Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

That's how I model heat absorption and transfer. WTF was Boltzmann thinking?

You cannot understand multivariable functions. You have no chance on doing mathematical approximations of this phenomenon.

So I messed up a little on the 1C starting point. The idea of the simplified example still applies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, the range of +/- 4C also changed things that have an effect. This brings us back to the 3.1% change per degree by temperature alone I mentioned.

It's interesting watching you miss the forest for the trees. These are your own ideas too.

Are you denying that water holds more CO2 when colder than warmer?

Are you saying Climate scientists say this as well?

I a not the one making these claims.

Do you really think that they do not consider water solubility in their studies? Really?

I don't know if they do or not. It seems as though they don't. They most certainly don't acknowledge a few simple truths about the process.

have any studies to show they do properly account for the process?

Thats been your whole schtick: parrot Glassman about temperature dependence and how CO2 does not contribute to warming and then blame it on soot and other .

Your fundamental underlying assumptions about the science are wrong. It's not like it's hard to follow and it just becomes clear as we delve into it, its simpleminded bull .

[Wild Cobra]

It's interesting watching you miss the forest for the trees. These are your own ideas too.

Huh? Elaborate please.

Thats been your whole schtick: parrot Glassman about temperature dependence and how CO2 does not contribute to warming and then blame it on soot and other .

I am not parroting Glassman. We believe the same. I bring up his work because he shows some good points.

How can you deny the science. There is a clear known science of how temperature affects solubility, and is isn't a small factor. A one degree change in sea water temperature make about a 3% change in CO2 solubility.

Your fundamental underlying assumptions about the science are wrong. It's not like it's hard to follow and it just becomes clear as we delve into it, its simpleminded bull .

What is wrong about what I say, please elaborate.

[MannyIsGod]

So I messed up a little on the 1C starting point. The idea of the simplified example still applies.

You mess up quite often. Wonder why.

[Wild Cobra]

You mess up quite often. Wonder why.

At least I admit it when I do.

How about you Manny? What number do you have for the temperature effect on sea water's solubility of CO2? Don't forget how the CO2 changes form it water too. Count that also.

On the temperature data. For a moment, lets get past our disagreement on the true vs. reported effect for a moment. You have access to scientific data I have no subscriptions to. Do you know what the actual number of sites used is, how many are urban or not, and what the total urban land area is on this planet vs. mostly natural?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it seems as though they don't. They most certainly don't acknowledge a few simple truths about the process.

you

are

dumb

[MannyIsGod]

I don't have a number. I have equations. That is the MFing point that Fuzzy is trying to drill into your stupid head.

[Wild Cobra]

you

are

dumb

From post 281:

Do you really think that they do not consider water solubility in their studies? Really?

it seems as though they don't. They most certainly don't acknowledge a few simple truths about the process.

Water solubility into air, or CO2 solubility into sea water?

I don't know if they consider the newer research that includes how much water is absorbed in the atmosphere at the transfer point, and how it makes for a fast CO2 transfer. I wasn't watching their methodology. I don't think they do since they reference Weiss '74 instead of his newer works.

Yes, they considered seasonal solubility by temperature changes. That's all I see them considering.

I don't know if they considered the long term changes over the periods the oceans changed temperature. They never make such a claim. This was what My answer was geared to and I have elaborated that several times since, yet you hold on to your assumption otherwise.

And you call me dumb?

My God... you are so ing re ed.

It should be obvious that I have always spoke about the long term changes. All our linked material I responded to was only seasonal assessment.

Again..,.

How can you be so ing stupid, and apply an answer clearly geared for a global warming thread spanning at least decades, and say I'm wrong based on a seasonal study?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have a number. I have equations. That is the MFing point that Fuzzy is trying to drill into your stupid head.

What's the equation, and what does it apply to?

-add-

Fuzzy can't see past his single minded view, and you think he's schooling me?

Get real. Place in your own words rather than links, why I'm wrong about what I say. Fuzzy is a master of bringing up only slightly related links and saying they disprove what I say when my point isn't even addressed in them.

Do you understand the point I have been making, that nobody has shown wrong yet?

[Yonivore]

"When did I say "all endeavors are infinitely larger than man?""

Stop reading the WC Playbook.

One endeavor at a time. Today we're talking about climate science which is according to you, infinitely larger than man.

Which again, is nonsensical at best.

When do you suppose we'll tackle the whole problem of how our Sun influences global climate?

Yeah, it's bigger than man.

Gore <> Scientist.

Without Gore, none of this would even be news. AGCC proponents were happy to let Gore whip the world into a climate panic and then, when the adults start examining his claims, disown him.

Alex Jones says a great many things. They're about as relevant.

I wouldn't know.

[TeyshaBlue]

When do you suppose we'll tackle the whole problem of how our Sun influences global climate?

Yeah, it's bigger than man.


Without Gore, none of this would even be news. AGCC proponents were happy to let Gore whip the world into a climate panic and then, when the adults start examining his claims, disown him.


I wouldn't know.

Again with external bodies..lol. Addressing Anthropological causes does not include altering the behavior of celestial bodies. :facepalm

[Wild Cobra]

Again with external bodies..lol. Addressing Anthropological causes does not include altering the behavior of celestial bodies. :facepalm

We only ask that they be accurately addressed. To ignore or lie about the level of warming from all natural effects is my problem, and I'll bet other skeptics here also.

The sun clearly has caused about half the warming we have seen over the last 250+ years, yet that's not in the AGW message. They want people to panic and think we have caused all of it.

[Yonivore]

Again with external bodies..lol. Addressing Anthropological causes does not include altering the behavior of celestial bodies. :facepalm

Except when you don't believe anthropological causes cause anything.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore loves to say on this subject that has absolutely no factual basis but he perceives as an absolute certainty. He then loves to paint with large brush strokes that really have no basis in reality either.

I've been around here long enough to understand thats how it works on an internet forum and thats how it works in politics. If politician A says something he doesn't need it to be backed in fact because the only people who are going to call him on it are those who are against him. If the subject is technical, then it won't even matter if he gets called on it because who is going to understand the intricacies of the topic outside of those in the field?

Thats why Yonivore can get away with this crap. He can say that no prediction has come true regarding Climate Science. Why does he believe that? Because thats what he's read on some blog or heard form some person and he is ignorant of the subject. Of course, anyone familiar with the science knows that the temperature increases we've seen are right in line with the IPCC forecasts. Some of the other forecasts have been correct as well - IE the sea ice and sea level increase.

Atmospheric sciences are damn complicated. The fluid dynamics of an entire atmosphere are very hard to define at a very high resolution. That being said, when taking a look at the entire system it is NOT that difficult to understand how the reduction in outgoing energy will raise the energy of the system and by how much. That fact is always lost in these debates. It is much easier to understand climate science on a global resolution than it is to find out what the temp due to AGW is going to be in XYZ neighborhood in ABC city 50 years from now.

Its much like I can tell you that if you stop excercising and you eat poorly you will put on weight but I may not be able to tell you the exact measurements you're going to have after 2 years of this lifestyle. Thats because when you break down the energy budget of the earth you've made it a much simpler system than if you try to predict the very chaotic movement of each small piece of the atmosphere.

Furthermore, when people say like there are natural causes for climate change they almost always do so without understanding the way paleoclimates have worked in the past. The reason scientists have homed in on CO2 is not because they held a god damn straw poll at some conference but because it has been the regulator of climate on the planet according to all of the evidence we have. As an example, the current interglacial cycles we've seen on earth are a result of the CO2 cycling in and out of the atmosphere. That CO2 cycling is in turn controlled by the orbital variations that affect which parts of the earth receive more sunlight and when they receive that energy. If not for CO2, there would be no mechanism for these changes to occur.

So what we have now, is a huge increase in the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere which has been directly attributed to human influence. (on another note here - the idea that humanity is incapable of of influencing the earth is incredibly stupid. There's just no nice way of putting it because there are mountains of examples and evidence to show that humans have a huge effect on the planet and to ignore that fact is the act of willful ignorance of stupidity) If anyone wants to dispute that this is due to human influence they are welcome to overturn the mounds of evidence that says it is humans. They can provide a place the CO2 is coming from and explain where the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere goes and they will probably win themselves a nobel prize.

Nice speech, Manny. Any word on whether AGCC scientists changed the methodology for normalizing raw temperature data, why, and to what effect?

While you're at it, since you bring the subject up, what percentage of atmospheric greenhouse gases are anthropogenic? I've heard a number and just want to confirm it.

[MannyIsGod]

If you knew how to read, you would have found your answer to the first question directly in one of my posts. This is the last time I even address your repeated asking of that question. Its there, and if you want it go back and read the post.

The recent concentrations of greenhouse gases can be found several places. Here is a link.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

(I don't believe that includes water vapor)

Seeing as they are measured in parts per million and parts per billion, the percentages are extremely low (as if we can't see through your ruse here). So next you'll argue how can something that makes up such a small portion of the atmosphere can be capable of such a large effect because you are largely ignorant towards the molecular properties of green houses gases to begin with. Its the type of thing that anyone in a 101 level college chemistry course will learn but you obviously don't have that education.

So go ahead. Make the argument. I'm waiting.

[Yonivore]

If you knew how to read, you would have found your answer to the first question directly in one of my posts. This is the last time I even address your repeated asking of that question. Its there, and if you want it go back and read the post.

No, you didn't answer the question. That would have looked something like, "Yes/no, because...and, it had the effect of..."

The recent concentrations of greenhouse gases can be found several places. Here is a link.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

(I don't believe that includes water vapor)

Seeing as they are measured in parts per million and parts per billion, the percentages are extremely low (as if we can't see through your ruse here). So next you'll argue how can something that makes up such a small portion of the atmosphere can be capable of such a large effect because you are largely ignorant towards the molecular properties of green houses gases to begin with. Its the type of thing that anyone in a 101 level college chemistry course will learn but you obviously don't have that education.

So go ahead. Make the argument. I'm waiting.

Why can't you just simply answer a question?

Part two of the question is, by what percentage do total atmospheric greenhouse gases vary from year to year? Is it stable or does it change and, if so, by how much?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry did I not dumb things down enough for you? You're upset I don't play your transparent games the way you like?

I gave you a link that will answer your question and there are countless other places on the internet that track the fluctuation of GHG in the atmosphere. You're welcome to go look at the data yourself.

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry did I not dumb things down enough for you? You're upset I don't play your transparent games the way you like?

I'm not claiming to be the expert. Sure, dumb it down.

I gave you a link that will answer your question and there are countless other places on the internet that track the fluctuation of GHG in the atmosphere. You're welcome to go look at the data yourself.

Again, I'm not the expert. I looked at the link and cannot discern 1) how much of the total greenhouse gas inventory is believed to be anthropogenic nor 2) how much variance there is in total greenhouse gases year to year.

I'm beginning to believe you don't know the answer either.

[MannyIsGod]

If you want conformation that I don't have the current concentration of every greenhouse gas in the atmosphere memorized I'll give it. You think I'm trying to say that I do? There's a reason those tables exist. If the information is needed, you obtain it. You don't go to those sites on a regular basis and memorize the current levels.

Yeah, its really hard to look at that table, which has preindustrial concentrations and recent concentrations and subtract one column from the other to find out how much is anthropogenic! Hold on, I'll do some fancy math for you.

390.5 - 280 = 110.5 ppm.

Holy , I'm worn out after that math session. Gonna get some rest and recharge for the hard subtraction that awaits me tomorrow.

[MannyIsGod]

PS Your reading skills are on display agian.

Second footnote on the link I gave you. Right under the table.

Because atmospheric concentrations of most gases tend to vary systematically over the course of a year, figures given represent averages over a 12-month period for all gases except ozone (O3), for which a current global value has been estimated (IPCC, 2001, Table 4.1a). CO2 averages for year 2011 are taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, web site: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends maintained by Dr. Pieter Tans. For other chemical species, the values given are averages for 2010. These data are found on the CDIAC AGAGE web site: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ndps/alegage.html or the AGAGE home page: http://agage.eas.gatech.edu.

Cue Yonivore saying how he can't be bothered to read, per usual.

[Wild Cobra]

No, you didn't answer the question. That would have looked something like, "Yes/no, because...and, it had the effect of..."


Why can't you just simply answer a question?

Part two of the question is, by what percentage do total atmospheric greenhouse gases vary from year to year? Is it stable or does it change and, if so, by how much?

There is a steady rise of CO2 when you remove the seasonal changes by averaging over a year, or do a rolling average using the 365 days. One of the many things about the AGW argument that bothers me is that they claim CO2 has in about a 100 year average life, yet the seasonal variations have CO2 dropping as fast as a 20 ppm/year rate. It's for such a short time, that it doesn't do much, but it's there. the seasonal increase is greater than the seasonal decrease, so the increase is somewhere at or above a 2 ppm increase annually.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's the equation, and what does it apply to?

-add-

Fuzzy can't see past his single minded view, and you think he's schooling me?

Get real. Place in your own words rather than links, why I'm wrong about what I say. Fuzzy is a master of bringing up only slightly related links and saying they disprove what I say when my point isn't even addressed in them.

Do you understand the point I have been making, that nobody has shown wrong yet?

Nobody has shown it wrong in a way that you can understand. You are too simpleminded to understand how things are described as functions that operate through time. How these functions can feed into each other and how to describe the world in such terms.

You are limited to looking at a very simple concept like equilibrium percentages and the basic arithmetic involved and trying to expand that to describe very complex systems.

You don't comment about the differentials describing heat transfer, chemical reactions, or fluid dynamics. Instead you just say that it doesn't disagree with what you say when its obvious that you have no capacity to say whether or not they do disagree with you.

Its like trying to make claims as to the gas mileage of a vehicle based only on the type of gas used.

Lets say 93 octane releases 25 joules/per liter but 89 octane releases 20. That's a difference of 5 so if the average car burns 400 liters of fuel in a week then thats 2000 more joules so a car should move this much more over a weeks time. See look at my chart! That 400 liters is more than enough to explain the mileage on the car.

So what if a car has pistons, that doesn't disagree that gas releases y more energy. Angular momentum and friction? It still doesn't say that I am wrong. The amount of energy released when you burn gas is more than enough to cover the amount the car has traveled.

Look at my chart. Scientists do not accept these truths or at least do not appear to. Gas releases a lot of energy.

YOU

ARE

DUMB

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We only ask that they be accurately addressed. To ignore or lie about the level of warming from all natural effects is my problem, and I'll bet other skeptics here also.

The sun clearly has caused about half the warming we have seen over the last 250+ years, yet that's not in the AGW message. They want people to panic and think we have caused all of it.

The sun has clearly caused over 99% of the warming we have experienced over the last 250 years. Where the do you think the energy comes from?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, its really hard to look at that table, which has preindustrial concentrations and recent concentrations and subtract one column from the other to find out how much is anthropogenic! Hold on, I'll do some fancy math for you.

390.5 - 280 = 110.5 ppm.

Holy , I'm worn out after that math session. Gonna get some rest and recharge for the hard subtraction that awaits me tomorrow.

[MannyIsGod]