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

[PLC1]

Since the earth's climate has never been static, I don't see why changes in the earth's climate, in either direction, is at issue. Is there anyone who claims the earth's climate has ever been static?

No, I don't believe there is.

Dogtowner did say that the Earth quit warming in '98, but no one is saying that climate is static as far as I know.

Why would that matter? Whether the degree is X or Y is totally irrelevent.

Since we aren't capable of doing much about it, it's mostly of academic interest. We could, perhaps, slow down the process by cutting carbon emissions, but that would take a level of global cooperation that is most likely beyond human capability.

 

[palerider]

Right. That's why I refused to address his claim that the Earth quit warming back in '98.

How much warming are warmists claiming since 1998?

and why I've consistently said that we aren't going to be able to stop AGW anyway.

Since we aren't causing it, what would make anyone think we can stop it. Hell, we can't even stop a summer shower from falling on my backyard BBQ, much less begin to alter the global cliamte.

 

[palerider]

Every scientific organization on Earth is saying the same thing.

Why is it so difficult for you to distinguish between the political heads of organizations and the scientific bodies of organizations? The political heads are about fundraising, recruitment, and publicity. They claim that man is causing changes to the climate. The scientific bodies of those organizations are about science and few members of the bodies of those organizations who don't depend on grant money to buy their daily bread can be found who are on the AGW bandwagon. Why might that be?

and what they're saying is that the Earth is getting warmer, and that human activities are accelerating the change.

How much warming are they claiming? Since what year?

Now, is the Earth still warming, or did it stop 13 years ago? Let's try to focus the debate on one issue.

Is it warming? Based on what? How much warming is claimed?

 

[palerider]

There is no scientific theory that life was seeded here from aliens. There is some speculation, that's all.

And there is no scientific theory that man is causing the global climate to change. There is, at best, a piss poor hypothesis that has yet to be substantiated by a single shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence.

Surely, you understand the difference between a scientific theory simple speculation!

I am pretty sure he does, do you? Do you grasp the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? Let me give you a couple of definitions and you tell me whether you believe there is an AGW theory or hypothesis.

theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

hypothesis - Astatementthatexplains or makes generalizations about a set of factsorprinciples,usuallyformingabasis for possible experimentstoconfirmitsviability.

Clearly the case for AGW or manmade climate change has not been repeatededly tested by experiments. At best anthropogenic climate change is a hypothesis and a pretty poor one at that.

 

[palerider]

Well, sure. The physical law is known as the "greenhouse effect", and has to do with the relative ability of shorter wave lengths of light vs. longer wave lengths to pass through a medium such as the atmosphere, or the glass in a greenhouse or a parked car.

NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!! The greenhouse effect is not a physical law. The greenhouse effect is a hypothesis which, by the way was falsified shortly after it was proposed by experimentation by professor Woods. He showed clearly that the reason a greenouse warms up is due to the glass blocking convection and conduction of heat out of the greenhouse, not any blocking or storing of LW radiation. He proved this by making a greenhouse from panes of salt, which is invisible to IR and the temperature within the greenhouse reached the same levels as in a greenhouse made of glass.

Now, I leave it up to Palerider to cite a few physical laws that state that the greenhouse effect is not possible. I'd even settle for one. {/quote]

No problem. First would be the Stefan - Boltzman law which is, in turn supported by the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. They state that it is not possible for energy to flow from cool objects to warm objects which denies the possibility of backradiation and without backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism. If you want to take this discussion into the realm of mathematics, just say the word. Now again, can you name an actual physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as promoted by warmists.

I'm sure that the nurserymen in our area would be fascinated to find out why their greenhouses don't warm up in the sun. So would I.

Greenhouses block convection and conduction. How do you suppose a trace atmospheric gas with no capacity for retaining energy might block convection and conduction in an open atmosphere?

 

[GenSeneca]

I hope PLC hasn't given up on trying to refute Pale's "baseless" arguments...

 

[Gipper]

I hope PLC hasn't given up on trying to refute Pale's "baseless" arguments...

I suspect our friendly pot loving moderator finds Pale's arguments....baseless. He prefers believing Fat Albert, Sen. Boxer, the UN, and the rest of the leftists cabal along with the scientific community making money from AGW. No amount of proof of it's baselessness will change him or many of the other warmers. It is a religious faith to them.

It amazes me that even after being shown the truth, some people prefer to believe the lie. Nothing more epitomizes the old totalitarian belief that "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"...than AGW.

 

[palerider]

I think the science really doesn't matter to these guys. They simply see climate change as a means to an end; that end being more wealth distribution and socialism. The science means nothing and when it fianally becomes completely undeniable that man isn't altering the climate, they will all simply move on to the next scheme that they believe will ultimately lead them to the socialist promised land.

 

[PLC1]

I hope PLC hasn't given up on trying to refute Pale's "baseless" arguments...

Oh, yes, I gave it up a long time ago. Still, it is amusing to see what the hoaxers can come up with next to try to refute a scientific theory on an internet forum.

 

[PLC1]

How much warming are warmists claiming since 1998?



Since we aren't causing it, what would make anyone think we can stop it. Hell, we can't even stop a summer shower from falling on my backyard BBQ, much less begin to alter the global cliamte.

I'm not sure about the "warmists", but science is saying that the first decade of the new millenneum was the warmest on record. I posted a well ignored link to that fact.

 

[palerider]

I'm not sure about the "warmists", but science is saying that the first decade of the new millenneum was the warmest on record. I posted a well ignored link to that fact.

Again, how much warming is being claimed?

 

[PLC1]

Again, how much warming is being claimed?

as much as was noted in my link to the first decade of the 21st. century being the warmest in record. I believe the total is somewhere around 1 degree Celsius or so. Why? What does that matter?

 

[palerider]

as much as was noted in my link to the first decade of the 21st. century being the warmest in record. I believe the total is somewhere around 1 degree Celsius or so. Why? What does that matter?

What does it matter? Is that a serious question? OK, so you and yours claim is 1 degree C since some unspecified time, you don't seem to want to place the claimed anthropogenic warming into any particular time period. (wonder why?) The reason I ask how much warming is claimed is because my next question is what is the margin of error in that claim. You guys don't much like to discuss the margin of error in your claims, but in order to be honest, it is a question that you must be prepared to answer.

I know what the margin of error is, but would like to see you state it. What is the margin of error in that claim of 1 degree C. Can you be honest enough to admit that the margin of error is a number greater than the claim being made? Can you be honest enough to admit that the margin of error is several times larger than the amount of warming being claimed? Or can you perhaps admit that the margin of error has never even entered into your thinking?

What is the margin of error?

 

[PLC1]

What does it matter? Is that a serious question? OK, so you and yours claim is 1 degree C since some unspecified time, you don't seem to want to place the claimed anthropogenic warming into any particular time period. (wonder why?) The reason I ask how much warming is claimed is because my next question is what is the margin of error in that claim. You guys don't much like to discuss the margin of error in your claims, but in order to be honest, it is a question that you must be prepared to answer.

I believe the first decade of the 21st. century is a specific time period. Let's see.. (looks at a calendar) yep! Very specific. Goes from 2000 to 2010.

I know what the margin of error is, but would like to see you state it. What is the margin of error in that claim of 1 degree C. Can you be honest enough to admit that the margin of error is a number greater than the claim being made? Can you be honest enough to admit that the margin of error is several times larger than the amount of warming being claimed? Or can you perhaps admit that the margin of error has never even entered into your thinking?

What is the margin of error?

I'm not sure. Is your argument now going to shift from "it's not anthropogenic" to "It's not real, just an error"? Sometimes, I have a hard time deciding just what position "you and yours" are taking.

 

[palerider]

I believe the first decade of the 21st. century is a specific time period. Let's see.. (looks at a calendar) yep! Very specific. Goes from 2000 to 2010.

So you are claiming 1 degree since 1999? That is interesting since no less "august" bodies than the national academy of sciences and the IPCC only claim .2 degrees per decade for the past 30 years or so. Who exactly is claiming 5 times the amount of warming?

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full

I'm not sure. Is your argument now going to shift from "it's not anthropogenic" to "It's not real, just an error"? Sometimes, I have a hard time deciding just what position "you and yours" are taking.

Of course you aren't sure. I am sure that something as "trivial" as a margin of error in a claimed temperature rise never even entered into your thought process. I am not claiming that the change is not anthropogenic. I am claiming that with a margin of error several times larger than the temperature increase being claimed, how can you be sure that there is, in fact, any temperature change at all?

If I tell you that I will give you a dollar but I might be overestimating the amount of money I can give you by as much as 4 dollars, how much money do you really expect to get from me?

If the margin of error is larger than the temperature increase being claimed, of what value, exacltly (other than political) is the point of making a claim at all?