What does it tell you that people who consider themselves generally, truly skeptical, lump most deniers in with pseudoscientists?
I don't recall what you are referring too. I think it would be more correct to say he disagrees with how the IPCC applies it.
Show me please. Which of his six articles. Which paragraph.
From what i just searched and read, he claims the IPCC uses a static model for albedo rather than a dynamic one. He never says the IPCC ignores albedo.
My God...
You can't even read without applying you bias.
And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.
I do not know the exact sensitivity off the top of my head, but I believe there is a general consensus as to the approximate value involved, yes.
That is my understanding.
I was going to point that out, but backspaced over it.
And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.
Lunch time over. sigh.
Newton's model of the world worked great for everyone until Einstein shattered it.
Give me the links and I will go over his articles, if you would be so kind.
That should be fairly easy to verify.
And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.
What are you talking about?
I never said I agree with the man 100%.
You fail again.
I have repeated pointed out our contribution to warming in the form of Black Carbon. When will you stop with your lying?
That is not a specific yes or no.
We can effectively discard your assertion that science only works by shattering consensus.
Thank you.
I will readily accede, however, that scientific understanding is occasionally flawed, and new data adds to that knowledge.
We will continue to add new data regarding this.
Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that by the time we really are as certain as you want us to be, we will have really ed things up and it will be too late to address things. Pity.
A sensitivity that can be given a constant value... I agree somewhat, but the consensus also says that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. This is fine until you reverse engineer this, and realize you must take about 27% to have the low range of these same people's claim that doubling CO2 increases warming by 1.5 to 3 degrees.
Their fiction does not add up!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warmingOur purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Do enting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_...warming_denial
When I pointed out that a website by skeptics didn't think rather highly of the "denier" movement, you said they were full of it.While a consensus, of itself, proves nothing, the following organizations are in no doubt of the existence of a problem caused by anthropogenic climate change.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Ins ute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
It is difficult to find any respected scientific organization which doubts that anthropogenic climate change is taking place.
Sorry RG. Not reading anything from "rational"wiki.
Don't read that.It is difficult to find any respected scientific organization which doubts that anthropogenic climate change is taking place.
Keep ignoring it.
My understanding is that the rate of the current increases in concentration of CO2 are without precendence in what we understand of historic concentrations of that gas. Barring massive levels of vulcanism that have, at times, occurred in the past, of course.
Have we seen massive levels of vulcanism in the last 200 years? 50 years?
It is possible.
Simplifying assumptions and calculations become a bit meaningless when applied to extremely complex systems, as you have pointed out repeatedly in your criticisms of modeling.
Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?
All he has to do is that the ocean has lost the carbon dioxide that has gone into the air. Of course, this has been measured and found non changing thereby sinking the theory that CO2 comes from the ocean.
In fact, the ocean is gaining CO2 as evidence by its falling O2 levels and PH changes.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351
Yes, but there are certain known things in science not in debate, that the AGW crowd conveniently refuses to address.
Henry's law is rather direct. If course, there is a rate that the oceans can absorb, which if of a smaller slope than the added CO2 is, will lag in absorption. Still, Henry's law, other than the slow ocean mixing, is pretty solid in science.
Once you have eliminated the oceans as the source of CO2 concentrations then, you have either two readily ascertainable sources. Humans and volcanos.
If one cannot show significant levels of volcanic activity (relative to known levels), then you must conclude the rise in CO2 concentrations are attributable to humans, especially given that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere have ed precisely as concentration has.
Correlation is not cause, but in this case it is a fairly reasonable conclusion to make, based on what you pointed out.
The rate is somewhat similar to the rate increase before 11,000 years ago.
You were saying?
I did not ask if Henry's law was direct.Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?
I asked:
Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?
If you refuse to answer this question, I will simply assume it is possible that a simple application of Henry's law might not be entirely appropriate, although useful.
How long did the rate increase take "before 11,000 years ago"?
To my knowledge, the RATE of change is entirely without precedence.
Gotta go.
Will you stop being a ditz?
I never said the ocean wasn't gaining CO2. I said if the ocean wasn't warming, it would absorb about 98% of the added CO2. At is stands now, if I recall, the ocean absorbs about 55% of the extra CO2 that is outside of the natural CO2 alone.
Now what I find ironic is that the IPCC acknowledges out-gassing from the ocean, but they refer to correcting figure 3.6 from ocean out-gassing of oxygen and nitrogen. Well you know what... If there is a net out-gassing of oxygen form the ocean heating, there be a net out-gassing of carbon dioxide as well. Even if we didn't add any to the atmosphere?A small correction is made for differential outgassing of O2 and N2 with the increased temperature of the ocean as estimated by Levitus et al. (2000).
Bzzzzzzzzt
Wrong answer.
See my last post. CO2 is not eliminated from out-gassing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
