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

[PLC1]

not sure they ever joined at all but they did/are do research on some sort of solar emanation that does demonstrate an ability to up the temps a bit and correlates to measured increase3s of this eminaton.

sorry for the half-a**ed description, these may be more helpful.

"Nature" article causing the fuss

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

Interesting. So, cosmic rays just might have an effect on cloud formation, which would, of course, affect the temperature of the Earth.

Unless Palerider can come up with a way in which this process violates the laws of physics. If so, then he needs to write CERN and set then straight.

 

[palerider]

One piece... let's see... have we discussed any one so far? Why, as a matter of fact, there is the melting glaciers... but you found a four year period in which glaciers in at least one part of the Earth actually increased. There is the melting of Arctic ice, but wait! You found an anecdote about a polar expedition back in the '50s that found more open water than expected.

So you are saying that glaciers never melted before man and his CO2 emissions? Are you saying that the arctic ice has never melted? Geez guy, neither of those things even approaches the outermost boundries of natural variability. Correlation does not equal cause. Now, can you or can you not produce a shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing climate?

Gosh, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, one must wonder whether those windmills at which you keep tilting are actually dragons after all.

What evidence? I suppose you believe yourself to be cute or something but ignorance isn't attractive. This may come as a surprise to you, but pointing to things that are well within the boundries of natural variability does not constitute any sort of proof other than nature is variable. Where is the evidence that man is responsible?

 

[palerider]

Interesting. So, cosmic rays just might have an effect on cloud formation, which would, of course, affect the temperature of the Earth.

Unless Palerider can come up with a way in which this process violates the laws of physics. If so, then he needs to write CERN and set then straight.

I am sure that you failed to notice but early on I stated clearly that there was one gas in the atmosphere that is capable of absorbing and retaining heat. That gas is water vapor.

Your pathetic ad hominems and smears against me don't make you look good when my entire argument stands un rebutted.

 

[PLC1]

So you are saying that glaciers never melted before man and his CO2 emissions? Are you saying that the arctic ice has never melted? Geez guy, neither of those things even approaches the outermost boundries of natural variability.

That I said such a thing to begin with approaches the outermost boundaries of human credibility.

Correlation does not equal cause. Now, can you or can you not produce a shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing climate?

Before a link can be even suggested, the changing climate has to be acknowledged.

What evidence? I suppose you believe yourself to be cute or something but ignorance isn't attractive.

Neither, as you say below, are ad hominem attacks

This may come as a surprise to you, but pointing to things that are well within the boundries of natural variability does not constitute any sort of proof other than nature is variable. Where is the evidence that man is responsible?

addressed above.

I am sure that you failed to notice but early on I stated clearly that there was one gas in the atmosphere that is capable of absorbing and retaining heat. That gas is water vapor.

Yes, I do remember a statement to that effect. The only greenhouse gas in existence is water vapor.
Really?

Your pathetic ad hominems and smears against me don't make you look good when my entire argument stands un rebutted.

well un rebutted according to your opinion, but then, that is not possible is it?

 

[palerider]

[quote="PLC1, post: 179614, member: 301]
Before a link can be even suggested, the changing climate has to be acknowledged. [/quote]

Name a time in earth history when the climate was static.

[quote="PLC1, post: 179614, member: 301] addressed above.[/quote]

You shuck and jive, duck and cover, dodge and weave, but rarely, if ever do you actually address anyting.

[quote="PLC1, post: 179614, member: 301] Yes, I do remember a statement to that effect. The only greenhouse gas in existence is water vapor.
Really?[/quote]
Really. Unless of course you believe you have some evidence that CO2 or any of the other so called greenhouse gasses can absorb and retain heat. I would be interested in seeing that. You might look at their absorption spectra and then look at their emission spectra. Note that the emission spectra of CO2, et al are all exact opposites of their absorption spectra. That tells us that IR is absorbed and emitted immediately with no retention of energy. IR passes through them at, or near the speed of light.

[quote="PLC1, post: 179614, member: 301] well un rebutted according to your opinion, but then, that is not possible is it?[/quote]

Unrebutted according to direct observation. Where did you counter any of the formulae presented or offer alternate equations or specific alternate explanations for the equations presented? Nowhere that I can see and since my argument has been math based, only a math based rebuttal is possible. Anything else, I'm afraid, is just so much talk that never addressed the argument put to you.

Now, about that hard evidence that supposedly convinced all those scientific bodies that AGW was real. Any luck? Anything that is even approaching the limits of natural variability?

 

[PLC1]

[quote="PLC1, post: 179614, member: 301]
Before a link can be even suggested, the changing climate has to be acknowledged.

Name a time in earth history when the climate was static.

It wasn't, never has been, and isn't now.

You shuck and jive, duck and cover, dodge and weave, but rarely, if ever do you actually address anyting.

Thanks. I'm practicing to be a politician.

Really. Unless of course you believe you have some evidence that CO2 or any of the other so called greenhouse gasses can absorb and retain heat. I would be interested in seeing that. You might look at their absorption spectra and then look at their emission spectra. Note that the emission spectra of CO2, et al are all exact opposites of their absorption spectra. That tells us that IR is absorbed and emitted immediately with no retention of energy. IR passes through them at, or near the speed of light.

So, only water vapor among all of the gasses slows down light passing through it? I thought it had to do with the density of the medium.

Now, about that hard evidence that supposedly convinced all those scientific bodies that AGW was real. Any luck? Anything that is even approaching the limits of natural variability?

Is the climate changing now, or not?

Talk about shucking and jiving, I really have a difficult time divining just what your position really is. Are you running for office?

 

[palerider]

So, only water vapor among all of the gasses slows down light passing through it? I thought it had to do with the density of the medium.

Moving through water vapor, LW potons take approximately 0.024 seconds to reach the outer limits of the tropopause. LW photons passing through CO2 alone take approximately 0.0042 seconds to reach the outer limits of the tropopause. Want to see the math?

That fact alone tells a resonable person that CO2 is irrelavent with regard to temperatures as it is completely overwhelmed by the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. The fact that it takes LW longer to travel through water vapor isn't the primary issue with water vapor, however, it is the fact that water vapor can actually trap, and retain heat. It has to do with the fact that water vapor can change phases in the open atmosphere. You can do a quick experiment yourself to see this phenomenon. Water vapor, by the way, is the only substance known to man that can change to all 3 phases in the open atmosphere.

Freez a bowl full of ice with a thermometer sticking in it. Then take the block of ice and put it in a large pot of water and put it on the stove at high heat. The block of ice will remain at 32 degrees till it is gone even though it is clearly absorbing energy from the surrounding water. By the time the ice is gone, the water should be boiling. The temperature will jump to 212 F where it will remain even though it is constantly absorbing more energy from the surface of the stove. I won't go into the process of superheating steam because you couldn't do it in your home and it is irrelavent to the atmosphere anyway. The point is that water vapor is the only gas in the atmosphere that can actually trap heat.

Is the climate changing now, or not?

The climate is always changing. The question isn't whether or not the climate is changing, that is a given. The question is over your assertion that man is causing it. Ticking off changes that are within the realm of natural variability however, does nothing to establish any sort of responsibility for the changing climate on man.

Talk about shucking and jiving, I really have a difficult time divining just what your position really is. Are you running for office?

Don't kid yourself. I am, unlike you, straight forward because I actually understand the topic. I don't have to talk around science that I don't understand trying to look like I do.

So about that hard evidence that has apparently convinced the scientific bodies around the globe. Any luck with it? I can't help but notice that you keep posting but don't seem to be able to produce even the smallest shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing climate.

Rather than continue looking like a rube, why not simply admit that you can't produce any because none exists. At least you will give the appearance of being honest even though we both know the real score on that issue.

 

[PLC1]

Moving through water vapor, LW potons take approximately 0.024 seconds to reach the outer limits of the tropopause. LW photons passing through CO2 alone take approximately 0.0042 seconds to reach the outer limits of the tropopause. Want to see the math?

That fact alone tells a resonable person that CO2 is irrelavent with regard to temperatures as it is completely overwhelmed by the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. The fact that it takes LW longer to travel through water vapor isn't the primary issue with water vapor, however, it is the fact that water vapor can actually trap, and retain heat. It has to do with the fact that water vapor can change phases in the open atmosphere. You can do a quick experiment yourself to see this phenomenon. Water vapor, by the way, is the only substance known to man that can change to all 3 phases in the open atmosphere.

Freez a bowl full of ice with a thermometer sticking in it. Then take the block of ice and put it in a large pot of water and put it on the stove at high heat. The block of ice will remain at 32 degrees till it is gone even though it is clearly absorbing energy from the surrounding water. By the time the ice is gone, the water should be boiling. The temperature will jump to 212 F where it will remain even though it is constantly absorbing more energy from the surface of the stove. I won't go into the process of superheating steam because you couldn't do it in your home and it is irrelavent to the atmosphere anyway. The point is that water vapor is the only gas in the atmosphere that can actually trap heat.



The climate is always changing. The question isn't whether or not the climate is changing, that is a given. The question is over your assertion that man is causing it. Ticking off changes that are within the realm of natural variability however, does nothing to establish any sort of responsibility for the changing climate on man.



Don't kid yourself. I am, unlike you, straight forward because I actually understand the topic. I don't have to talk around science that I don't understand trying to look like I do.

So about that hard evidence that has apparently convinced the scientific bodies around the globe. Any luck with it? I can't help but notice that you keep posting but don't seem to be able to produce even the smallest shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing climate.

Rather than continue looking like a rube, why not simply admit that you can't produce any because none exists. At least you will give the appearance of being honest even though we both know the real score on that issue.

I guess maybe we're getting closer. Now, your current position is that the climate really is changing.

Like the climate, your opinion of that one keeps changing, too, but nevertheless, let's continue.
Yes, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, and is in fact, part of a feedback loop, but you already know that.
And yes, water, unlike matter that stays in the same state at normal temperatures, does absorb and release heat as it changes from solid to liquid to gas.
So, you do have most of it right now.

However, there are other greenhouse gasses besides water vapor.

CO2 for example. Gasses that make up most of the atmosphere are not greenhouse gasses, as they are either monatomic, such as argon as an example (Ar), or are made up of two molecules of the same element (O2, N2) and so have no net change in dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared light.

H2O, CH4, and CO2, on the other hand, are neither monatomic nor made up of two atoms of the same element.

 

[palerider]

I guess maybe we're getting closer. Now, your current position is that the climate really is changing.

When did I ever say that the climate is static? I said that at present we can't say for sure whether it is warming or cooling because there is to great a margin of error to make a claim of a fraction of a degree in any direction with any confidence at all.

Like the climate, your opinion of that one keeps changing, too, but nevertheless, let's continue.

That is nothing but your inherent dishonesty, or simple inability to comprehend the words you read talking. My argument hasn't changed from the first post.

So, you do have most of it right now.

Don't condesend to me. You aren't even able to rebut arguments involving basic algegra. The very idea that you might understand more on this topic than me is laughable.

However, there are other greenhouse gasses besides water vapor.

There are other gasses that can absorb radiation, but they all emit exactly as much as they absorb. The radiation passes through them at, or very near the speed of light with no energy retention.

CO2 for example. Gasses that make up most of the atmosphere are not greenhouse gasses, as they are either monatomic, such as argon as an example (Ar), or are made up of two molecules of the same element (O2, N2) and so have no net change in dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared light.

Nice that you can quote from scripture. Alas, you don't have a clue what it means. It certainly doesn't mean that CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, including water vapor can radiate energy back to the warmer surface of the earth.

H2O, CH4, and CO2, on the other hand, are neither monatomic nor made up of two atoms of the same element.

Feel free to show an equation that is not a corruption of a physical law that would allow energy from the cooler atmosphere to radiate back to the warmer earth. Quoting scripture, that you clearly aren't able to understand isn't impressive.

Now, about that hard, observeable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing climate? I can't help but notice that you are still shucking and jiving but not providing even the smallest shred of evience to support the claim that man is altering the global climate. Surely there must be something readily accessable if all those scientific bodies are on the bandwagon. Where is it?

 

[PLC1]

When did I ever say that the climate is static? I said that at present we can't say for sure whether it is warming or cooling because there is to great a margin of error to make a claim of a fraction of a degree in any direction with any confidence at all.



That is nothing but your inherent dishonesty, or simple inability to comprehend the words you read talking. My argument hasn't changed from the first post.



Don't condesend to me. You aren't even able to rebut arguments involving basic algegra. The very idea that you might understand more on this topic than me is laughable.



There are other gasses that can absorb radiation, but they all emit exactly as much as they absorb. The radiation passes through them at, or very near the speed of light with no energy retention.



Nice that you can quote from scripture. Alas, you don't have a clue what it means. It certainly doesn't mean that CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, including water vapor can radiate energy back to the warmer surface of the earth.



Feel free to show an equation that is not a corruption of a physical law that would allow energy from the cooler atmosphere to radiate back to the warmer earth. Quoting scripture, that you clearly aren't able to understand isn't impressive.

Now, about that hard, observeable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing climate? I can't help but notice that you are still shucking and jiving but not providing even the smallest shred of evience to support the claim that man is altering the global climate. Surely there must be something readily accessable if all those scientific bodies are on the bandwagon. Where is it?

I see.

So, you never said that the climate wasn't changing, I'm quoting "scripture", and being condescending to you by saying you have at least part of it right. Now, you're the one who is saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. There is where you depart from accepted science.

Perhaps you could provide proof of your current position.

Show that, despite what every other scientist is saying, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

 

[dogtowner]

I see.

So, you never said that the climate wasn't changing, I'm quoting "scripture", and being condescending to you by saying you have at least part of it right. Now, you're the one who is saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. There is where you depart from accepted science.

Perhaps you could provide proof of your current position.

Show that, despite what every other scientist is saying, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

if (as stated here)

Greenhouse gases are atmospheric gases that trap infrared radiation

and
CO2 was measured to pass virtually such radiation as close to immediately as is possible
and
the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that a cooler thing cannot deliver energy to a warmer thing sans some other work being in effect
and
presumably laws become laws as opposed to remaining theory for a valid reason

it doesn't seem as though its adding up unless there is some other work in the mix.

 

[palerider]

I see.

I doubt it.

So, you never said that the climate wasn't changing,

I said that we can't say with any sort of real accuracy whether the earth is warming or cooling because the margin of error is to large to make a confident claim of a fraction of a degree in either direction.

I'm quoting "scripture", and being condescending to you by saying you have at least part of it right.

Of course you are since it is clear that you don't to any real thinking or research on the topic. You simply take what is handed to you and repeat it like some sort of talking parrot. And yes, when you pretend that you are better informed on the topic, and somehow know more than I do when it is clear that you can't even do the basic math that any sort of real knowledge of the topic requires, you are being condecending. It is clear that at this point, you don't even know what you don't know, much less know enough to suggest that I am getting "part" of the topic right. Thus far, you haven't gotten even the smallest bit right.

Now, you're the one who is saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. There is where you depart from accepted science.

I am saying that CO2 has no capacity to warm the atmosphere. If you define a greenhouse gas as one that simply absorbs and emits LW radiation, then it would be a greenhouse gas. If you define a greenhouse gas as one that actually has the capacity to warm the atmosphere, then no, it isn't. The greenhouse effect, by the way, is nothing more than a piss poor hypothesis without even the smallest bit of experimental evience to support it.

Perhaps you could provide proof of your current position.

I already have and you prove my assesment of your knowledge by not even realizing it.

Show that, despite what every other scientist is saying, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

Prove a negative? You are kidding, right? You have made the claim that it is, so the onus is upon you to prove that it can absorb IR and then return that radiation to be absorbed by the surface of the earth. Lets see the experimental, or mathematical evidence to prove it

 

[palerider]

By the way PLC, "every other" scientist isn't saying that CO2 can warm the atmosphere. In fact, is is little more than a very small clique of scientists with the support of the media who are saying that.

 

[Gipper]

By the way PLC, "every other" scientist isn't saying that CO2 can warm the atmosphere. In fact, is is little more than a very small clique of scientists with the support of the media who are saying that.

Of course you are right. But, THC and many other Americans have been snowed under by the lies presented by the media and the elite left, so they dutifully believe the lies and accept the hoax as scientific fact.

I am really trying hard to come up with the next big left wing hoax, so I too can be a millionaire.

 

[dogtowner]

Of course you are right. But, THC and many other Americans have been snowed under by the lies presented by the media and the elite left, so they dutifully believe the lies and accept the hoax as scientific fact.

I am really trying hard to come up with the next big left wing hoax, so I too can be a millionaire.

claim you have an idea for a gravity windmill that runs perpetually, is made of sand and emits cancer curing rays and eats ocean garbage while pooping tofu hotdogs. should get you half a billion in loan guarantees you never have to pay back like Solyndra etal.

or just hoard Twinkees to sell on the black market when they're banned.