More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[Old_Trapper70]

Of course you said it...in post 117 on this thread you said:

Does that, or does it not infer that the present mass extinction is unlike past mass extinctions? It is a clear claim that there exists a present mass extinction and it is unlike past events...sorry you can't keep up with what you say...typical of lefties...

Again you fail to comprehend what was said since you did not read the entire article. However, this is what I posted:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel."

No where does the article state that there is currently (do you understand what currently means?) a mass extinction occurring.

Since you clearly stated that we are in a mass extinction event that unlike past events is our fault...but can't seem to name any of the thousands of species going extinct every year which is by definition what a mass extinction event is, it stands to reason that you must be talking about species that are unknown to us.

And people wonder why I think of you as an asinine fool. You make up comments you say were made by me, and then fail to prove your own asinine comments. So fool, tell me where I said "the species that went extinct are undiscovered" lying ass.

 

[palerider]

Again you fail to comprehend what was said since you did not read the entire article. However, this is what I posted:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

I comprehended what you said, and read the article...in the first line of the article was the statement "It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago."

The article clearly stated that the planet is not in the midst...not facing, but in the midst of its sixth mass extinction event....a mass extinction event, by definition means that 1000 to 5000 species are dying out every year....which brings us right back to neither you nor anyone else can name 2 species that went extinct last year, or the year before or the year before or the year before...so again, if 1000 to 5000 species are dying out every year, you and your idiot article must be claiming that all of the species going extinct are unknown to us...

Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel."

No where does the article state that there is currently (do you understand what currently means?) a mass extinction occurring.

First, the statement "unlike past extinctions" ....."the current crisis" is a clear statement that currently we are in a mass extinction event...and then in the first line of your article it clearly states: "It’s frightening but true Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

And people wonder why I think of you as an asinine fool. You make up comments you say were made by me, and then fail to prove your own asinine comments. So fool, tell me where I said "the species that went extinct are undiscovered" lying ass.

I suppose people are wondering why I am not calling you a fool...clearly you don't have a firm grasp of the language and fail to understand clearly implied statements, nor do you appear to have very good comprehension skills since your article clearly said that the earth is in the midst of a mass extinction event and then you step up and say that it doesn't say mass extinction anywhere.

And I can't help but notice that you didn't mention the other article you linked to which also clearly suggested that the earth was in a mass extinction event...they suggested 322 species in the past 500 years which is a far cry from the 1000 to 5000 annually which, by definition is what a mass extinction event is... You are getting your information from alarmist sites that are doing nothing but spewing hysterical claims that are not backed up by observation....

Feel free to admit that you were wrong and did in fact, make the claim that the earth is in a mass extinction, and you also linked to sites claiming mass extinction was underway.

 

[Walter]

Very short video:

 

[Lagboltz]

Very short video:

I subscribe to HBO and always watch John Oliver. He is a master at mixing humor with controversy or other miscellaneous issues. Unlike those that have anger management problems on this thread.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Very short video:

Point being what?

 

[dogtowner]

I subscribe to HBO and always watch John Oliver. He is a master at mixing humor with controversy or other miscellaneous issues. Unlike those that have anger management problems on this thread.

So long as we remember it's comedy.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

So long as we remember it's comedy.

Even comedy has its roots in truth.

 

[palerider]

Very short video:

The skeptic in your video should have asked which of you "scientists" can provide me with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis....at which point, all you would have heard from that gang of "scientists" would have been the sound of silence.....since there doesn't exist one shred of actual evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate....

of course, any of you believers are welcome, at this time, to step up and provide some actual evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate...while there is no chance you will be able to provide such evidence, it will be interesting to see what passes for actual evidence in your mind...

 

[Lagboltz]

Hey Palerider, my best friend forever. Long time no see!

The skeptic in your video should have asked which of you "scientists" can provide me with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis....at which point, all you would have heard from that gang of "scientists" would have been the sound of silence.....since there doesn't exist one shred of actual evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate....

Hey, lighten up. It was a comedy show and Oliver had to keep things moving. Silence would have been so dull.

of course, any of you believers are welcome, at this time, to step up and provide some actual evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate...while there is no chance you will be able to provide such evidence, it will be interesting to see what passes for actual evidence in your mind...

The skeptic should also have shouted that back radiation doesn't exist because there is a dark streak between light bulbs. Do you still believe that? That would have been great for the comedy show.

But on a more serious note, it's back radiation of the ever rising CO2 that is a concern because it keeps the earth from loosing the all the heat that it gets from the sun. Do you still not believe in back radiation? All other scientists do.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

The skeptic in your video should have asked which of you "scientists" can provide me with a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis....at which point, all you would have heard from that gang of "scientists" would have been the sound of silence.....since there doesn't exist one shred of actual evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate....

of course, any of you believers are welcome, at this time, to step up and provide some actual evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate...while there is no chance you will be able to provide such evidence, it will be interesting to see what passes for actual evidence in your mind...

No matter what evidence is given to you you would not accept it.

However, since no reputable scientist would ever say that man, and man alone, is altering the environment, why don't you provide some "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" that the actions of man HAVE NOT contributed to the altering of the "global climate"?

 

[palerider]

No matter what evidence is given to you you would not accept it.

However, since no reputable scientist would ever say that man, and man alone, is altering the environment, why don't you provide some "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence" that the actions of man HAVE NOT contributed to the altering of the "global climate"?

Great...so anthropogenic global warming is a myth and has never been suggested by any reputable scientist. Is that what you are saying?

I guess you would be at least partly right since there are damned few reputable climate scientists and those haven't ever promoted anthropogenic global warming.

And since I am not making claims and announcing doom and gloom and proposing that we alter our very way of life, there is no onus upon me to provide anything....I am asking upon what basis you and yours are making their predictions of catastrophic climate change which they claim will require a fundamental alteration of the way we use energy, earn a living, etc....such alterations in the world economy should require damned solid evidence....lets see it...

 

[palerider]

The skeptic should also have shouted that back radiation doesn't exist because there is a dark streak between light bulbs. Do you still believe that? That would have been great for the comedy show.

Open up a page for your banking account....transfer $10 from your savings account to your checking account and then immediately transfer $10 from your checking account to your savings account. Do you believe that any money actually changed places? Your bank statement will show the transfer but do you believe the money actually moved?

The net effect of the transfer was zero which is the effect that CO2 has on the climate.

In that same vein....see if you can find yourself a cellar that has reached thermal equilibrium...take yourself a radiometer down there...set it int the center of the room and take readings.

Take multiple readings off all 4 walls....do you see any temperature changing anywhere? My bet is that your radiometer will read somewhere in the vicinity of 356 W/m2, which is in and of itself damned strange since climate science and its models say that the earth is receiving something like 161 W/m2 from the sun, but that is fodder for a different discussion.

So according to your radiometer, each wall is radiating about 256 W/m2 but the temperature isn't changing... So are the walls constantly changing 356 W/m2 with each other or is the thermal energy in the walls just staying where it is since there is clearly no temperature change happening in the walls?

Now I am sure that you genuinely believe that the north wall is exchanging energy with the south wall and the east wall is exchanging energy with the west wall but that isn't the point...even if this exchange of "Provotst's Energy" was real, the effect is zero...

Now take a look at Trenberth's energy cartoon which is the basis upon which modern climate science is built...

See the two circled numbers....356 Wm2 of surface radiation and 333 Wm2 of back radiation. the greenhouse hypothesis says that there is an energy exchange going on between the surface and the atmosphere....but unlike the observed experiment you did in the cellar which showed no temperature change, the greenhouse hypothesis says that this exchange results in the surface being 33C hotter in the temperature of the surface...

“. . . the Earth . . . radiates . . . primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum. Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.” IPCC, AR4

“When [greenhouse gases] absorb the energy radiating from Earth’s surface, microscopic water or greenhouse gas molecules turn into tiny heaters— like the bricks in a fireplace, they radiate heat even after the fire goes out. They radiate in all directions. The energy that radiates back toward Earth heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface, enhancing the heating they get from direct sunlight.”NASA

“. . . our atmosphere absorbs some of the infrared heat radiation [from the surface], and some of the trapped heat is reradiated downward to warm the planet’s surface and the air immediately above it.” Tufts University

“. . . infrared radiation [from the surface] is absorbed by the greenhouse gases and clouds in the atmosphere and then re-emitted in all directions . . .

“Some of the re-emitted energy remains within the atmosphere or returns to the surface and warms the lower atmosphere and surface.” American Chemical Society

“Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth, resulting in the warming of the surface known as the greenhouse effect.” Harvard

“When there are greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, some of the radiation emitted by the earth is absorbed again before it escapes to space. This radiation absorbed by the atmosphere can then pass back down to the surface, warming it further.”Berkeley

“The atmosphere, heated by the absorption of Earth radiation by these greenhouse gasses, in turn radiates heat back to the Earth’s surface increasing the Earth’s surface temperature.” Columbia

“The heating of the ground by sunlight causes the Earth’s surface to become a radiator of energy in the longwave band . . . This emission of energy is generally directed to space. However, only a small portion of this energy actually makes it back to space. The majority of the outgoing infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases . . .

“Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.” Physical Geography

Each one of these descriptions of the greenhouse effect claims that when the surface exchanges energy with the atmosphere, the result is an increase in the temperature of the surface of the earth. Why do the cellar walls continuously exchange energy (by your belief) but the temperature never changes while the same sort of energy exchange (by your belief) in the outside results in a 33C temperature change in the surface of the earth?

CO2 you say?....go down in your cellar and add some CO2 to the atmosphere down there....according to climate science, that should result in some sort of temperature change but of course it doesn't happen...even if you raise the CO2 level to tens of thousands of PPM....the temperate will remain the same...

But on a more serious note, it's back radiation of the ever rising CO2 that is a concern because it keeps the earth from loosing the all the heat that it gets from the sun. Do you still not believe in back radiation? All other scientists do.

On a factual note, the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere keeps increasing as CO2 increases in direct opposition to your claims...

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Great...so anthropogenic global warming is a myth and has never been suggested by any reputable scientist. Is that what you are saying?

You can find scientists that will support most anything, just not reputable ones. And I seriously doubt you can find one that supports man has the only contributor to global warming.

I guess you would be at least partly right since there are damned few reputable climate scientists and those haven't ever promoted anthropogenic global warming.

Then it should be easy for you to name one, and quit crawling around the subject.

And since I am not making claims and announcing doom and gloom and proposing that we alter our very way of life, there is no onus upon me to provide anything....I am asking upon what basis you and yours are making their predictions of catastrophic climate change which they claim will require a fundamental alteration of the way we use energy, earn a living, etc....such alterations in the world economy should require damned solid evidence....lets see it...

Not a "gloom and doom" scenario. What I asked of you, and you fail to ever provide, is some "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that the actions of man HAVE NOT contributed to the altering of the "global climate""

"CO2 you say?....go down in your cellar and add some CO2 to the atmosphere down there....according to climate science, that should result in some sort of temperature change but of course it doesn't happen...even if you raise the CO2 level to tens of thousands of PPM....the temperate will remain the same..."

And see how long you live. But, adding additional CO2 to your cellar is not quite the same as adding to the atmosphere.

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

 

[Lagboltz]

Open up a page for your banking account....transfer $10 from your savings account to your checking account and then immediately transfer $10 from your checking account to your savings account. Do you believe that any money actually changed places? Your bank statement will show the transfer but do you believe the money actually moved?

The net effect of the transfer was zero which is the effect that CO2 has on the climate.

In that same vein....see if you can find yourself a cellar that has reached thermal equilibrium...take yourself a radiometer down there...set it int the center of the room and take readings.

Take multiple readings off all 4 walls....do you see any temperature changing anywhere? My bet is that your radiometer will read somewhere in the vicinity of 356 W/m2, which is in and of itself damned strange since climate science and its models say that the earth is receiving something like 161 W/m2 from the sun, but that is fodder for a different discussion.

So according to your radiometer, each wall is radiating about 256 W/m2 but the temperature isn't changing... So are the walls constantly changing 356 W/m2 with each other or is the thermal energy in the walls just staying where it is since there is clearly no temperature change happening in the walls?

Now I am sure that you genuinely believe that the north wall is exchanging energy with the south wall and the east wall is exchanging energy with the west wall but that isn't the point...even if this exchange of "Provotst's Energy" was real, the effect is zero...

The savings account is a good example of equilibrium where net cash flow is zero. I also agree that the walls of a cellar at room temperature equilibrium will radiate around 356 W/m2. I agree that all walls are exchanging radiant energy with each other and the net energy in the exchange is always zero. I don't know what you mean by the term "Provotst's Energy".

Now take a look at Trenberth's energy cartoon which is the basis upon which modern climate science is built...

See the two circled numbers....356 Wm2 of surface radiation and 333 Wm2 of back radiation. the greenhouse hypothesis says that there is an energy exchange going on between the surface and the atmosphere....but unlike the observed experiment you did in the cellar which showed no temperature change, the greenhouse hypothesis says that this exchange results in the surface being 33C hotter in the temperature of the surface...

As far as Trenberth's cartoon, you seem have a typo. I assume you are referring to 396 and 333. But I don't see where the 33C hotter temperature comes from. I'm guessing you mean hotter than the earth would be without any greenhouse effect.

“. . . the Earth . . . radiates . . . primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum. Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.” IPCC, AR4
.....
.....

Yes, that is the standard definition for the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Each one of these descriptions of the greenhouse effect claims that when the surface exchanges energy with the atmosphere, the result is an increase in the temperature of the surface of the earth. Why do the cellar walls continuously exchange energy (by your belief) but the temperature never changes while the same sort of energy exchange (by your belief) in the outside results in a 33C temperature change in the surface of the earth?

CO2 you say?....go down in your cellar and add some CO2 to the atmosphere down there....according to climate science, that should result in some sort of temperature change but of course it doesn't happen...even if you raise the CO2 level to tens of thousands of PPM....the temperate will remain the same...

The big difference is that the cellar is at equilibrium and has no incoming energy that has to be dissipated, whereas in the outside atmosphere, the sun is pouring 161 W/m2 continually. If you add a lot of room temperature CO2 to the cellar, every square inch of cellar wall and every cubic inch of cellar air is radiating and receiving the same amount of energy to it's neighbors so the net energy flow for anyplace in the cellar air or wall is still zero.

When it comes to the atmosphere there are three major differences, the sun energy input, the atmosphere "ceiling" is outer space, the density of air thins with height.

On a factual note, the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere keeps increasing as CO2 increases in direct opposition to your claims...

Yes, that seemed counter-intuitive at first. But it makes sense if the earth is getting warmer. A hotter earth would be radiating more energy. The flattening of the first graph corresponds to the leveling of surface temperature over the last couple decades. More greenhouse gasses keeps the earth from radiating as much to outer-space, but the heat that "leaks" through between spectral absorption lines would be rising. In short GG spectral absorption causes a hotter earth which is seen leaking between the absorption lines. Or so it seems to me.

 

[palerider]

Then it should be easy for you to name one, and quit crawling around the subject.

Don't know where you have been but equivocating over the definition of is will not win you any points...the fact is that climate wackos and their pseudoscientists regularly claim that 97% of all scientists agree that climate change is man made.

Richard Muller: Skeptical Scientist Converts, Says Climate Change Is Man-Made
Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/scienc...-change-skeptic-converts/#zMKor0Vk7QmbfGdC.99

International Science Panel: Global Warming Very Real, ‘Extremely Likely’ Man-Made
http://www.alan.com/2013/09/27/inte...e-change-very-real-extremely-likely-man-made/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not a "gloom and doom" scenario. What I asked of you, and you fail to ever provide, is some "observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that the actions of man HAVE NOT contributed to the altering of the "global climate""

So even though you believe...and apparently 97% of all scientists (according to climate wackos) agree that man is causing or is at least the primary cause of climate change/global warming/ climate disruption or whatever other wacko name you care to call it, you can't provide even one bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is actually responsible?

Not surprising...as I said...there is none. And what do you suppose observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is not altering the global climate might look like?....perhaps the absence of any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is altering the global climate after the expenditure of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on the topic?

And see how long you live. But, adding additional CO2 to your cellar is not quite the same as adding to the atmosphere.

Since I breathe out about 40,000ppm and the CO2 concentration in the average home is in excess of 1000ppm I am not worried....the pertinent fact is that adding CO2 will not cause the temperature to change.....

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php[/QUOTE]