CAN be done about AGW. Sure, there are other factors, but it's foolish to sit on our hands when the peer reviewed science is practically shouting at us that there are measures we can take to stop it or at least mitigate the damage.

Jun 06, 2015
Water Prophet, I don't know what point you are trying to make. According to this site,

http://teaching.s...ers1.htm

A is essentially the log of the fraction 1/T, where T is the transmittance, or the ratio of light transmitted.
And beer's law says that is proportional to the concentraction, c
So, log(1/T)=-log(T) ~ c
which means that T ~ 10^-c
Which means that as c increases, T exponentially decreases. It also means that the fraction of light absorbed GROWS EXPONENTIALLY with the concentration.

Don't confuse absorbance with the ratio of light absorbed.

We define absorbance as the log of 1/T because, then it has a linear relationship with the concentration. In other words, it's just a logarithmic scale for convenience.

What on earth is wrong with you?

Jun 06, 2015
@thefurlong
I sympathize with your efforts to bring Water_Prophet to task re his many obtuse claims & less than middle school maths but, he's suffering many cognitive deficits & believes his claim of "4 technical degrees" incl "Physical Chemistry" & many others, some of which become offensive when challenged & he can't understand.

Many have offered clear direct Physics head on eg those here Eg; runrig, thermodynamics, howhot2, DarkLordKelvin & others offering good Science links eg Captain_Stumpy, Magnus & I etc

Its clear despite Water_Prophet's arbitrary claims, Eg a brass bowl ice water & candle he says predicts 'perfectly' climate change (because ice melts & atmospheric 'pause' of 1998+) he cannot or refuses to articulate anything other than middle school play wasting time

Evidence shows he sidesteps crucial AGW issue
http://en.wikiped..._forcing
based on
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Yes, there's something wrong with him :-(

Jun 06, 2015
Water_Prophet asked
Mikey
https://en.wikipe...transfer
Riddle me this, what is the optical depth of CO2 in the atm.?
You forgetting maths, its an equation, plug in the figure you assess for length of gas column the light passes through - doh !

Water_Prophet shows his immaturity with
I am only asking because I don't think you know
That makes no sense, those with "4 technical degrees" don't resort to middle school game play of such a facile nature !

Water_Prophet asks
And what is the application of this to the atmosphere? I mean you are essentially calculating flux, right, so how would you recommend we apply this?
No. You are essentially determining a change in thermal resistivity which is offered as a interpretation called "radiative forcing" as per this link:-
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Your earlier claim the formula is easily disputed with calculus is of interest, prove it ?

Jun 06, 2015
thefurlong offered
.. For example, we don't know all the variables governing, say adult onset diabetes, either, and yet, we can very competently prevent it and control it
Indeed/Interest !

Although a hobby of 40+yrs became my Electronics career circa 1982 I moved into microbiology

Diabetes raised issue re my mother's Alzheimers correlation, been seeking definitive enquiry line as part of uni literature review/thesis with post grad Food Science in 2010, chose Cu/Zn chemistry

Have viable list of plausible hypotheses, some involve low Cu, Eg Zn hexamer 'stores' insulin, less active
https://en.wikipe.../Insulin
see the molecular Zinc form RHS

US Stats show ~80% of people below Copper RDI as are most western diets Eg Aust/Europe

Cu issue now, we get ~ 200-300 mcg/day but, our ancestors routinely using copper bowls got ~30+mg/day, WHO suggest homeostasis @ 100mcg/Kg body/day ie 100 X

I claim "Copper is the only metal we never got enough of in food"

Jun 06, 2015
LOL

FritzVonDago shows himself up with
More Warmest HogWASH!!!!!!!
Typical, immature paid flunky barks, why ?

Because (& we have seen this before)

- just joined June 5, 2015 with
- no science with
- unscientific grammar
- overuse of '!'
- short barb with emotional overtone

Who's sockpuppet are you, how much are you paid to sell your integrity ?

An angry propagandist, so easily caught. How about some Physics FritzVonDago

Can you ?

Mutter: Must keep those links to the server logs secure ;-)

Jun 06, 2015
@Mike_Massen
Look at his other posts. They all basically say the same thing. He's probably a bot.

Jun 06, 2015
@Benni
Not about belief or 'being convinced', it SHOULD be founded on Physics.....cont


Yeah, you're right. So how many of you in the the Community of the Funny Science Crowd living on this site have ever seen a Differential Equation in Einstein's GR that you could follow? Plug a vote for that one.


Yes. That's what I am currently studying. Try me :).

Jun 06, 2015
Ah, furlong, why is it you are trying to argue with me? Odd.
Odd you don't understand how to manipulate exponentials, like, apparently DLK does not, and yet you are talking about GR.

I am doing nothing but invoking the Laws of Exponents to make my point. There is

ZERO

controversial about it.

Look at the exponential form of Beers Law. Use the Laws of exponents to show the change due to concentration, other variables cancel, and you are left with the ratio, which can be converted to a %.

If you can't do that, I'd give up on GR. Though Einstein Summation Notation is the rage for manipulating GR, not diff e q's.

Jun 06, 2015
Ah, furlong, why is it you are trying to argue with me? Odd.

People tend to do that when they see a claim that's flagrantly wrong.
Odd you don't understand how to manipulate exponentials, like, apparently DLK does not, and yet you are talking about GR.

Oh, hello familiar sinking feeling that I am about to engage in a conversation with an innumerate crackpot.
I am doing nothing but invoking the Laws of Exponents to make my point.

...I don't think you are. I think you are bad at math.
Look at the exponential form of Beers Law. Use the Laws of exponents to show the change due to concentration, other variables cancel, and you are left with the ratio, which can be converted to a %.

I already explained that you are confusing absorbance with the actual ratio of light absorbed.

Jun 06, 2015
Ah, well thanks for being so clear.

I think your'e confusing physics with your desire to show how smart you are.

So, why don't YOU show the world how we can use Beer's Law and concentrations to describe CO2's effects.

Somehow I think your next post won't contain anything resembling how to do that.

Jun 06, 2015
Though Einstein Summation Notation is the rage for manipulating GR, not diff e q's.

...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Dude. No, Just...no. Stop trying to sound like you know things.

GR works with tensor equations.
Tensor equations are partial differential equations expressed in a basis independent language.
To achieve this, they are EXPRESSED using Einstein summation.

You can't actually do GR without partial differential equations. Einstein summation is just the tool that allows us to express them in concise form.

If it weren't for Einstein summation, there would be 16 different partial differential equations to work with. You could STILL express them, though. It would just be a lot messier.

Jesus, dude. Don't hurt yourself.

Jun 06, 2015
PS, if you want any help with GR, I studied under PC Peters.

Wow, you last post looks like nothing to do with Beer's Law, and people doubt my predictive powers on this site.

LOL.

Jun 06, 2015
Ah, well thanks for being so clear.

Thanks for making my day by showing what a charlatan you are.
I think your'e confusing physics with your desire to show how smart you are.

That's great, and all, but do you actually have an argument against what I just said, because, really all I have seen are personal attacks. I would LOVE to see and argument involving you and Reg Mundy.
So, why don't YOU show the world how we can use Beer's Law and concentrations to describe CO2's effects.

LOL! Don't be bitter, WP.

All I did was call you out on your poor mathematical argument. I may not know climate science that well, but I DO know math and physics. But if you want to get into a mathematical pissing contest, that's fine with me. I do like a cheap little ego boost from time to time.

Jun 06, 2015
Actually you'd have to demonstrate how I am incorrect before you can claim that...please, I'd like to be schoolled by one so wise...

Show this pathetic charlatan the proper employment of Beer's Law.

Jun 06, 2015
PS, if you want any help with GR, I studied under PC Peters.

So? Do you use that to pick up chicks, too?

I wouldn't care if Hermann Weyl's spirit were currently possessing you. You demonstrate your competence by the arguments you make. And so far, you aren't doing too well on that end. But please, keep digging a deeper whole.

Wow, you last post looks like nothing to do with Beer's Law, and people doubt my predictive powers on this site.


Uh...my last post was devoted to mocking you for showing that you don't know what Einstein summation or differential equations are.

LOL.

Damn right. This is hilarious. Please, say something else ignorant. I suggest something on the topic of Electromagnetism, next. We have to cover all the bases.

Jun 06, 2015
We're talking about Beer's Law. Please, show me my ignorance.

Jun 06, 2015
So, furlong once again shows us that no matter how many sockpuppets you are, you still can't apply something as simple as Beer's Law to either make, or confound a point.

Jun 06, 2015
We're talking about Beer's Law. Please, show me my ignorance.

You are confusing absorbance with the ratio of light absorbed to the total incident light.

Absorbance, A, is log(1/T) = -log(T), where T is the transmittance. T = P/P_0, where P is the amount of light transmitted, and P_0 is the amount of incident light. Hence, the the amount of light absorbed is (1-T) = (P_0 - P)/P_0. Note that this is NOT the same as absorbance. For conciseness let's call the ratio of light absorbed to total incident light Z.

So, Z = 1-T

Beer's law says that A is proportional to concentration.

So, A = k*c, where k is a constant.
So, -log(T) = A = k*c

So, T = 10^(-k*c)

This means that
1-Z = 10^(-k*c)
So, Z = 1-10^-k*c

Hence, Z, the ratio of light absorbed, is going to exponentially approach 1 as the concentration, c approaches 1 million PPM.

So, a change from 280PPM to 400PPM means that Z is going to be MUCH higher.

Jun 06, 2015
Uh oh. Looks like I've gone and pissed off a crackpot again.

Better roll up my sleeves. It's 'bout to get rowdy up in here.

Jun 06, 2015
Ah, furlong, why is it you are trying to argue with me? Odd.
Odd you don't understand how to manipulate exponentials, like, apparently DLK does not,
You get your ass handed to you in public, over an outright error in very simple math, and THAT weak sauce is the best you can come up with? I gave a very specific answer to your question, it is 100% correct, and extremely basic, and then you just give a vague allusion to me "not knowing how to manipulate exponentials"?? Wassamatta, don't have the stomach to admit your mistake in public? Why not, that's where you made it?

Just think .. you can start a whole new trend of actually paying attention to detail, andcaring about clarity and accuracy, and proof-reading and error-checking you posts before you make them. Maybe that'll help you see the glaring flaws in your "theories" and "gedankens" too? Perish the thought!

Jun 06, 2015
You get your ass handed to you in public, over an outright error in very simple math, and THAT weak sauce is the best you can come up with?

I haven't met a crackpot yet whose wit surpasses their competence.
Hint: K*exp([C]) = exp(kC) and exp(kC1)/exp(kC2)

Oh, yeah, wow, WP, your understanding of basic math is worse than I thought.

Yeah...WP not knowing what Einstein summation is is one thing. Not being able to work with basic exponential rules is a whole other level of incompetence. We're talking "why is my face on fire?" level here.

Seriously, dude, exp(kC) = exp(C)^k. In no way, shape, or form is K a constant unless you set k=1 or 0.

This is one of the first things you learn when working with exponentials. Stay away from math, man. Your innumeracy is showing horribly.

Jun 07, 2015
Water_Prophet states
..you'd have to demonstrate how I am incorrect before you can claim that...please, I'd like to be schoolled by one so wise
Sarcasm doesn't help your case, it just diminishes your credibility further, did you really graduate high-school & I see no uni degrees on your facebook, don't you want to show proudly those '4 technical degrees' ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Your memory has some odd patterns re troubled self perception/cognition, did you go to war Greg ?

Water_Prophet asks
Show this pathetic charlatan the proper employment of Beer's Law
As I can see, you really need to get maths refresher first ie exponents, please see your maths teacher at West Seattle High School, do you trust them ?

Did you have an unfortunate war experience, I ask because I see no employment info on your facebook ?

Millions of Physics students for many decades experimentally verify radiative forcing, are they all wrong ?

Hmmm...

Jun 07, 2015
"Millions of Physics students for many decades experimentally verify radiative forcing, are they all wrong ?"

Climate is a chaos based system that has 100s if not 1000s of inputs. To take just one input , Co2, in an stoppered 1000ml beaker and claim that this experiment has any relationship to the entire climate system is nothing more than a carnival fraud.

Jun 07, 2015
See, what you don't understand is that you can calculate the change using the laws of exponents.

Saying it is much higher SHOULD be something you can quantify.

Please do.
Nice copy and paste of Beer's Law by the way, but googled intelligence is just that.

MR166,
As I frequently say, you can demo CO2 right in your own home. CO2 levels are 3-5x higher than outside. That's 1200-2000 ppm. If 400 is causing an effect, then 1200 certainly should.

Just measure radiative transfer; use your forarm and a ruler/ruled distance.
Mark humidity, make the temperature out side equal to inside, then run the experiment: Open a window. CO2-->~400ppm

You find CO2 changes un-noticeable. You'll also find small changes in humidity are noticeable.

Jun 07, 2015
And just to mock your mockery of MY math skills:
You said this is not valid?: K*exp([C]) = exp(kC)

Let just say 2 exp (2) = exp (k *2)
You are seriously telling me this is not a true and exploitable property of exponents?
LOL
k = 1.3467...
We can switch numbers around all day. For every K there is a k.
Please, show me an exception!

Jun 07, 2015
You find CO2 changes un-noticeable. You'll also find small changes in humidity are noticeable
@ALCHIE/profit/TROLL et al
and this is also proven false by the studies i linked to you AND the following
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

go ahead... keep digging your hole

Jun 07, 2015
MR166 states
Climate is a chaos based system that has 100s if not 1000s of inputs
Depends completely upon assessing magnitude classification, how many Energy, how many material movements, how many extraneous factors ie 'other' etc...

MR166 claims
To take just one input , Co2, in an stoppered 1000ml beaker and claim that this experiment has any relationship to the entire climate system is nothing more than a carnival fraud
Flawed & No. Sadly proves you missed chance to appreciate valued use of integration. CO2's radiative forcing experimentally confirmed is 2nd ONLY to Sol's re heat - nothing else !

Choas, in this context re climate (excluding lowest probability outliers Eg Nuclear war, gamma ray bursts, meteor/comets, direct solar flare, supervolcano etc) is localised & integrated within existing heat sources easily identified by magnitude & these are:-

1. Sol's TSI; Spectra, records, historical evidence, cycles, Earth's tilt, Sol's variance, flares etc

TBC

Jun 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Saying it is much higher SHOULD be something you can quantify
Depends on size & path length. ONLY by scientific instruments !

Water_Prophet claims
As I frequently say, you can demo CO2 right in your own home. CO2 levels are 3-5x higher than outside. That's 1200-2000 ppm. If 400 is causing an effect, then 1200 certainly should
NO you CAN'T !

House isn't big enough re air mass to make even 1/100th of a degree, this is your
big FAILURE in education & cognition of basic Physics ie Experimental Methods ?

Like claiming you can tell change in energy output of billions of Staph Aureus vs Listeria on your skin !

Water_Prophet claims
Just measure radiative transfer; use your forarm and a ruler/ruled distance
WRONG !
Humans can't determine 1/100th of a degree over such very short path length !

USE the experimentally confirmed radiative transfer FORMULA provided in CONJUNCTION with calibrated instrumentation, work out Magnitude first !

TBC

Jun 07, 2015
To take just one input , Co2, in an stoppered 1000ml beaker and claim that this experiment has any relationship to the entire climate system is nothing more than a carnival fraud.

One stoppered beaker of Co2 is not an input to the system. You are confusing different concepts of "input". On the one hand, you have the concept of an input to a dynamical system, such as the atmosphere. What this concept generally means is the set of initial conditions, and additional forcing functions.

An initial condition is, in general, a microstate. In other words, you take your system, and divide it into billions or trillions of microscopic pieces. A familiar example of this is asking how a gas evolves in the future if you happen to know the position and momentum of every gas particle now. In classical terms, the evolution is deterministic, but exact calculation is so complicated that it's futile to try.

(to be continued)

Jun 07, 2015
(continued)
You can look at forcing functions in a similar manner, except instead of being initial conditions, they are external conditions. In the context of earth's atmosphere, an example of a contribution to a forcing function is solar irradience at a small section of the atmosphere. Again, it is a microstate.

So, when you refer to Co2 in on beaker, well, I am not certain what you are talking about, but it sounds, to me, like you are referring to a microstate. If you are, well then the answer to your question is simple. Take the atmosphere, and split it into, again billions or trillions of "cuvettes" (or differentials as they call it in calculus) and then calculate the absorption rate for each one. IF you accept that the Beer Lambert applies to a differential of the atmosphere, then the total radiation absorbed is the integral over all cuvettes.

So, the question is: does it apply to a differential of the atmosphere?

(to be continued)

Jun 07, 2015
(continued)
This brings us to the other concept of input, and that is an input to an equation.

For example, X + Y = Z is an equation. So, if you want to determine Z, you could say that X and Y are inputs.

In this sense, you are correct that the GHE is affected by numerous input variables (as far as I can tell). But it is a fallacy to say that that means that that an isolated variable will have a negligible effect. Now, the task of completely addressing this topic as a relative layman seems herculean to say the least, which is why we should defer to expert consensus for things we are not very familiar with. But we can at least start off by considering individual components, and see if they are consistent with the idea that Beer-Lambert can be applied to the entire atmosphere.
(to be continued)

Jun 07, 2015
(to be continued)
So, let's start off with understanding why knowing the concentration of Co2 should give us a good idea of how much the atmosphere is warming.

I'll readily admit that I am no atmospheric scientist, so I am learning this stuff as you ask it (which is something that I want to address later). But, from what I can see, if you have a mixture, absorbance is just a linear combination of absorbances of the components of the mixture.
(See this set of lecture slides: http://www.yorku....ion.pdf)

Now, I might be wrong, but this indicates that for any differential, all you're doing is splitting the current mixture into various components and calculating the absorbance for each one. So, if you have a mixture that contains 400PPM Co2, you can imagine considering ONLY that Co2 and asking how much light it absorbs.

(to be continued)

Jun 07, 2015
Watermonkey... you make me smile... but keep trying, you'll just have toi sit an extra year or 2 in mental school, but i believe in ya... you can do it... :D

Well said Mike, DLK,Thefurlong

Jun 07, 2015
"The heat wave in India is quite consistent with what we expect to see in the future. Heat waves, in general, we expect to increase, not only in areas like India, but we expect them to increase in the United States as well."

This is the point where it gets fun. The more people deny the facts, the more the AGWites continue to live exactly the same way, the more dead humans there will be. Neither are interested in controlling population...but both will do much to achieve it. That's what keeps me from whacking some of the more obnoxious trolls. Ultimately, IF they influence anyone, IF they influence anything, it's going to mean more dead humans. Thanks, trolls for giving "utopia progressives" EXACTLY what we want!

Jun 07, 2015
Furlong,
You don't know anything about it, according to yourself, you are starting out with an inappropriate distribution, and aren't starting with well established results, Beer's Law, and you want us to play in your court?

LOL, you don't even know your exponents! and we're supposed to let you create ensembles?
Let me guess, iterative layers of the atmosphere!
Used the same way years are used in compound interest!

I'll give you a hint; if CO2 doesn't work at 400ppm it don't work elsewhere.
And another hint; water vapor is 7x stronger and 50x more concentrated, near ground and CO2 in the upper atm. diffuses incoming Sunlight, which is >> energy from Earth.

LOL!

Jun 07, 2015
(continued)
I will be back later. Got a deadline to reach. Essentially, I am going to talk about how transittance is the product of the transmittances of each component of the mixture.

WP, this isn't that complicated.

exp(2*k) = exp(2)^k
if K*exp(2) = exp(2)^k, then K = exp(2)^(k-1). So, K isn't linearly proportional to k.

I don't know why you are having contentions with this issue, and frankly, I don't care. I am not going to teach you basic math. For one thing, it's off topic.

What you are essentially doing is arguing that you don't believe in current climate science because fundamental results in basic math are incorrect. And, clearly, you are too incompetent to recognize your own incompetence. So...I don't know what to tell you.

Um...maybe reduce your levels of lead paint consumption?

Jun 07, 2015
A conceptual example I find is best in understanding the BL Law.

Regarding a jar with a large concentration of CO2 .... now make that water droplets as in a mist. Shine a torch through the jar. Very little attenuation to the beam through it and little if any back scatter of beam light.
Go outside, into a (hypothetically) lab controlled mist of the same concentration of H2O droplets. Switch on your torch. The beam will travel (say) 100m and disperse/attenuate the beam with large back-scatter.
The atmosphere has ~ 10km (to tropopause) in which to affect that large attenuation with CO2.
Path-length is all.

Jun 07, 2015
Land: When you frack badly, you can contaminate drinking water (proven). When you drop trash out the car, you can see it all over, you can poison a river, you can decimate the land with logging, move a mountain, build a dam, see the result. Pollution & change occurs. When you irradiate a place (Chernobyl) life changes, it's real. People believe it.

Water: When you pollute the ocean, it's visible, you see it, it's there in huge areas, collecting, plastic all over, animals choking, dying daily. Oil is all over, stays around. People believe it. It's proven.

Air: Only with the atmosphere, do so many people believe you can't pollute it to the point where you change the makeup of it, causing global warming. I don't get it.

If you've lived in Los Angeles, you can see what humanity can DO to the atmosphere. Beijing. Mexico City. When you change the gas proportions *globally*, you get changed gas behavior. Yet people *still* deny it is possible, and going on. Are their minds working?

Jun 07, 2015
Runrig, water vapor in the air has IR effects when it is a gas, it does not have to be droplets or dispersed.

Water vapor is a very powerful GH GAS.


Jun 07, 2015
You said this is not valid?: K*exp([C]) = exp(kC)
I said that if K and k are constants, and C is a variable, then your equation is wrong, and that is middle-school level math, so you've destroyed any academic credibility you might have had before these last few exchanges
Let just say 2 exp (2) = exp (k *2)
You are seriously telling me this is not a true and exploitable property of exponents?
Of course not you doofus, there's no variable there! It's not a comparable expression!
Please, show me an exception!


let's say k = 2, and consider two possible values for the variable C .. let's say 0 and 1.

Your contention is that K*exp(C)=exp(kC), so if K is really constant, it's value obviously shouldn't depend on C:

for C=0, clearly K=1.

for C=1, exp(C)=e, exp(kC)=exp(2)=e^2, so K=e

as I pointed out above, the only general expression for K that can be correct is: K=exp[(k-1)C]. Going to admit your mistake now, or continue to double-down on your inanity?

Jun 07, 2015
Runrig, water vapor in the air has IR effects when it is a gas, it does not have to be droplets or dispersed.

Water vapor is a very powerful GH GAS.
Yeah, you didn't understand what he was saying ... notice how he was talking about a FLASHLIGHT, not an IR source? The whole point of his post was to illustrate the importance of PATH LENGTH! (in case you missed his last sentence). This is only the 578th (approx. value) time this FACT relevant to the Beer-Lambert law (that physical principle you name-dropped without being able to understand) has been pointed out to you. Your math skills are atrocious and your understanding of physical principles are worse, so it's not surprising your attempts at science demonstrations and "gedankens" are so shoddy. The tragedy is that you COULD perhaps learn something, if you'd listen to those who know more and better, but your raging Dunning-Kruger prevents you from accepting that anyone could ever know more or understand better than you.

Jun 07, 2015
Water_Prophet with his usual idiocy missed the point
Runrig, water vapor in the air has IR effects when it is a gas, it does not have to be droplets or dispersed
NO !

runrig's example re scattering illustrates point about path length ONLY - you Dill !

thefurlong's great (patient) post & comment re you is SPOT ON, to effect of:-
"You are so immensely incompetent you don't know how incompetent you are"

Water_Prophet
Water vapor is a very powerful GH GAS
Sure AND CO2 ADDS to it, its simple math ie " addition" Water_Prophet, can't THINK - you Dill !

Use Psychrometry, easy to understand Why/How predictable water's humidity/dewpoint/precipitation is, Water_Prophet has NIL understanding of Psychrometry which show's just why H2O drops out of atmosphere in mere HOURS if nothing is adding enthalpy to atmosphere ie CO2 - you Dill !

CO2 will be around for ages UNLESS plants eventually but, slowly ramp up to absorb >100yrs worth you Dill !

Physics - you Dill !

Jun 08, 2015
Mordechai, You are right, everywhere in the world but English speaking nations have terrible air, and smog and soot are hundreds(?) of times worse than CO2.

Yet somehow we are being led to worry about something that effectively makes no difference. Sounds like conspiracy, I know, but it is, otherwise there wouldn't be so much controversy.

Water vapor, a clear odorless gas, for runrig's sake, is about 50x more powerful, 50xmore common, has increased by 3x as much as CO2 and yet we aren't melting.

Jun 08, 2015
Mordechai, You are right, everywhere in the world but English speaking nations have terrible air, and smog and soot are hundreds(?) of times worse than CO2.

Yet somehow we are being led to worry about something that effectively makes no difference. Sounds like conspiracy, I know, but it is, otherwise there wouldn't be so much controversy.

Water vapor, a clear odorless gas, for runrig's sake, is about 50x more powerful, 50xmore common, has increased by 3x as much as CO2 and yet we aren't melting.


Hmm .. nothing to say about mathematics? Just some repetition of oft-debunked, inane and obviously wrong claims about science .. oh and a conspiracy theory as well for good measure. Par for the course.

Jun 08, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Mordechai, You are right, everywhere in the world but English speaking nations have terrible air, and smog and soot are hundreds(?) of times worse than CO2
His arbitrary opinion doesnt add to credibility. He ignores head-on challenges to his math-less claims !

Water_Prophet claims
Yet somehow we are being led to worry about something that effectively makes no difference. Sounds like conspiracy, I know, but it is, otherwise there wouldn't be so much controversy
Wrong !
He is predisposed to LIE because of NIL physics/maths education & can't understand it

Water_Prophet with the best he can do claims
Water vapor, a clear odorless gas, for runrig's sake, is about 50x more powerful, 50xmore common, has increased by 3x as much as CO2 and yet we aren't melting
Wrong !
Ice is melting, oceans heat
Water_Prophet can't prove his claim the experimentally radiative transfer equation taught is wrong !

Water_Prophet is anti-science ignoring evidence !

Jun 08, 2015
Furlong/Duck:

You know in hindsight, my interpretation of Beer's Law was an oversimplification.

In your opinion; how much weaker is the effect than I supposed based on this overly general assertion? a very great amount. But do you think it is 1/10th as strong, 1/100th, or 1/1000th. I am pretty sure that CO2's effect are weaker due to my "incomprehension," or in my words, worst case use, of Beer's Law; but since you understand it so much better than I, help me out with adjusting it's magnitude (all right actual effect), so that it is more realistic.

Just use what you've already said was wrong with my assertion, we can go with that, and adjust DOWN from there.

I love when you guys correct me.

Also;
Smog and soot are excellent blackbodys, converting just about all incoming radiation into waste thermal heat. It doesn't really need any math, unless you're a moron.

And since you need math...
and since math won't help morons...

Jun 08, 2015
You know in hindsight, my interpretation of Beer's Law was an oversimplification.
No, it was completely wrong.
In your opinion; how much weaker is the effect than I supposed based on this overly general assertion?
Why should I figure stuff out for you? You won't understand my answers, and then you'll insult me. I am still waiting for you to respond to my last reply to your farcical posts about exponentials.
Just use what you've already said was wrong with my assertion, we can go with that, and adjust DOWN from there.
You can't do basic math, that's what's wrong with your "assertion". The center of the CO2 band is SATURATED after passing through a thin layer of atmos .. that's not "DOWN" from your baloney.
Smog and soot are excellent blackbodys, converting just about all incoming radiation into waste thermal heat.
More claims you aren't qualified to make.
It doesn't really need any math
I never said it did .. I was making fun of your posts about exponents.

Jun 08, 2015
QuackLord, I love how I am wrong because you say I am. Interesting how unethical you become in the face of your own incorrectness.
I won't correct by statements about exponentials, because anyone who knows them doesn't need the correction, and anyone who doesn't, probably doesn't care;
But to be clear,you're claiming (1-k) isn't itself a constant, and 0 and 1 are exceptions. OK.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

So sure I was WRONG about Beers Law. Don't you think you'd want to correct me for everyone else reading the page?

I mean, I obviously misapplied it in the way you prescribed thus GREATLY weakening the contribution of CO2, iaw with your statements, which I now wholeheartedly agree with, and wonder and think my gross error caused me to overestimate probably 100 fold.

I beg forgiveness, and wish you would set the record straight in the wake of my well intended ignorance.

Jun 08, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
.. I obviously misapplied it in the way you prescribed thus GREATLY weakening the contribution of CO2, iaw with your statements, which I now wholeheartedly agree with, and wonder and think my gross error caused me to overestimate probably100 fold
Under calculate & did out of confirmational bias to pursue the figure you found of 0.00009 W/m^2 in relation to something else was adopted by you to try prove your claims. Not mature, not genuine = antiscience, NOT helpful to people who read comments after you go away

Water_Prophet claims
beg forgiveness, and wish you would set the record straight in the wake of my well intended ignorance
Only stupid & those who set out to LIE can possibly consider ignorance is "intended", Ugh !

Water_Prophet FFS - formulae for radiative heat transfer have been experimentally verified, ankle biting at the edges as a child cannot prove your claim CO2's effect its "anemic"

Water_Prophet fails. Learn Physics !

Jun 08, 2015
I won't correct by statements about exponentials
What a shock.
But to be clear,you're claiming (1-k) isn't itself a constant, and 0 and 1 are exceptions.
You make a greater and greater ass of yourself on every post. No, that's not what I wrote at all .. and I am not "claiming" anything, I am rehashing basic math you can find in any algebra book. Pick ANY values you like for your VARIABLE C, you can even use 400 & 280 ppm, then tell me which two CONSTANTS (K & k) solve Kexp(C)=exp(kC), for all values C. You can't, because if one is constant, the other is a function of C.
So sure I was WRONG about Beers Law. Don't you think you'd want to correct me for everyone else reading the page?
I did .. the only one who seems to have missed it is you. If you want to figure the ratio of transmittance at two fixed concentrations, use:

T1/T2 =10^[-a*b*(C1-C2)], where a is molar absorptivity, and b is path-length.

You assumed a & b were 1, & C's units are ppm; all wrong.

Jun 08, 2015
@WP .. I also pointed out that, at least for the central peak in the CO2 absorbance band centered near 15 um, the absorbance saturates over a fairly short distance (of order 10 or 100 m), in the lower troposphere, even at 280 ppm. Beer's law integrations over an entire atmospheric column are still valid for the wings of the band, where the molar absorptivity is orders of magnitude weaker, because the path length is so long. That's why you need to do an integral over all of the rovibrational lines contributing to the band, accounting for changes in the thermal populations of the quantum states as the temperature drops with altitude, as well as a pathlength integral to account for the changing number density of gas as the pressure drops. To do that properly takes time and careful programming, which is why I have never reproduced it to satisfy your whims, but instead (many times) referred you to places where you can find results from other people who worked it all out already.

Jun 08, 2015
@WP ... as far as the center of the band being "saturated", that is why you need to account for re-emission and re-absorption of IR along that same column of atmosphere I mentioned in my previous post. This is where the water "feedback" becomes important, because water has a higher concentration, and can also absorb the emitted IR from the CO2 molecules. A significant fraction of the CO2 & water molecules are also "de-excited" by collisions with N2 & O2 molecules when they are in the excited state. All of this means that the IR initially absorbed by GHG's is "thermalized" into the whole atmosphere; that's why you can handle radiative exchange as a system of atmospheric layers, each of which is at "local thermal equilibrium", and each of which behaves as a "blackbody emitter" (to a reasonable approximation) at the temperature given by the thermal lapse rate. This allows the phenomenon of "back-radiation" to be accounted for in the GHE theory.

Jun 08, 2015
You know, I sometimes wonder if WP is some sort of avant garde performance art piece, in the style of Andy Kaufman, where the only object is keep it going as long as possible, never breaking character and never getting to any sort of "punch line" or other resolution. It's just hard to imagine another scenario where someone is so willing to make an ass of themselves and call attention to what everyone observing can see are glaring, embarrassing gaffes, all the while standing there confidently grinning and acting proud of their efforts. I guess that is the glory of a full-blown Dunning-Kruger case.

Jun 08, 2015
You know, I sometimes wonder if WP is some sort of avant garde performance art piece, in the style of Andy Kaufman, where the only object is keep it going as long as possible, never breaking character and never getting to any sort of "punch line" or other resolution. It's just hard to imagine another scenario where someone is so willing to make an ass of themselves and call attention to what everyone observing can see are glaring, embarrassing gaffes, all the while standing there confidently grinning and acting proud of their efforts. I guess that is the glory of a full-blown Dunning-Kruger case.


To be fair, the anonymity of the internet probably encourages this kind of behavior rather than suppresses it. He has nothing to lose by looking like an ass.

Great work in disabusing him of his nonsense, by the way. Are you are professional physicist?

Jun 08, 2015
You know, I sometimes wonder if WP is some sort of avant garde performance art piece, in the style of Andy Kaufman, where the only object is keep it going as long as possible, never breaking charactg to any sort of "punch line" or other resolution. It's just .. imagine another scenario where someone is so....ss of themselves and call atte..re glaring, embarrassing gaffes, all the while standing there confidently grinning and acting proud of their efforts. I guess that is the glory of a full-blown Dunning-Kruger case.


its simple, personally he can't accept the fact that his wrong, so will keep pretending his right and thinking his sockpuppets are his imaginary friends (puppeted by himself of course) it's twisted but sadly real, of course it sounds like he doesn't give a shyt about oil destroying the earth, if he could change it would be good. the odds, my bet is his next comments will be the same as the last ones, why he choses this path ? money, greed i dunno...

Jun 08, 2015
You know, I sometimes wonder if WP is some sort of avant garde performance art piece, in the style of Andy Kaufman, [snip]


To be fair, the anonymity of the internet probably encourages this kind of behavior rather than suppresses it. He has nothing to lose by looking like an ass.
Valid point
Great work in disabusing him of his nonsense, by the way.
Thanks
Are you are professional physicist?
Not to be coy, but there are innumerable threads/posts on PO alone that demonstrate the futility of answering your question. I strive to make my posts as careful and accurate as I can, and to make clear when I am speaking authoritatively, and when I am speculating in an area where I feel I have less expertise. That is really all that can be assessed objectively in this format, so that is all that really matters scientifically. I will say that it is gratifying to know that at least some here appreciate my attempts to maintain high standards; let's leave it at that ;)

Jun 08, 2015
Not to be coy, but there are innumerable threads/posts on PO alone that demonstrate the futility of answering your question. I strive to make my posts as careful and accurate as I can, and to make clear when I am speaking authoritatively, and when I am speculating in an area where I feel I have less expertise. That is really all that can be assessed objectively in this format, so that is all that really matters scientifically. I will say that it is gratifying to know that at least some here appreciate my attempts to maintain high standards; let's leave it at that ;)

Well, sure, it has no bearing on the correctness of your arguments if that's what you mean, but I was just curious.

Jun 09, 2015
Water vapor, a clear odorless gas, for runrig's sake, is about 50x more powerful
@ALCHIE et al
still tilting at windmills?
the basic problem you have, besides an epic failure to provide ANY evidence, is simply that you are scientifically illiterate but have Dunning-Kruger
case in point
my interpretation of Beer's Law was
it was nothing but simple stupidity and blatantly wrong (i chose stupidity because Thermodynamics actually tried teaching you some actual physics etc more than once)
I love how I am wrong because you say I am
that is YOUR tactic, ALCHIE...

from what i see above, and everyone else can see as well
DLK and Furlong have PROVEN you wrong

NICE WORK DLK and FURLONG

Jun 09, 2015
anonymity of the internet probably encourages ...
@furlong
this is absolutely true, and obvious to anyone who has spent any time commenting on anything with a rigid strict protocol like: math,science, medicine, etc

alchie/prophet stultitiae has alleged that he is actually a scientist and linked to a facebook page of "greg m. tyler"

the shocking thing about this is that there is evidence that "a" g. tyler is educated and published
HOWEVER
there is absolutely NO evidence (imagine that) that proves that the prophet stultitiae is actually tyler at all
(typical & his modus operandi)

worst part
it makes tyler look like a complete incompetent idiot because it makes him seem like he is incapable of even the most basic acceptance of the scientific method (like the water bowl "experiment" with no controls, etc)

and if he really IS tyler?
then he deserves the ridicule and scorn of the scientific community

Jun 09, 2015
@DarLordKelvin & thefurlong
Apologies for off topic query :/

Been looking to derive/discover formula for density gradient of column of water, temp t mix H2O/D2O {HDO} from 1 part in 6000 D2O to 50/50 H2O/D2O subject to column height & gravitation g

Part of a problem crafting experiment re adapting a symbolic genetic algorithm in computing re heuristics software to create formula derivations & may be coded in matlab or lua etc...
(For likes of Water_Prophet, inputs: temp (t), conc ratio (r), gravitation (g) but, his input not wanted)

Fortunately have means to test this insitu eventually, expecting a modified centrifuge early next year but, my focus is on general software design process re, deriving such formula for later on assessing efficiency of prion/peptide/organic aqueous separation, interests me re food science for supplement design

Output graph along column, taking into account hydrogen bonding & thermal diffusion etc

ie. H2O; Bonding vs diffusion under g ?

Jun 09, 2015
DLKwhoisStumpywhois thermo

What you shills don't seem to want anyone to understand is that the effect can be studied at all path lengths.

So, although yes it increases with path length, there is no magical effect from the mystery of the depth of the atmosphere.

So, for example, if water vapor overwhelms the effect near the ground by what? over two orders of magnitude, then CO2 is cursory.

Now once you get above where water vapor is germane, the temperature has decreased, and the blackbody energy has also decreased by (delta T)^4. Much less energy, even over a small T range.

Now also, by this time, the Sun's energy, which is much much greater than the Earth's radiated, is still and also being effected by CO2, thus to the ratio of the Sun's 667cm-1/Earths radiation (a very very small band about 1/200th of the thermal band) is being diffused and is actually cooling the Earth.

Oh well.

Jun 09, 2015
Water_Prophet FAILs in his claim
What you shills don't seem to want anyone to understand is that the effect can be studied at all path lengths
Doh & Proven
The radiative heat transfer equation has been experimentally verified, therefore its further proof your middle school flawed maths attempt is completely wrong - a FAIL again, you Dill !

Water_Prophet claims
So, although yes it increases with path length, there is no magical effect from the mystery of the depth of the atmosphere
Experimental results against you, so Prove it ?

Water_Prophet claims & STILL fails to understand
So, for example, if water vapor overwhelms the effect near the ground by what? over two orders of magnitude, then CO2 is cursory
Wrong !
NOT competitive they're additive, you Dill !

Water_Prophet waffles
.. get above where water vapor is germane, the temperature has decreased, and the blackbody energy...
Explain these
http://images.rem...ies.html

Dill !

Jun 09, 2015
Water_Prophet !

Where is your Science, answers to key questions of Physics re radiative forcing etc

Water_Prophet how can millions of physics students over the last few decades who have learned radiative heat transfer AND verified veracity via experiment ALL be wrong according to you ?

Can you answer Water_Prophet ?

Can you design definitive experiment with correctly using calibrated instruments ?

Physics Water_Prophet, not middle school proportionality guesses of relationships, why can't you focus on equation here as you claim to know calculus ?
https://en.wikipe...transfer

which leads to
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Experimentally proven, so why should ANYONE take your naive immature middle school vain attempt at mere proportionality in any way seriously.

Isn't it a crime Water_Prophet to pretend you are someone else & it should be a crime to knowing obfuscate Science - you Dill !