I have a question about CO2

[Spud1k]

CERN has an active research program in this area. Which would seem to mean that your opinion and that of the scientists at CERN is quite different, wouldn't it? If so, then your statement "that theory about cosmic rays has been dead in the water" is more a personal opinion than the broad view of "serious scientists". So which is it? Nothing wrong with personal opinion, of course.

CERN is noted for research into fundamental particle physics. I'm talking about climate scientists. The whole cosmic ray thing was a theory that cosmic rays could make cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere, but if you do the sums, the particles are too few and too small to make a difference. Couple that with the fact that there has been no correlation found between cloud albedo and cosmic ray cycles and you have a bit of a lame duck theory.

Nonetheless, what plausible explanations for the remarkable congruence of a lack of sunspots with the Little Ice Age?

That's something that needs to be figured out. But at this stage it doesn't tell us anything about cosmic rays and climate; bear in mind that cosmic rays aren't the only thing that change with sunspot activity.

Also. Are you certain that that train of logic does not lead you (or those who espouse it) up a blind canyon?

There are still some out there who favour these theories. If they want to have a go at proving the rest of us wrong, they're more than welcome to.

 

[Spud1k]

PS Didn't give a citation for that graph I used earlier, which was terribly bad form.

 

[David Rodale]

Easy street is where you continually lie and then move on, without shame or the slightest admission of wrong-doing, to another lie. You are called a denier and a liar because you are both.


Even if there is an "active research program", it means nothing until the results are in.


Do you have something new?


Funny that you would say that.

The paper from CERN catalogues several references both pro and con for GCR. For climate change deniers (AGW true believers) to say the sun and cosmic rays are a dead issue is incorrect. CERN seems to think it is important enough to investigate further, and unlike the CO2 AGW religion which has zero experimental data to support their assertions, CERN's CLOUD experiment will hopefully shine more light on the subject.

When one has no argument, there is no better way to gain a momentary advantage than to call your opponent a liar. Unfortunately, you and your companions have abused this tactic so often it has no meaning. The reality is when one is losing the debate, they will always resort to venomous rhetoric rather than address the issues at hand.

You and Cuddles have this down to a science.

We provide evidence via peer reviewed research (using scientific methods) to support our arguments, you provide ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority and other logical fallacies.

We provide data from reliable sources, you post links to news articles and essays.

Your side criticizes blogs we submit, yet blogs and news hype are your main source of information. A perfect example is the issue of the "hot spot" in the tropical troposphere. Your side claims it is not a greenhouse signature, yet don't even provide sources let lone evidence for said claims. We provide peer reviewed articles, you attack the authors.

Your side makes unsupported statements, yet expect not be called on to provide evidence? Then you say we are liars and deniers? It is laughable.

As IPCC AR4 conclusions continue to be falsified by the research it chose to ignore, by new ongoing research and more accurate/precise data from instrumentation, it is actually your side that are the deniers of science.

Where's that list of IPCC's "2500 of the world's top scientists" at? Did you ever find it?

Oh, and where's the experimental evidence that re-emitting LW IR from rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans? You won't provide evidence because it does not exist. Rather, we will get lectures and opinion on how this phenomenon can occur despite the fact that IR does not penetrate liquid water beyond .03mm, but can somehow magically induce OHC gain. The problem you see, is OHC is not continuing to rise as it should.

The sun is weakening and the earth, 70% of which is covered by water, is not continuing to gain heat. Coincidence? Do clouds play a role? Where is the missing heat?

Nobody on your side has yet to give a substantive response to Spencer's research, which BTW is based on the latest NASA satellite data.

When NASA formally releases their latest satellite data on CO2 which disagrees with the long standing Mauna Loa measurements as being representative of "well mixed gases" in the atmosphere, what then? The models are correct and the data is wrong?

 

[David Rodale]

CERN is noted for research into fundamental particle physics. I'm talking about climate scientists. The whole cosmic ray thing was a theory that cosmic rays could make cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere, but if you do the sums, the particles are too few and too small to make a difference. Couple that with the fact that there has been no correlation found between cloud albedo and cosmic ray cycles and you have a bit of a lame duck theory.



That's something that needs to be figured out. But at this stage it doesn't tell us anything about cosmic rays and climate; bear in mind that cosmic rays aren't the only thing that change with sunspot activity.



There are still some out there who favour these theories. If they want to have a go at proving the rest of us wrong, they're more than welcome to.

Ah, so particle physics is not climate "science"? Doesn't all the physics reside in climate "scientists" GCM's? No it does not. Cloud dynamics are not well understood, neither is solar and neither is water vapor, yet the more that is learned, the less it supports AGW.

The onus is on your side actually. You can attribute anything to anything and say "prove us wrong". Requiring one's opponent to prove a negative is the oldest trick in the book.

What we can do is look at the observational evidence to see if it agrees with the hypothesis. What you can do is provide the evidence that agrees, and we the opposite.

To be frank, it has gotten old hearing the same worn out logical fallacies, particularly appeals to authority.

Have you read this direct challenge by Dr. Roy Spencer?

Why are ALL of the 20+ IPCC climate models more sensitive in their total cloud feedback than published estimates of cloud feedbacks in the real climate system (Forster and Gregory, J. Climate, 2006)? If the answer is that “there are huge error bars on our observational estimates of feedback”, then doesn’t that mean that it is just as likely that the real climate system is very insensitive (making manmade global warming a non-problem) as it is to be as sensitive as the IPCC models claim it is?

Is RealClimate your main source of propaganda?

 

[Tubbythin]

The paper from CERN catalogues several references both pro and con for GCR. For climate change deniers (AGW true believers) to say the sun and cosmic rays are a dead issue is incorrect. CERN seems to think it is important enough to investigate further, and unlike the CO2 AGW religion which has zero experimental data to support their assertions, CERN's CLOUD experiment will hopefully shine more light on the subject.

Erm. CO2 has correlation: increasing CO2 and increasing global temperatures. And causation: CO2 absorbs strongly in the infra-red. Cosmic rays has only hypothesized causation. And zero correlation as Spud1k's graph shows.

When one has no argument, there is no better way to gain a momentary advantage than to call your opponent a liar. Unfortunately, you and your companions have abused this tactic so often it has no meaning. The reality is when one is losing the debate, they will always resort to venomous rhetoric rather than address the issues at hand.

Or graphs like Spud1k's.

We provide evidence via peer reviewed research (using scientific methods) to support our arguments, you provide ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority and other logical fallacies.

Hypocrite. YOU just called CO2 AGW a religion.

We provide data from reliable sources, you post links to news articles and essays.

Perhaps you could address Spud1k's graph?

Your side makes unsupported statements, yet expect not be called on to provide evidence? Then you say we are liars and deniers? It is laughable.

The fact that you can call CO2 AGW a religion and then accuse others of ad hominems is laughable.

Oh, and where's the experimental evidence that re-emitting LW IR from rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans?

You think it reflects it 100%? I think if that's the case its YOU who needs to back up your claims, nobody else.

 

[CapelDodger]

You think it reflects it 100%?

A question I've asked myself, without getting a response (unless there's something buried in one of David Rodale's tracts).

I think if that's the case its YOU who needs to back up your claims, nobody else.

Good luck with that ...

 

[TrueSceptic]

The paper from CERN catalogues several references both pro and con for GCR. For climate change deniers (AGW true believers) to say the sun and cosmic rays are a dead issue is incorrect. CERN seems to think it is important enough to investigate further, and unlike the CO2 AGW religion which has zero experimental data to support their assertions, CERN's CLOUD experiment will hopefully shine more light on the subject.

When one has no argument, there is no better way to gain a momentary advantage than to call your opponent a liar. Unfortunately, you and your companions have abused this tactic so often it has no meaning. The reality is when one is losing the debate, they will always resort to venomous rhetoric rather than address the issues at hand.

You and Cuddles have this down to a science.

We provide evidence via peer reviewed research (using scientific methods) to support our arguments, you provide ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority and other logical fallacies.

We provide data from reliable sources, you post links to news articles and essays.

Your side criticizes blogs we submit, yet blogs and news hype are your main source of information. A perfect example is the issue of the "hot spot" in the tropical troposphere. Your side claims it is not a greenhouse signature, yet don't even provide sources let lone evidence for said claims. We provide peer reviewed articles, you attack the authors.

Your side makes unsupported statements, yet expect not be called on to provide evidence? Then you say we are liars and deniers? It is laughable.

As IPCC AR4 conclusions continue to be falsified by the research it chose to ignore, by new ongoing research and more accurate/precise data from instrumentation, it is actually your side that are the deniers of science.

Where's that list of IPCC's "2500 of the world's top scientists" at? Did you ever find it?

Oh, and where's the experimental evidence that re-emitting LW IR from rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans? You won't provide evidence because it does not exist. Rather, we will get lectures and opinion on how this phenomenon can occur despite the fact that IR does not penetrate liquid water beyond .03mm, but can somehow magically induce OHC gain. The problem you see, is OHC is not continuing to rise as it should.

The sun is weakening and the earth, 70% of which is covered by water, is not continuing to gain heat. Coincidence? Do clouds play a role? Where is the missing heat?

Nobody on your side has yet to give a substantive response to Spencer's research, which BTW is based on the latest NASA satellite data.

When NASA formally releases their latest satellite data on CO2 which disagrees with the long standing Mauna Loa measurements as being representative of "well mixed gases" in the atmosphere, what then? The models are correct and the data is wrong?

You are beyond parody. Everything you claim is the exact opposite of the truth. Still, carry on. Continue to display your dishonesty and delusions for all to see.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The paper from CERN catalogues several references both pro and con for GCR. For climate change deniers (AGW true believers) to say the sun and cosmic rays are a dead issue is incorrect. CERN seems to think it is important enough to investigate further, and unlike the CO2 AGW religion which has zero experimental data to support their assertions, CERN's CLOUD experiment will hopefully shine more light on the subject.

When one has no argument, there is no better way to gain a momentary advantage than to call your opponent a liar. Unfortunately, you and your companions have abused this tactic so often it has no meaning. The reality is when one is losing the debate, they will always resort to venomous rhetoric rather than address the issues at hand.

You and Cuddles have this down to a science.

We provide evidence via peer reviewed research (using scientific methods) to support our arguments, you provide ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority and other logical fallacies.

We provide data from reliable sources, you post links to news articles and essays.

Your side criticizes blogs we submit, yet blogs and news hype are your main source of information. A perfect example is the issue of the "hot spot" in the tropical troposphere. Your side claims it is not a greenhouse signature, yet don't even provide sources let lone evidence for said claims. We provide peer reviewed articles, you attack the authors.

Your side makes unsupported statements, yet expect not be called on to provide evidence? Then you say we are liars and deniers? It is laughable.

As IPCC AR4 conclusions continue to be falsified by the research it chose to ignore, by new ongoing research and more accurate/precise data from instrumentation, it is actually your side that are the deniers of science.

Where's that list of IPCC's "2500 of the world's top scientists" at? Did you ever find it?

Oh, and where's the experimental evidence that re-emitting LW IR from rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans? You won't provide evidence because it does not exist. Rather, we will get lectures and opinion on how this phenomenon can occur despite the fact that IR does not penetrate liquid water beyond .03mm, but can somehow magically induce OHC gain. The problem you see, is OHC is not continuing to rise as it should.

The sun is weakening and the earth, 70% of which is covered by water, is not continuing to gain heat. Coincidence? Do clouds play a role? Where is the missing heat?

Nobody on your side has yet to give a substantive response to Spencer's research, which BTW is based on the latest NASA satellite data.

When NASA formally releases their latest satellite data on CO2 which disagrees with the long standing Mauna Loa measurements as being representative of "well mixed gases" in the atmosphere, what then? The models are correct and the data is wrong?

Oh, and kindly show me where I have ever falsely called anyone a liar.

You are some piece of work if you think you can lie and, when called on it, complain that it is an "ad hominem" attack.

 

[mhaze]

Quote from David Rodale:
Oh, and where's the experimental evidence that re-emitting LW IR from rising CO2 levels can warm the oceans?

​

You think it reflects it 100%? I think if that's the case its YOU who needs to back up your claims, nobody else.

REFLECTS???

Well....

Perhaps Cuddles can use his Physics degree to provide some insight then, on how the re emission of LW IR from the atmosphere can warm the oceans.

If he's not too busy calling people liars, (part of the Warmology script for dealing with situations). Speaking of which, does anyone know when precisely the meme of AGW skeptics "must be liars" started? Was it with the British guy, Houghton? If not, then what politician was it?

 

[Tubbythin]

REFLECTS???

Sorry. Is that too sensible? Was I meant to say gets transmitted through the oceans, through the mantle, through the core, through the mantle on the other side, through the crust on the other side through the ocean on the other side, through the atmosphere on the other side and out into space?

 

[TrueSceptic]

REFLECTS???

Well....

Perhaps Cuddles can use his Physics degree to provide some insight then, on how the re emission of LW IR from the atmosphere can warm the oceans.

If he's not too busy calling people liars, (part of the Warmology script for dealing with situations). Speaking of which, does anyone know when precisely the meme of AGW skeptics "must be liars" started? Was it with the British guy, Houghton? If not, then what politician was it?

Never.

What happened is that "sceptics" started calling climate scientists liars, frauds, and conspirators and "supported" their claims by misrepresenting them and outright fabrication.

It is only correct to call such "sceptics" liars (although they might be sufficiently delusional to not realise they are lying).

Of course, we call you a liar not only for doing that. We do it because you also lie here on a personal level.

 

[Spud1k]

Ah, so particle physics is not climate "science"? Doesn't all the physics reside in climate "scientists" GCM's? No it does not. Cloud dynamics are not well understood, neither is solar and neither is water vapor, yet the more that is learned, the less it supports AGW.

That last statement is completely incorrect. The more we (as a community) have learned about the ensemble of climate factors, the less uncertain AGW becomes. I challenge you to cite me something credible that says otherwise.

The onus is on your side actually. You can attribute anything to anything and say "prove us wrong". Requiring one's opponent to prove a negative is the oldest trick in the book.

Actually, a lot of the research I do is related to aerosol-cloud interactions and most of it is funded on the basis of the current uncertainty in the effects clouds have on climate. Does that make me an 'opponent' of CO2 forcing? No. Clouds have a big effect on albedo, but the motivation is to constrain its effect better, not 'disprove' anything about CO2.

To be frank, it has gotten old hearing the same worn out logical fallacies, particularly appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority? If I want to know something about rocks, I go to a geologist. If I want to know something about tigers, I go to a zoologist that specialises in large felines. You see where I'm going with this?

Whichever way, I can't claim to understand the logic that most AGW sceptics employ (beyond living in denial), so I guess we'll have to call that stalemate if you're going to insist on dismissing the scientific mainstream offhand.

Have you read this direct challenge by Dr. Roy Spencer?

Well, I have now, but it's the same rehashed stuff that opponents have been saying since the third assessment report. Still, I shouldn't complain. The more people emphasise the uncertainty surrounding the direct and indirect aerosol effects, the better my job security...

Seriously, while there are big uncertainties surrounding the effect of clouds and while they have potential to have big forcings (particularly on regional meteorology), there is no evidence, casual or otherwise, to suggest that they can replace CO2 as the main governing factor in the mean surface temperature trends. Trying to claim otherwise is mere wishful thinking.

 

[mhaze]

Sorry. Is that too sensible? Was I meant to say gets transmitted through the oceans, through the mantle, through the core, through the mantle on the other side, through the crust on the other side through the ocean on the other side, through the atmosphere on the other side and out into space?

Wheee!!!! Methinks that iz some gud smok ye got ahold of!

 

[CapelDodger]

Sorry. Is that too sensible? Was I meant to say gets transmitted through the oceans, through the mantle, through the core, through the mantle on the other side, through the crust on the other side through the ocean on the other side, through the atmosphere on the other side and out into space?

You're nothing if not generous in providing arguments that might be deployed if any argument at all is to be presented. And still no buyers, or alternative offerings.

I reckon it's Conservation Of Energy which puts them off. They'll never feel ready to go up against that.

 

[Tubbythin]

You're nothing if not generous in providing arguments that might be deployed if any argument at all is to be presented. And still no buyers, or alternative offerings.

I reckon it's Conservation Of Energy which puts them off. They'll never feel ready to go up against that.

Maybe they've got it all sown up. Maybe they've found that the first law of thermodynamics can be violated after all. Perhaps they'll be going for the second law soon with their perpetual motion machines. So we won't have to worry about our sources of energy ever again.
Then we'll feel foolish.

 

[Ocelot]

REFLECTS???

Well....

Perhaps Cuddles can use his Physics degree to provide some insight then, on how the re emission of LW IR from the atmosphere can warm the oceans.

If he's not too busy calling people liars, (part of the Warmology script for dealing with situations). Speaking of which, does anyone know when precisely the meme of AGW skeptics "must be liars" started? Was it with the British guy, Houghton? If not, then what politician was it?

Well AGW denialists rather than skeptics. I'm an skeptic, you're a denialist. Lying is just part of the modus operandi for a denialist. Skeptics on the other hand seek to detect and expose lies. That's how we know you're not a skeptic but a denialist. We skeptics did what we do and alert to the possibility that some things that are claimed might be lies spotted that some of your arguments in this thread were in fact fabrications. You later admitted it was deliberate on your part. So you're not just repeating these lies but actively crafting them yourself. The fact that you decided to brazen it out and try to deflect the focus away from the exposure of your straw man representation of "the far extreme" and your quote mining of the IPCC using other denialist tactics is just more grist for the mill.

So now you think you deflected attention enough for your transgression to be forgotten and are now taking offense on behalf of all you fellow denialist being described as liars. How noble of you not to be taking offense on your own behalf but on behalf of all those others.

You're the one whose arguments are riddled with deliberate innacuracies and missrepresentations. You're the one who's been called out on it. You're the one damned by thier own words as a liar. I think if any others have been slighted they'd hardly thank a self confessed liar for representing their defense.

As for how Long Wave infrared radiation might warm oceans perhaps it would help you to understand if you use the other name to LWIR - radiant heat. I mean really you're focussing on the stuff that not in the least controversional. CO₂ IS a greenhosue gas. Confirmed in the lab and through observations here and around the solar system. Next you'll be trying to tell us that heat doesn't come from the sun but from sky pixies or something.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Well AGW denialists rather than skeptics. I'm an skeptic, you're a denialist. Lying is just part of the modus operandi for a denialist. Skeptics on the other hand seek to detect and expose lies. That's how we know you're not a skeptic but a denialist. We skeptics did what we do and alert to the possibility that some things that are claimed might be lies spotted that some of your arguments in this thread were in fact fabrications. You later admitted it was deliberate on your part. So you're not just repeating these lies but actively crafting them yourself. The fact that you decided to brazen it out and try to deflect the focus away from the exposure of your straw man representation of "the far extreme" and your quote mining of the IPCC using other denialist tactics is just more grist for the mill.

So now you think you deflected attention enough for your transgression to be forgotten and are now taking offense on behalf of all you fellow denialist being described as liars. How noble of you not to be taking offense on your own behalf but on behalf of all those others.

You're the one whose arguments are riddled with deliberate innacuracies and missrepresentations. You're the one who's been called out on it. You're the one damned by thier own words as a liar. I think if any others have been slighted they'd hardly thank a self confessed liar for representing their defense.

I suggest that anyone new here read the above to get an idea of what goes on in these CC/GW threads. It is not mere assertion or personal attack. The evidence is copious and goes back many months.

The behaviour of AGW denialists (not sceptics) is the reason why sensible debate on the subject is well nigh impossible once they get involved.

 

[Cuddles]

Perhaps Cuddles can use his Physics degree to provide some insight then, on how the re emission of LW IR from the atmosphere can warm the oceans.

Why would I, or anyone else, need a physics degree for that? Unless you have an explanation for how energy can somehow disappear between it's point of emission and the Earth's surface, we are not the ones that need to explain anything.

 

[mhaze]

Why would I, or anyone else, need a physics degree for that? Unless you have an explanation for how energy can somehow disappear between it's point of emission and the Earth's surface, we are not the ones that need to explain anything.

Dodging the question with an irrelevant fantasy. Stick to insults.

 

[mhaze]

....a denialist..... Lying .....modus operandi ..... lies ....fabrications.....repeating these lies.... crafting them .....brazen it out.....exposure ....quote mining....deflected attention....fellow denialist....liars.....riddled with deliberate innacuracies.....damned by thier own words as a liar....self confessed liar.....

Ocelot babble short version. Really sciency.