Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Easy answer, eh? Just ignore any calculations and carry on with your "we are above the laws of nature because the Bible sez so" agenda.
Original source of the data; even half that amount of heat would be extreme. But staunch Republicans will dismiss all such data in the blink of an eye, being the pathological liars that they are.
I wonder what you think is causing Arctic ice and most of the world's glaciers to melt? Sorry, I know you don't care. The only things that concern you are your next paycheck and how much taxes you'll pay on it. The entire universe revolves around your tiny life.
I posted this mainly to demonstrate the lack of scientific integrity among the GOP (Greed Over Progress). You people think nature is nothing a welfare agency put here to keep you happy with a cheap tankful.
de·ni·al noun \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\
psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real
Oh look! When one cannot argue on merit then begins the name calling.
Do you deny that since the end of the last great ice age some 12,ooo years ago, the earth has warmed significantly?
Do you deny that there was a little ice age lasting from roughly late 13th-early fourteenth century through mid 19th century, during which the earth cooled significantly?
Do you deny that since the end of that little ice age the earth has warmed, as expected when an ice age ends?
Did you even bother to check out the calculations about how many joules human beings add to the environment, a number which dwarfs your four Hiroshima number?
It has been demonstrated in spades that your 4 Hiroshima argument is nothing more than alarmist propaganda, using an extremely large number in order to deceive people who dont know better, or who dont do any research as to what that number means and how it compares to other sources of joules. Humans add heat. Light bulbs add heat. Animal and even insect life add heat. And the sum total of all these sources makes your 4 Hiroshima figure insignificant, something which you obviously deny.
I will take the liberty of changing the order of your questions (but not altering them)
This is the important one
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Upon what do you base the idea that your faith in those people gives you the right to control other people's lives in ways that may be devastating their welfare?
I have no interest in controlling peoples lives at all or supporting those who desire to do so. Politically, I am on your side of the GW debate. This question is political, not scientific. The flaw in the arguments that AGW is all "settled science" is not in the details of data collection or even in scientific theory - the flaw is in the rationale that X is happening therefore we must do Y to stop it. Scientific arguments cannot be twisted around to support carbon taxes or any other such silliness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
The question is pretty specific. You did not answer it.
I did, in general terms. If you wish to argue that polar molecules do not absorb EM energy, you might as well argue that the sun won't rise in the East tomorrow morning. This concept is about as close to "settled science" as the GW debate gets. The AGW crowd vastly overplays the scientific hand, but that is no excuse for the rest of us to throw out all scientific principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Uhh, when you don't understand what you accept... You have a habit of accepting that which you have no evidence for. This is called "gullibility".
No, I accept that basic physics can be considered "settled science" in most cases because the cause and effect is quite clear and predictable. Radiative transfer can safely be considered settled within the limits needed to analyze atmosphere. I similarly accept that airplanes generally remain airborne above the speed for which their wings are designed.
This is not to be taken as an endorsement of the entirety of AGW as "settled science" - because it is not. To say it were, one would have to be able to account for the inaccuracy of past AGW predictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
The sun's radiation intensity, combined, for the entire range of spectrum, from longwave RF to the extremely short wavelengths above UV, is a specific value per area. In terms of this argument, it's so many watts or joules / meter. Rather than argue about which specific spectrum, let's just agree that it's all the relevant light and longer wavelenths, about 200nm to 3000 nm. And, for sake of debate, let's call that value X.
Absent any atmosphere, the amount of radiated energy reaching the surface of the planet is X. Some will be reflected and some absorbed. So, let's call the total X and the absurbed Y and the reflected Z.
Now, add an atmosphere. So, now we add an atmosphere. This atmosphere absorbs an amount, let's call it A. So, now the radiated energy reaching the surface is X-A. What the surface absorbs is (X-A) + (A/2) + ( Z * (A/X))
For brevity's sake, let's say that A is re-emitted toward ground at at X/2, since one direction is ground and the other is space. So, the amount of radiation reaching the ground is (X-A) + (A/2). Whatever the ground emits, is going to be B. What is radiated back to the ground will be whatever the atmosphere absorbs / 2.
NO MATTER WHAT THE VALUE OF A is, the EARTH will GET LESS RADIATED ENERGY THAN WITHOUT AN ATMOSPHERE. In fact, as you increase A, X will decrease. Even the re-radiated energy from the surface will never be contained in the atmosphere by more than A/2, as the atmosphere will radiate at least half of that back into space.
There is no scenario, no combination of "greenhouse gasses" that INCREASES the radiation to the surface. Any change in gas that increases A results in a lower X and B will always be a fraction of X.
The atmosphere could warm.. .but the surface would have reduced energy reaching it, since more than half of what the atmosphere would absorb would be radiated back into space.
So, to further expound on this, CO2 absorbs a very narrow slice of radiated energy near 2000nm, which, by the time it reaches the ground, is single digits in terms of the total energy reaching the surface, X-A. I don't know the percentage of total radiance it comprises, but if it exceeded 2% of the total, I would be very, very surprised.
So, if a tiny fraction of the total energy reaching the earth being absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated into space is increased slightly, the theory is that we're going to have a runaway heating process.
Yet, grade school level physics and math says that's absurd.
So, upon what you base your trust in the people who tell you this stuff?
The error here is that B is not a fraction of X, it is a function of X, and it is not a linear function. The reason is that the greenhouse gasses do not absorb as much full band radiation as they do thermal radiation (thermal being a subset of full band). So increasing the quantity of one or more of those gasses does not reduce the full band solar radiation as much as it increases the re-radiated thermal energy. That is how you can be wrong about the bit I highlighted in red.
Dispute that if you like... dispute that the sky is in fact blue for all I really care about it - doing one is the same as the other.
To answer the question of trust, I do not trust the people who tell us this to dictate public policy. I trust them, sometimes, to understand the science - data collection and basic theory. Where it all falls apart is the assumption that science can be predictive to the extent that AGW proponents claim that it is. Micheal Mann is way, way out on a very thin limb, which is why he has to resort to lawsuits rather than sticking to basic principles of science - those do not support him, so he's turned to the courts for validation.
Conservatives love to cite the relative stability of global surface temperatures for the last 15 years as proof that climate change is a hoax. And they frequently twist the words of scientists to do it. I read or hear versions of this argument all the time—from outlets like Forbes, National Review, and Fox News. Sometimes the conservatives even talk about “global cooling,” joking that maybe we should be more worried about that, instead. This sort of commentary probably helps explain why still find that just 67 percent of Americans accept that humans cause climate change, even though there is nearly unanimous scientific consensus.Needless to say, the conservatives have it all wrong. And the science really isn’t that hard to understand.
Climate change is not a hoax. We all know the earth heats and cools periodically. Has before and will continue.
My contention is that AGW is a hoax since its theory. No facts to back it up. But the FACT that it stopped warming 15 years ago has all you warmers stumped.
Don't try to lump the two together to make your argument more palatable.
The error here is that B is not a fraction of X, it is a function of X, and it is not a linear function. The reason is that the greenhouse gasses do not absorb as much full band radiation as they do thermal radiation (thermal being a subset of full band). So increasing the quantity of one or more of those gasses does not reduce the full band solar radiation as much as it increases the re-radiated thermal energy. That is how you can be wrong about the bit I highlighted in red.[
But it is only fractionally re-radiated downward. Thus, despite your argument, no amount of increase in greenhouses gases results in more thermal energy reaching ground level - reason says that less than HALF of any absorption by any gas will ever reach the surface. So, the more you have of a "greenhouse gas", the less whatever spectrum it interacts with reaches the surface.
Quote:
Dispute that if you like... dispute that the sky is in fact blue for all I really care about it - doing one is the same as the other.
I'm sorry, you've made a fundamental logic error.
Quote:
To answer the question of trust, I do not trust the people who tell us this to dictate public policy. I trust them, sometimes, to understand the science - data collection and basic theory. Where it all falls apart is the assumption that science can be predictive to the extent that AGW proponents claim that it is. Micheal Mann is way, way out on a very thin limb, which is why he has to resort to lawsuits rather than sticking to basic principles of science - those do not support him, so he's turned to the courts for validation.
No, he hasn't turned to courts for validation, he's turned to the courts to retain influence.
But it is only fractionally re-radiated downward. Thus, despite your argument, no amount of increase in greenhouses gases results in more thermal energy reaching ground level - reason says that less than HALF of any absorption by any gas will ever reach the surface. So, the more you have of a "greenhouse gas", the less whatever spectrum it interacts with reaches the surface.
No, I said it is non-linear. Your reasoning would work fine if the function were linear. Look up an absorption band chart if you doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
I'm sorry, you've made a fundamental logic error.
That you will have to explain why you think so. Just saying it is pretty weak.
I say that disputing one observation based on fundamental physics is the same as disputing another - one that you can see with your own eyes. The phenomenon is different with each, but they are roughly at the same level of theoretical certainty if you talk to a physicist about either one.
If you prefer, you can dispute the pull of gravity about as well as disputing the basics of radiative transfer.
The thing to dispute is the conclusions drawn from atmospheric science, they are typically erroneous and lead to inaccurate predictions. If you want an even easier target, dispute the political conclusions drawn from the erroneous scientific conclusions - like that a carbon tax is going to do anything useful, or that a problem that they believe was 150 years in the making will be corrected in just a few decades if we all drive hybrids. The political stuff is where they get fully out to lunch, washing it down with six martinis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
No, he hasn't turned to courts for validation, he's turned to the courts to retain influence.
Could be either one, I won't pretend to know what is in the man's mind. Result is the same with either motivation.
No, I said it is non-linear. Your reasoning would work fine if the function were linear. Look up an absorption band chart if you doubt it.
That's irrelevant. And yes, I understand the concept very well.
Quote:
That you will have to explain why you think so. Just saying it is pretty weak.
It's pretty simple, actually. Because we have an atmosphere, whatever X may be, less than X will reach the surface. The more is absorbed or attenuated by atmosphere, the less will reach the surface. Period. You can't change that. If you had no atmosphere, the full amount of X would reach the surface. Once you absorb it elsewhere, PART OF THAT WILL BE RADIATED BACK TO SPACE. Period. There is no possible situation where more reaches the surface by adding additional absorption to the atmosphere. That defies every law of radiated energy. And the people who dreamed up the CO2 caused global warming have since abandoned it and now claim that there's now a SHIFT in wavelength frequency that causes more surface absorption. Why? Because grade school math and conservation of energy says that the X - A, since part of A will radiate back into space, will always be less than X. Period. So, they came up with a new theory to attempt to muddy the water.
Quote:
If you prefer, you can dispute the pull of gravity about as well as disputing the basics of radiative transfer.
The thing to dispute is the conclusions drawn from atmospheric science, they are typically erroneous and lead to inaccurate predictions. If you want an even easier target, dispute the political conclusions drawn from the erroneous scientific conclusions - like that a carbon tax is going to do anything useful, or that a problem that they believe was 150 years in the making will be corrected in just a few decades if we all drive hybrids. The political stuff is where they get fully out to lunch, washing it down with six martinis.
I'm not disputing ANYTHING about radiative transfer OR the pull of gravity. I'm pointing out that understanding radiative transfer NEGATES the theory of CO2 warming the surface. Period. Fact, end of story.
That's irrelevant. And yes, I understand the concept very well.
It's pretty simple, actually. Because we have an atmosphere, whatever X may be, less than X will reach the surface. The more is absorbed or attenuated by atmosphere, the less will reach the surface. Period. You can't change that. If you had no atmosphere, the full amount of X would reach the surface. Once you absorb it elsewhere, PART OF THAT WILL BE RADIATED BACK TO SPACE. Period. There is no possible situation where more reaches the surface by adding additional absorption to the atmosphere. That defies every law of radiated energy. And the people who dreamed up the CO2 caused global warming have since abandoned it and now claim that there's now a SHIFT in wavelength frequency that causes more surface absorption. Why? Because grade school math and conservation of energy says that the X - A, since part of A will radiate back into space, will always be less than X. Period. So, they came up with a new theory to attempt to muddy the water.
I'm not disputing ANYTHING about radiative transfer OR the pull of gravity. I'm pointing out that understanding radiative transfer NEGATES the theory of CO2 warming the surface. Period. Fact, end of story.
Well, I have to say, your willful ignorance is unshakeable. Have it your way. Just don't talk to scientists, or learn to live with the laughter
Incidentally, you have quite clearly demonstrated that you have zero understanding of radiative transfer.
Politics aside, massive and untenable global warming theories aside, your understanding of the science you attempt to outline is just not there.
Just to stir up the pot some more, I cross posted on a different blog site. Here is a particular response from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastEddy
Bemused, speaking of the misuse of numbers to sway and otherwise inflame an argument:
This from The Atlantic Magazine (that bastion of adverb littered snooze for squeamish Long Island liberal whiners):
"How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen"
"Environmentalists warn us that apocalypse awaits. Economists tell us that minimal fixes will get us through. Here's how we can move beyond the impasse." - CHARLES C. MANN - AUG 13 2014
"Not long ago, my newspaper informed me that glaciers in the western Antarctic, undermined by the warmer seas of a hotter world, were collapsing, and their disappearance “now appears to be unstoppable.” ...
... One study, in Geophysical Research Letters, provided no guidance; the authors concluded only that the disappearing glaciers would “significantly contribute to sea level rise in decades to centuries to come.” But the other, in Science, offered more-precise estimates: during the next century, the oceans will surge by as much as a quarter of a millimeter a year. By 2100, that is, the calamity in Antarctica will have driven up sea levels by almost an inch. ...
... How much consideration do I owe the people it will affect, my 40-times-great-grandchildren, who, many climate researchers believe, will still be confronted by rising temperatures and seas? Americans don’t even save for their own retirement! How can we worry about such distant, hypothetical beings? ...
... In the 3,600 years between 1800 B.C. and 1800 A.D., the economic historian Gregory Clark has calculated, there was “no sign of any improvement in material conditions” in Europe and Asia. Then came the Industrial Revolution. ...
... Eco-advocates insist that only the radical transformation of society—the old order demolished, foundation to roof—can fend off the worst consequences of climate change. Economists argue for adapting to the most-likely consequences; cheerleaders for industrial capitalism, they propose quite different, much milder policies, and are ready to let nature take a bigger hit in the short and long terms alike. Both envelop themselves in the mantle of Science, emitting a fug of charts and graphs. ...
... Rising temperatures per se are not the primary concern. What matters most is their future influence on other things: agricultural productivity, sea levels, storm frequency, infectious disease. As the philosopher Dale Jamieson points out in the unfortunately titled Reason in a Dark Time, most of these effects cannot be determined by traditional scientific experiments—white-coats in laboratories can’t melt a spare Arctic ice cap to see what happens. (Climate change has no lab rats.) Instead, thousands of researchers refine ever bigger and more complex mathematical models. The third graph typically shows the consequences such models predict, ranging from worrisome (mainly) to catastrophic (possibly). ...
... Thus the first sentence of McKibben’s Oil and Honey, a memoir of his climate activism, describes 2011–12, the period covered by his book, as “a time when the planet began to come apart.” Already visible “in almost every corner of the earth,” climate “chaos” is inducing “an endless chain of disasters that will turn civilization into a never-ending emergency response drill.” ...
... Poppycock, the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in effect replies in The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse. A best-selling, telegenic public intellectual (a species that hardly exists in this country), Bruckner is mainly going after what he calls “ecologism,” of which McKibbenites are exemplars. At base, he says, ecologism seeks not to save nature but to purify humankind through self-flagellating asceticism. ...
... "
And on and on for several pages, in which Mann tries to inject some reasonable sanity and logic (an a bit of hard science) into this otherwise mis-read and mis-understood and all too often exaggerated and inflamed discourse.
His basic conclusions (without offending the big g'ment social-Fasciksts) are that government is helpless and hamstrung and should not even be asked. One wonders what the "letters" column will look like next month. :groucho:
---
This is Charles Mann, the interesting author of historical and pre-historical though slightly contrarian tombs like 1491 and 1493 (not to be confused with Michael Mann, the climate gate, chicken little eco-whacko, lying cheap shooter, hockey sticker, law suit suited, Penn State pseudo-intelectual spewer of taxsucking drivel).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
