Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[palerider]

I did provide hard, observed evidence that the average temperature of the Earth was increasing. All you provided were a few anecdotes, then claimed that glaciers were actually growing. I showed that they are retreating over time.

You said that you could and have provided hard, observed, repeatable evidence that established a hard link between the activities of man, and the changing global climate.

Providing evidence that the global temperatures have gone up or down doesn't even begin to get at the cause of such changes. I asked you if you could provide hard evidence for a specific thing and you claimed that not only could you, but that you had. Clearly, you can not and have not; therefore you lied.

I haven't gotten to that one yet. Before we can discuss a cause of warming, first we have to agree that there is warming. Why try to find a cause for something you say isn't happening?

To date, you have not provided evidence of a database with a smaller margin of error than the amount of temperature change being claimed. As to the physical laws that support or refute AGW as described and claimed by warmists, no actual evidence of change is needed. The physical laws speak for themselves without regard to what the climate is doing.

I provided hard real science showing that the measured temperatures are of a real warming, not just a margin of error. Let's stick to one issue at a time.

No you didn't. You stated that it was warming and said that 10 years ago some glaciers that are now advancing were shrinking. That doesn't constitute hard science that shows that measured temperatures showed real warming. If you would like to see some hard, real science, from your own people, here, have a look.

That set of images alone calls into question your "evidence" of "real" warming. Clearly hansen adjusted the temperatures of the past down and adjusted the more recent temperatures up in an effort to give an appearance of warming, but since the record has been undeniably been tampered with, where is your "hard" "real science" that proves warming, much less hard evidence that proves why a temperature change might have happened?

So, you're now saying that it is not possible that the Earth is warming, while at the same time saying that it has warmed and cooled many times over the eons?

Did you even read the statement that you are apparently answering? Where in that statement do you get the idea that I am denying climate change either up or down. I stated that the laws of physics are against the cause of AGW as stated by warmists. If you are going to engage me in an argument, you might at least make responses that suggest that you have read and understood what I wrote.

I haven't made such a claim. First, we have to establish the reality of global warming before trying to provide evidence of a link between human activities and what you are claiming doesn't exist.

Of course you have. Why lie when you have to know that I am going to bring the evidence of your lie forward? In post 170 I asked you, and I quote:

Now, can you, or can you not provide a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate?

To which you answered in post 173 and I quote:

Of course I can, and have.

Clearly, you lied.

Of course not. That's another issue. The way this discussion is going, we'll never get past the "It's not happening" discussion.

And yet, you claimed to have provided evidence that proved just that. Now you claim it is another issue entirely. Tell me, are you this scatterbrained or deliberately obtuse in your day to day life?

OK, then let's see you substantiate the claim that the average temperature of the Earth is not increasing.

I substantiated my claim that we can't be sure what the global temperature is doing when I showed hansen's obvious tampering with the temperature record. He isn't the only one who has taken liberties with the temperature record by the way, but his reserach is the basis for the claims of the IPCC.

And, please, no more wandering off to other topics. That is becoming tiresome.

Once more, accuing your opponent of your own behavior. Your shuck and jive is really not an effective debate tactic unless your goal is to destroy any small bit of credibility you might have.

 

[PLC1]

This repetitive discussion is getting really tiresome.

My position is what it always was, and is the same as every scientific organization on Earth. Of course, you don't want to hear it, and that's OK. If you want to listen to the bloggers, be my guest.

However, a statement like this:

Did you even read the statement that you are apparently answering? Where in that statement do you get the idea that I am denying climate change either up or down. I stated that the laws of physics are against the cause of AGW as stated by warmists. If you are going to engage me in an argument, you might at least make responses that suggest that you have read and understood what I wrote.

What you wrote was that there is no evidence that the Earth is warming, that the measured increases are within the margin of error, and that the other evidence I cited about growing glaciers is not true because there have been some short term gains in places.

At least that' the latest.

Your position shifts so often, it's like trying to hit a bird on the wing.

Now, you're saying that you're not denying climate change.

OK, before we go further, please answer yes or no:

You believe that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing

A. yes
B. no.

maybe we can go on from there. The constant shift of position, the straw man arguments about "alarmism" , are getting tiresome.

 

[palerider]

This repetitive discussion is getting really tiresome.

Well, your dishonesty is growing tiresome anyway.

My position is what it always was, and is the same as every scientific organization on Earth. Of course, you don't want to hear it, and that's OK. If you want to listen to the bloggers, be my guest.

What you wrote was that there is no evidence that the Earth is warming, that the measured increases are within the margin of error, and that the other evidence I cited about growing glaciers is not true because there have been some short term gains in places.

Dang you lie a lot when you paint yourself into a corner.

What I wrote was, and I quote:

Well, at least one of us is operating from a position of belief. Alas, it isn't me. I am only swayed by facts and physical laws when the topic is science. I can name multiple physical laws that state explicitly that AGW as described by warmists simply is not possible and can do the math necessary to prove it. Want to do some math?

To which you answered, and I quote:

So, you're now saying that it is not possible that the Earth is warming, while at the same time saying that it has warmed and cooled many times over the eons?

Now what does your response have to do with what I wrote?

Your position shifts so often, it's like trying to hit a bird on the wing.

My position never shifts. Clearly you have a comprehension problem if you believe my position has shifted.

Now, you're saying that you're not denying climate change.

I have never denied climate change. The climate is always changing. I deny that the claims of AGW.

You believe that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing

Dang you are dense. I have said that the margin of error in the record is too great to reasonably make the claims that warmists are making and showed you clear evidence of the record being tampered with.

maybe we can go on from there. The constant shift of position, the straw man arguments about "alarmism" , are getting tiresome.

It is you who keeps shifting. I have made my position crystal clear. Temperatures rise, temperatures fall. At present, we can't say with any degree of accuracy which directon the global temperature is moving. What I can say with certainty that claims that man is responsible for the changing global climate are no more than stories to satisfy socialist goals and to scare the uneducated.

You believe that man is causing global climate change and I am prepared to discuss the physical laws and do the math to prove that the claims are bogus. Are you, or are you not up to discussing the hard science?

 

[PLC1]

Well, your dishonesty is growing tiresome anyway.

My position is what it always was, and is the same as every scientific organization on Earth. Of course, you don't want to hear it, and that's OK. If you want to listen to the bloggers, be my guest.



Dang you lie a lot when you paint yourself into a corner.

What I wrote was, and I quote:



To which you answered, and I quote:



Now what does your response have to do with what I wrote?


My position never shifts. Clearly you have a comprehension problem if you believe my position has shifted.



I have never denied climate change. The climate is always changing. I deny that the claims of AGW.



Dang you are dense. I have said that the margin of error in the record is too great to reasonably make the claims that warmists are making and showed you clear evidence of the record being tampered with.



It is you who keeps shifting. I have made my position crystal clear. Temperatures rise, temperatures fall. At present, we can't say with any degree of accuracy which directon the global temperature is moving. What I can say with certainty that claims that man is responsible for the changing global climate are no more than stories to satisfy socialist goals and to scare the uneducated.

You believe that man is causing global climate change and I am prepared to discuss the physical laws and do the math to prove that the claims are bogus. Are you, or are you not up to discussing the hard science?

Well, we are making some progress at least.

Now, you're saying that the climate might be getting warmer. Now, let's go back to the evidence that it is, or is not. The long term trend in glaciation is:

A. they are increasing,
B. They are decreasing,
C. We don't know that one either.

and the long term (not just carefully selected years) shows that
A. the climate is in a warming trend,
B. the climate is in a cooling trend.

and the other evidence for/against warming is ???

If you're willing to say that the climate is getting warmer, then perhaps we can discuss the causes for said warming.

 

[palerider]

Well, we are making some progress at least.

Now, you're saying that the climate might be getting warmer. Now, let's go back to the evidence that it is, or is not. The long term trend in glaciation is:

A. they are increasing,
B. They are decreasing,
C. We don't know that one either.

and the long term (not just carefully selected years) shows that
A. the climate is in a warming trend,
B. the climate is in a cooling trend.

and the other evidence for/against warming is ???

If you're willing to say that the climate is getting warmer, then perhaps we can discuss the causes for said warming.

Look, I understand that you have painted yourself into a corner, and it is obvious that you are not prepared to discuss the science. You are a believer and that is the extent of your position. You lack the education required to actually look objectively at the science and make a determination as to whether you have been hoaxed or not. As a result, you shuck and jive, you bob and weave and you duck and cover. What you don't do is make rational arguments.

I stated from the very beginning that the general trend for the past 14k years has been warming. We are, after all coming out of an ice age. That does not, however, mean that the earth is, at present, warming. While the overall trend for the past 14K years has been warming, that does not mean that all periods during that time have been warming. The little ice age for example which brought the Medieval Warm period to an end lasted till the beginning of the 20th century at which time it began to warm. At present, however, we can't say whether the earth is warming, at a temporary standstill, or cooling. ONCE AGAIN, the margin of error in the temperature record is to large to make any determination and the temperature record has been tampered with to the point that it is useless.

The causes claimed for the theoretical warming don't require any acknowledgement from me as to whether there is any warming or not. They certianly don't require any real evidence of warming from those who claim warming to be proclaimed as fact. The pseudoscience behind the claim of manmade warming is so pitifully inadequate that I am surprised that anyone actually believes it. I would wager that you don't even know that the models upon which claims of manmade warming are made are based on a literal flat earth on which night time doesn't exist; and that is only one example of the piss poor science behind the claims.

Now if you want to talk about the science and do some math, by all means, lets proceed. I have grown tired of your incessant dodging. You believe the claims of AGW, the onus is upon you to prove it. You might start by naming a single law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

 

[PLC1]

Look, I understand that you have painted yourself into a corner, and it is obvious that you are not prepared to discuss the science. You are a believer and that is the extent of your position. You lack the education required to actually look objectively at the science and make a determination as to whether you have been hoaxed or not. As a result, you shuck and jive, you bob and weave and you duck and cover. What you don't do is make rational arguments.

I stated from the very beginning that the general trend for the past 14k years has been warming. We are, after all coming out of an ice age. That does not, however, mean that the earth is, at present, warming. While the overall trend for the past 14K years has been warming, that does not mean that all periods during that time have been warming. The little ice age for example which brought the Medieval Warm period to an end lasted till the beginning of the 20th century at which time it began to warm. At present, however, we can't say whether the earth is warming, at a temporary standstill, or cooling. ONCE AGAIN, the margin of error in the temperature record is to large to make any determination and the temperature record has been tampered with to the point that it is useless.

The causes claimed for the theoretical warming don't require any acknowledgement from me as to whether there is any warming or not. They certianly don't require any real evidence of warming from those who claim warming to be proclaimed as fact. The pseudoscience behind the claim of manmade warming is so pitifully inadequate that I am surprised that anyone actually believes it. I would wager that you don't even know that the models upon which claims of manmade warming are made are based on a literal flat earth on which night time doesn't exist; and that is only one example of the piss poor science behind the claims.

Now if you want to talk about the science and do some math, by all means, lets proceed. I have grown tired of your incessant dodging. You believe the claims of AGW, the onus is upon you to prove it. You might start by naming a single law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

I see. Well, we've made some progress. I won't bother to ask you how you know that there has been a warming trend for the past 14 years if the measurement is within the margin of error, but whatever. I'm sure you have some reason.

and, I won't bother to tell you that the little ice age was a local phenomenon that affected Europe and North America, and not a worldwide trend.

What's the use? You will just post a link to a blog that says it's not so anyway.

So, let's go ahead and see just what you have to say about the causes of the warming that may or may not be happening.

Let's stick to that one, though, and not go off on some glaciers are growing, or it's been cold this winter sort of thing, as that has nothing to do with the argument at all anyway.

And let's not bring up Al Gore, or carbon credits, or how "alarmed" people may or may not be.

We really haven't answered question #1, but, by all means, let's see what this "scientific" evidence may be that the warming that may or may not be real is not being accelerated by human activities.

and I can hardly wait to see your mathematical evidence. Does it have to do with errors of measurement? Nope, because that would be arguing that the Earth is not really warming, and we've already been there.

 

[dogtowner]

a warming trend for the past 14 years

in the interes of accuracy that was 14k or 14,000 years.

carry on

 

[PLC1]

in the interes of accuracy that was 14k or 14,000 years.

carry on

Oh, yes, so it was! Thank you for pointing that out.

Why, then, is Palerider saying that we don't know whether the globe has been warming or not?

I would think that 14,000 years would be enough to constitute a warming trend. Of course, there have been periods of a couple years at a time when the temps went down. Short term fluctuations are a part of the pattern as well.

 

[palerider]

I see. Well, we've made some progress. I won't bother to ask you how you know that there has been a warming trend for the past 14 years if the measurement is within the margin of error, but whatever. I'm sure you have some reason.

Progress? Is that what you call it? So far all you have demonstrated is how little you actually know. I do want to know one thing before we proceed. Tell me honestly, are you really this stupid? Do you really not know upon what basis I state that there has been a GENERAL warming trend for the past 14K years? Don't you think that glaciers melting back nearly 2000 miles might be a hint? Do you think you would need a thermometer to tell you that the earth is exiiting an ice age when nearly 2000 linear miles of ice disappears over a period of 14K years? Geez guy, do you know anything that isn't spoon fed to you by one of your pseudoscientific priests?

and, I won't bother to tell you that the little ice age was a local phenomenon that affected Europe and North America, and not a worldwide trend.

And you just keep on proving that you really don't know jack. You are one of the least knowledgeable warmists I have spoken to in a great while. Upon what basis do you believe that the little ice age was a local phenomenon that only affected North America and Europe? Mann's discredited hockey stick? If so, I am laughing out loud in your face. Are you unaware that one of the strongest little ice age signals found was in the Vostok ice core data? Do you know where Vostok is? It is very near the south pole. Tell me, and use your brain a bit if possible, how might one of the strongest signals of a phenomenon localized to North America and Europe show up near the South Pole?

Here, have a bit more peer reviewed material:

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h79084441w9540x0/

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217 (reference 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 as they specifically address signals of the litte ice in places other than North America and Europe)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/2000GL011426.shtml

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacobasin.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_lagunaaculeo.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_bragancabrazil.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nzcave.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_nzeastnorth.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_makapansgat.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_capblanc.php

I could provide these peer reviewed studies showing that the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period were both global and warmer than the present and that the Little Ice Age was global but what's the point?

What's the use? You will just post a link to a blog that says it's not so anyway.

Unlike you, I don't depend on blogs for my knowledge base. All of the studies I listed above are peer reviewed and published. There are literally dozens upon dozens of peer reviewed published studies showing that the little ice age was global in nature.

So, let's go ahead and see just what you have to say about the causes of the warming that may or may not be happening.

I have said what I have to say. Temperature changes up or down are natural. The laws of physics state pretty clearly that the mechanisms described by warmists simply are not possible. If you ever stop shucking and jiving perhaps we can get down to the hard science.

We really haven't answered question #1, but, by all means, let's see what this "scientific" evidence may be that the warming that may or may not be real is not being accelerated by human activities.

Sure. First, describe the mechanism by which you believe man is causing the global climate to warm and I will proceed with the physical laws that state that it is not possible.

On second thought, rather than listen to your shuck and jive over that mechanism (because at this point, my bet is that you really don't have a clue) let me just post it for you.

This is the trenberth, et al energy budget upon which climate alarmism is based, upon which the IPCC pseudoscience is based and upon which all current models of the earth's climate are based. Note that it is a literal flat earth. trenberth expresses incoming energy from the sun in terms of P/4 which litteraly makes a flat surface of the earth and has the earth being irradiated 24 hours a day with constant daylight at 1/4 the actual amount. I will go into that, and why it can't represent reality later. First things first.
I will draw your attention first to the yellow bar coming in from space. It indicates that 161 watts per square meter of energy is coming in, and being absorbed by the surface of the earth. This is all of the incoming energy from the sun. Then I will draw your attention to the tan bar on the far right hand side of the graphic. It is labeled 333 backradiation, and at the bottom of the bar, it indicates that this energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth. That bar indicates that energy in the amount of 333 watts per square meter are backradiated from the atmosphere down to, and absorbed by the surface of the earth.

According to climate pseudoscience, the surface of the earth receives more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from its only energy source, the sun.

We won't go into the law of conservation of energy at this point which will ask where that excess energy came from since only 161 watts per square meter is coming in from the sun. Instead, lets look at the second law of thermodynamics. I quote:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now, since the second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that it isn't possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body, do explain, within the laws of physics, how the cooler atmosphere might transfer energy to the warmer surface of the earth. I would like to see the math.

 

[palerider]

Oh, yes, so it was! Thank you for pointing that out.

Why, then, is Palerider saying that we don't know whether the globe has been warming or not?

I would think that 14,000 years would be enough to constitute a warming trend. Of course, there have been periods of a couple years at a time when the temps went down. Short term fluctuations are a part of the pattern as well.

The little ice age was global, as indicated by the above peer reviewed studies and lasted for about 600 years. That hardly amounts to a "couple" of years at a time. You are not prepared for this discussion PLC. Your knowledge base is far to limited. You only know what you have been spoon fed by your priests and clearly have little actual knolwedge of science at all. Offhand remarks like "a couple of years at a time" will only serve to show how little you actually know and upon what a paltry bit of knowledge you have based your position.

 

[PLC1]

The little ice age was global, as indicated by the above peer reviewed studies and lasted for about 600 years. That hardly amounts to a "couple" of years at a time.

I think you're confusing two issues yet again. The little ice age was not short term, of course. It was the growth of the glaciers in Norway that you cited that was short term.

No, the little ice age affected Europe and North America. I already posted a link, and now we've gone on to a new issue, so there's no need to repeat.

You are not prepared for this discussion PLC. Your knowledge base is far to limited. You only know what you have been spoon fed by your priests and clearly have little actual knolwedge of science at all. Offhand remarks like "a couple of years at a time" will only serve to show how little you actually know and upon what a paltry bit of knowledge you have based your position.

I'll not respond to your insults except to repeat the obvious: When you resort to elementary school level taunts, it's a sure sign you have no real argument.

Progress? Is that what you call it? So far all you have demonstrated is how little you actually know. I do want to know one thing before we proceed. Tell me honestly, are you really this stupid? Do you really not know upon what basis I state that there has been a GENERAL warming trend for the past 14K years? Don't you think that glaciers melting back nearly 2000 miles might be a hint? Do you think you would need a thermometer to tell you that the earth is exiiting an ice age when nearly 2000 linear miles of ice disappears over a period of 14K years? Geez guy, do you know anything that isn't spoon fed to you by one of your pseudoscientific priests?

So, now you're making the same argument I've been making. the retreat of glaciers is evidence of warming.

Further, your personal insults are noted, and I've already commented on that.

And you just keep on proving that you really don't know jack. You are one of the least knowledgeable warmists I have spoken to in a great while. Upon what basis do you believe that the little ice age was a local phenomenon that only affected North America and Europe? Mann's discredited hockey stick? If so, I am laughing out loud in your face. Are you unaware that one of the strongest little ice age signals found was in the Vostok ice core data? Do you know where Vostok is? It is very near the south pole. Tell me, and use your brain a bit if possible, how might one of the strongest signals of a phenomenon localized to North America and Europe show up near the South Pole?

More stupid insults.

Were I reading an exchange between two other members, i would have to redact your stupid insults. As it is, I'll allow them to stand as proof that you have no real argument. But, anyone who is reading this with an open mind already knows this.

Here, have a bit more peer reviewed material:

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h79084441w9540x0/

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217 (reference 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 as they specifically address signals of the litte ice in places other than North America and Europe)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/2000GL011426.shtml

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacobasin.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_lagunaaculeo.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_bragancabrazil.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nzcave.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_nzeastnorth.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_makapansgat.php

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_capblanc.php

I could provide these peer reviewed studies showing that the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period were both global and warmer than the present and that the Little Ice Age was global but what's the point?

Yes, what is the point? Since you've already said that the Earth has been warming for 14,000 years, why are you trying to show that it has not?

Anyway, I thought we were going to discuss the causes of warming now. Focus!

Unlike you, I don't depend on blogs for my knowledge base.

Oh, no, of course not. You don't listen to those NASA, CERN, National Geographic, Discover magazine, or any other such blogs. You only listen to the ones that support your point of view.

That statement is so absurd as to be risible.

All of the studies I listed above are peer reviewed and published. There are literally dozens upon dozens of peer reviewed published studies showing that the little ice age was global in nature.

None of the links you gave worked. I've already posted a link showing what the little ice age was, but why are we still discussing this at all? You've already said that the Earth has been warming for the past 14,000 years.

I have said what I have to say. Temperature changes up or down are natural. The laws of physics state pretty clearly that the mechanisms described by warmists simply are not possible. If you ever stop shucking and jiving perhaps we can get down to the hard science.

Oh, please do. I can hardly wait. I'm done with reading elementary school level insults and innuendos. Let's see what "hard science" has to say.

Sure. First, describe the mechanism by which you believe man is causing the global climate to warm and I will proceed with the physical laws that state that it is not possible.

On second thought, rather than listen to your shuck and jive over that mechanism (because at this point, my bet is that you really don't have a clue) let me just post it for you.

This is the trenberth, et al energy budget upon which climate alarmism is based, upon which the IPCC pseudoscience is based and upon which all current models of the earth's climate are based. Note that it is a literal flat earth. trenberth expresses incoming energy from the sun in terms of P/4 which litteraly makes a flat surface of the earth and has the earth being irradiated 24 hours a day with constant daylight at 1/4 the actual amount. I will go into that, and why it can't represent reality later. First things first.
I will draw your attention first to the yellow bar coming in from space. It indicates that 161 watts per square meter of energy is coming in, and being absorbed by the surface of the earth. This is all of the incoming energy from the sun. Then I will draw your attention to the tan bar on the far right hand side of the graphic. It is labeled 333 backradiation, and at the bottom of the bar, it indicates that this energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth. That bar indicates that energy in the amount of 333 watts per square meter are backradiated from the atmosphere down to, and absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Interesting model. Is there a point to having posted it?

According to climate pseudoscience, the surface of the earth receives more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from its only energy source, the sun.

According to climate real science, the surface of the Earth doesn't get any energy at all from the atmosphere. Maybe that's your problem: You're listening to pseudoscience.

We won't go into the law of conservation of energy at this point which will ask where that excess energy came from since only 161 watts per square meter is coming in from the sun. Instead, lets look at the second law of thermodynamics. I quote:



Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Hm... so energy flowing from the sun to the Earth is flowing from a colder body to a warmer body. Is that from the climate pseudoscience blogs you've been reading, the ones you think I've been reading as well?

Now, since the second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that it isn't possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body, do explain, within the laws of physics, how the cooler atmosphere might transfer energy to the warmer surface of the earth. I would like to see the math.

Why would I try to explain something that isn't happening? Tell me, where on Earth did you read the totally absurd notion that the cooler atmosphere was transferring energy to the warmer surface of the earth?

 

[dogtowner]

Oh, yes, so it was! Thank you for pointing that out.

Why, then, is Palerider saying that we don't know whether the globe has been warming or not?

I would think that 14,000 years would be enough to constitute a warming trend. Of course, there have been periods of a couple years at a time when the temps went down. Short term fluctuations are a part of the pattern as well.

I believe its fair to say that his argument is that we haven't reliable data to know what tiny flucuations we happen to have been experiencing in the relatively short span of a hundred years or so. Much easir to prove that we're warmer than in the last large scale, demonstrable ice age.

 

[palerider]

I think you're confusing two issues yet again. The little ice age was not short term, of course. It was the growth of the glaciers in Norway that you cited that was short term.

Short term in the sense of earth history perhaps, but 600 years of global cold is not the couple of years as you tried to claim.

No, the little ice age affected Europe and North America. I already posted a link, and now we've gone on to a new issue, so there's no need to repeat.

You posted a link. So what. I just posed 20 published, peer reviewed studies that state that it was global in nature. Sorry, you lose.

I'll not respond to your insults except to repeat the obvious: When you resort to elementary school level taunts, it's a sure sign you have no real argument.

The fact that you have no real argument is the best sign that you have no argument.

So, now you're making the same argument I've been making. the retreat of glaciers is evidence of warming.

You really aren't very bright, are you. The retreat of the glaciers by 2000 miles is evidence of a general warming trend for the past 14K years, it is not evidence of warming today.

Were I reading an exchange between two other members, i would have to redact your stupid insults. As it is, I'll allow them to stand as proof that you have no real argument. But, anyone who is reading this with an open mind already knows this.

Feel free. If you want to be treated as intelligent, then at least act the part.

Yes, what is the point? Since you've already said that the Earth has been warming for 14,000 years, why are you trying to show that it has not?

You are either stupid, or a congenital liar. Which is it? I have not said that the earth isn't warming and I have not said that the earth isn't cooling. I have said that we aren't sure what the climate is doing at present and that man is not responsible in any way for global climate change. That is a pretty straight forward position and I have stated it repeatedly. No big words and no complicated principles. What about that statement is so difficult for you to grasp that you keep misinterpreting it? Are you not very bright? Are you compelled to simply tell lies about what your opponents say? Do you have a comprehension problem? If none of those are the case, then try to reiterate my statements as they are made.

By the way, you miss the entire point of the links I provided. They indicate that the little ice age was global in nature. Does every single detail have to be explained to you ad nauseum?

Oh, no, of course not. You don't listen to those NASA, CERN, National Geographic, Discover magazine, or any other such blogs. You only listen to the ones that support your point of view.

I tend to stick to science. I don't need a blog to tell me what to think.

None of the links you gave worked. I've already posted a link showing what the little ice age was, but why are we still discussing this at all? You've already said that the Earth has been warming for the past 14,000 years.

They all work for me. Perhaps you are simply lying again. Your link hardly stands against 20 published, peer reviewed papers stating clearly that the little ice age was global in nature. And I won't bother repeating my position again as you clearly aren't bright enough to understand what I am saying. You have demonstrated over and over that you can't comprehend what you read.

Interesting model. Is there a point to having posted it?

Should I be suprised that you are unaware that it is the basis for your position on the issue? Guess not.

According to climate real science, the surface of the Earth doesn't get any energy at all from the atmosphere. Maybe that's your problem: You're listening to pseudoscience.

Again, the graphic above represents trenberth et al. It is the basis for every single climate model running today, the IPCC reports, and climate alarmism. Perhaps you shoudl familiarize yourself with the basis for your position.

Here is a link to the same energy budget published by NASA. Rather than express energy movement in watts per square meter, they express percentages, but it clearly indicates and states that IR energy is radiated from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth. In the graphic, it clearly shows, and labels backradiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth. As I said, you are not prepared for this discussion. You simply don't know enough. You aren't even aware of the basis for your own position.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/535745main_Energy_Budget_P2.pdf

If you are under the impression that the earth gets no energy from the atmosphere, how then, do you suppose anthropogenic global warming may be happening?

Hm... so energy flowing from the sun to the Earth is flowing from a colder body to a warmer body. Is that from the climate pseudoscience blogs you've been reading, the ones you think I've been reading as well?

I fear that you have brought a knife to an intellectual gunfight. Your knowledge base is so small that you don't even recognize the basis for AGW alarmism.

How about you describe the mechanism by which you believe the greenhouse effect operates and how that might allow man to have some effect on the changing global climate. Clearly you don't accept the energy budget of the IPCC and the top dogs in climatology, so lets here what you believe is going on. From there, we can begin to apply the laws of physics and do some math if necessary.

 

[palerider]

I believe its fair to say that his argument is that we haven't reliable data to know what tiny flucuations we happen to have been experiencing in the relatively short span of a hundred years or so. Much easir to prove that we're warmer than in the last large scale, demonstrable ice age.

I have rarely seen anyone who apparently comprehends so little of what he reads. You seem to have no problem grasping the crux of my statements so I will have to assume that I am simply talking over his head. I wish there were a crayon feature on this board so perhaps I could draw him a picture.

 

[PLC1]

I have rarely seen anyone who apparently comprehends so little of what he reads. You seem to have no problem grasping the crux of my statements so I will have to assume that I am simply talking over his head. I wish there were a crayon feature on this board so perhaps I could draw him a picture.

or, you could assume that I am simply ignoring the more absurd points you're posting, that you're not being very clear, or that you simply keep changing your focus. I'd bet on the lattter.
And, I've already pointed out that your elementary school level insults are simply proving your own lack of credibility, or to put it in terms that are of a level you have been using:

I'm rubber, you're glue..

Now, focus. You keep saying that the climate scientists are saying that the source of the heat is the atmosphere.

So, pick one:

That isn't really what you've been saying that they're saying. I'm misinterpreting your words yet again, what I really means is........ or

Yes, that is my understanding of the science, excuse me, pseudoscience, of AGW, yes, the "warmists" are claiming that the atmosphere is the source of the heat.

Now, once that item is settled, perhaps we can go on from there.