Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1 [Archive] - Page 3

FuzzyLumpkins

06-01-2012, 07:15 PM

You are throwing out my argument when you make temperature a constant. My claim is based on the fact that the global warming is real. To make temperature constant is to deny global warming.

Who's the denier?

What do partial differential mean? Seriously look it up. You obviously do not have the basis to comment on what they did. After you figure out what a partial differential is then go to their differentials, partial fractions and algebra and point out specifically where the error was in factoring out solubility in their equations. They said it was a function of temperature AND ph.

The better question is why are you talking about solubility states without considering ph.

Further as I knew you would, you are fixating on the 1958 paper. I showed you the 2003 MIT paper for modeling and they very clearly consider temperature in their transfer coefficient. I linked and quoted it for you.

What is clear is you are being a sophist piece of shit. You claim that it does not disagree with anything you say but it could not disagree more. they consider it and factor it very clearly. You are just too ignorant and dumb to understand.

Wild Cobra

06-01-2012, 07:26 PM

You do understand that the oceans are really, really big, right? What does this imply for thermal inertia in the short term?
Absolutely.

The estimates vary for how long it takes to exchange the volume between deep and surface.

Please note that I have focused on two primary locations. The Tropical Pacific as a source, and the North Atlantic as a sink. This is because these are the largest two areas in deep water to surface water movement, and surface to deep. Is it coincidence that the studies show these two regions to also have the greatest flux, one as a source and one as a sink? I think not.

The waters from the tropical Pacific have a different mix of CO2/H2CO3 than the waters that have been on the surface. That is why they source so much compared to the longer sitting waters. Same idea with the North Atlantic waters. Their added percentage of CO2/H2CO3 disappears for hundreds of years, where in other places, it stays in the near surface, in exchange with the atmosphere by indirect means, or comes to the surface again. There is less of a delta C (carbon) to have any additional changes.

The size of the ocean isn't as important as the exchange between sinks and sources. In some past arguments a year or more back, I had this part wrong. The flux and change of flux is dictated by the areas of transfer and the variables that change the transfer rate and direction.

Surface temperature is an undisputed primary variable to this process.

Please show me a study that explicitly says temperature does not matter in the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-01-2012, 07:50 PM

Surface temperature is an undisputed primary variable to this process.

Please show me a study that explicitly says temperature does not matter in the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean.

:lol primary
:lol undisputed

WC has it figured out and MIT has it all wrong.

You are the one making these claims. How about you back it up with more than oversimplified napkin math and 'I suppose.'

MannyIsGod

06-02-2012, 02:20 AM

:lmao

MannyIsGod

06-02-2012, 02:30 AM

The Arctic hit a record low for ice extent on today's date. Still incredibly early in the melt season but its already looking bad.

MannyIsGod

06-02-2012, 02:35 AM

Wild Cobra

06-02-2012, 05:17 AM

I believe there were posts here earlier this season talking about how extent was average. I told you that extent is pretty meaningless when the volume is lower because it still melts faster. There you see it.
If you look back to around day 110, you see it is average. It breaks away from average just over a month ago.

How many days back was that post? Was it just over 30 days ago?

Wild Cobra

06-02-2012, 11:59 AM

Why do you guys keep thinking temperature doesn't matter for the solubility of CO2 into sea water? I point out this material supports what I say, and you guys completely ignore it. Since you fail to have reading comprehension, here are a few excerpts from Scientic Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Acidication on Marine Biodiversity (http://coralreef.noaa.gov/education/oa/resources/cbd_ts46_oceanacidification-web.pdf), one of the links Fuzzball gave:

The solubility and distribution of CO2 in the oceans depends on climatic conditions and a number of physical (e.g. water column mixing, temperature), chemical (e.g. carbonate chemistry) and biological (e.g. biological productivity) factors.

Solubility Pump: In addition to the absorption or release of CO2 due to biological processes, changes in the solubility of gaseous CO2 can alter CO2 concentrations in the oceans and the overlying atmosphere. The solubility pump reflects the temperature dependence of the solubility of CO2 (i.e. solubility is greater in colder water) and the thermal stratification of the ocean.

The solubility pump has been estimated to contribute about 20% to the vertical distribution/gradient of DIC; the remaining 80% originates from the biological pump(s). It should be noted that increasing sea-surface temperatures as a result of climate change will decrease the solubility of CO2. Different climate models predict ocean temperature increases throughout this century, which means that less CO2 will be absorbed at the surface. Model outcomes suggest that the strength of the solubility pump is highly correlated with mean surface and deep-ocean temperatures. In the long term, the solubility of CO2 may decrease, or in the worst-case, even interrupt, the ocean’s solubility pump.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-02-2012, 03:05 PM

I pointed out the 1958 paper. If it weren't for that you would still be requoting your 1000 units and a solubility chart. I have been trying to move this conversation forward but quite frankly you are stuck on primary school.

I do think its funny that you are citing NOAA. I thought they were just another evil governmental entity when we should be listening to Exxon advocacy groups.

CO2 doesn't just dissolve it dissociates into 3 chemical states and well defined ratios. The 1958 paper was breaking down the process by which this occurs. They used the same mathematical approach that you see in thermodynamic heat models. In the paper you can see where they set up the ratios and its righteous even if someone like you has nil chance of understanding the math.

Its chemical engineering and in so doing they determined that the concentrations of the individual substrates is the primary attribute governing the reaction. They backed it up.

That was 54 years ago and the only thing you fixate on. That MIT paper I showed you was to point out that they have moved far, far past that. They consider temperature, they consider it in terms of the manner in which the ocean mixes between its layers. Those were only two studies that I looked up there are many, many more.

Now if you want you can continue to rail against modern engineering and science much like creationists wanting to believe that there was combustion in the thermosphere for a month causing the flood in Genesis go ahead but one thing is obvious, you are too simpleminded to understand what the climate scientists are getting at.

Further, you always 'suppose' what you want to be true is actually true. Really, thinking about it my goal should be to writing for people that either have the mental acumen to follow or do not simply insert supposition for fact.

Go ahead and continue considering CO2 dissolution in terms of only temperature, simpleton.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-02-2012, 05:28 PM

I hope the irony of this is not lost.

Here’s a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: “These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. …” It goes on, but there’s the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.

Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/

Wild Cobra

06-02-2012, 07:29 PM

Fuzzy gets it wrong again with his assumptions.

He finds it funny that I cite NOAA, yet what I did was cite the paper he linked to disprove what I was saying. I repeatedly said over and over, the material he was linking did not disagree with me.

I find it funny that he doesn't understand.

He thinks that onld paper was some miracle? OK, he can have that warm fuzzy feeling, but it didn't say anything dismissive of my argument, and I was already speaking of the basics it has written in it.

He speaks of the combustion in the thermosphere as if it's something I believe, when I started with a smart ass statement to the effect "maybe the biblical flood has merit." Sio fucking what. I never said it happened, and only posed a possibility, when solar and atmospheric conditions may have been different. Even as unlikely as I knew it was, being more true to science, I never ruled out the slim possibility, just because I didn't like it. In fact, I don't like it. I don't think it happened that way. I think coming out of the ice age, floods breached the straits of Gibralter when the sea level rose. Now I know Fuzzy will latch on this with his ankle biter mentality, but it will just prove once again how much of a fucking ass he is.

He claims I think of solubility in only temperature? That's a flat out fabricated lie. I have said otherwise, but have maintained that temperature is the primary factor for the ratio between the atmosphere and water. salinity plays a factor, so does acidity a bit, but pH changes so little. There are other factors as well, and I think he is confusing at what rate the changes will occur with at what level they will occur at. The wind is a primary factor for changing the speed at which all this happens. Still, over the long term, the wind has an average. Over the long term, since the 1700's the sun has increased average intensity twice. There is little or no disagreement in the scientific community that these solar increases have warmed the ocean. There is also little or no disagreement in the scientific community that the temperature of the oceans do follow known solubility vs. temperature responses.

He also incorrectly claims I do not consider the states at which CO2 disassociates. Here, he is clearly lying again. I have only mentioned CO2 and H2CO3 because there can be rapid changes between these forms as needed. The other two primary forms are a slower process, and do not dictate carbonic acid levels which is the primary form CO2 becomes in the surface of the oceans. Between carbon dioxide and carbonic acid, this is about 90% of the absorbed CO2. I simply don't focus on the remaining 10%.

Not ice he maintains I don't have the intelligence for this topic, but that's all he says. He links papers that are laughably wrong regarding the discussion, and never tries to put all this in layman's terms for you all to understand.

Fuzzy is a fucking idiot. He keeps exposing his ass on this issue. I'm surprised others aren't saying anything about it.

He says he wants to move this discussion forward. Another lie. If he did, he would try to debate me on the level I claim rather than saying my claim is invalid.

Nobody with any good basic science understanding will disagree with my claim that the temperature of the sea water affects CO2 absorption. It affects it pretty good as well.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CO2inSeaWater.jpg

Solubility charts for CO2 already factor in pH changes, because carbonic acid is a primary form during the process.

Wild Cobra

06-02-2012, 07:30 PM

http://gfspl.rootnode.net/klimat/arcticice.png

I believe there were posts here earlier this season talking about how extent was average. I told you that extent is pretty meaningless when the volume is lower because it still melts faster. There you see it.
I just realized.

I kept a sample when it was posted before:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/20120501northerniceretreat.jpg

FuzzyLumpkins

06-02-2012, 07:51 PM

:lol

Wild Cobra

06-02-2012, 07:52 PM

:lol

Talk to the hand. You think you're smart, but everyone sees through you.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-02-2012, 07:55 PM

:lol

MannyIsGod

06-03-2012, 06:07 AM

:lol

FuzzyLumpkins

06-03-2012, 05:51 PM

Hey WD,

So what have you come up with partial differentials? When dealing with multiple variables, what is important about the variables that you hold as constants in respect to those differentiated when doing said differentiation?

Do you still believe that contemporary scientists do not consider temperature in their models as you have claimed? If so, how does that not contradict the peer reviewed studies such as the ones from NOAA, MIT, and even the author of the data from your solubility chart where it is clearly mentioned and factored into the calculations? I do think its funny that you use a chart and not Weiss' formula.

And if you claim that they do not disagree with what you are saying as I know your simple mind will once again parrot I repeat myself:

Do you still believe that contemporary scientists do not consider temperature in their models as you have claimed?

That is the core of your contention for skepticism that they do not consider the effect of T on K. Do you still claim that those studies do not consider the effect of T on K?

Oh and :lol thermosphere combustion floods

Yonivore

06-10-2012, 10:44 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

06-10-2012, 07:22 PM

Wow, yoni those are original arguments from that blog. :bang

Lets prey on peoples ignorance on how science normalizes data by calling it data adjustments. Seriously look up normalize and get back to us.

While we're at it let's just ignore several studies that have quantified and rejected the heat island argument.

MannyIsGod

06-10-2012, 10:17 PM

Wild Cobra

06-11-2012, 02:16 AM

Once again, I come across and article that tends to show the AGCC Emperor has no clothes and, once again, I'll post it as chum over which the SpursTalk AGCC congregants can swarm...

IS THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY GETTING WARMER? (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/is-the-united-states-actually-getting-warmer.php)

After reading the blog post (and links), if you choose, I just have two simple questions for those who bow at the alter of the AGCC God:

1) Is this statement true, "Historically, five adjustments have been made [to the raw NOAA data that is the basis for graphing long-term temperature trends]; the only one that tended to reduce temperatures apparently has been eliminated?"

2) Is this statement true, "Not only does NOAA not correct for the well-recognized urban heat island effect, as I think it obviously should, it goes out of its way to re-introduce the heat island effect where better data are available!?"

In other words, are AGCC proponents fudging the data to meet their expectations or is this guy all wet? Please explain the flaw in his data and analysis.

Thank you.
Oh come on now. This old shit? Everyone knows this is happening, at least those who seek the truth. It's nothing new. they even correct satellite data to their liking. They can't get up there and actually check the calibration of the sensors as they degrade from cosmic radiation, etc. so they make their best guess to readjust the data to fit the model they want.

What I don't understand is how any true scientist can be convinced by the data.

The public that gets spoon fed their so called facts is slowly learning this, that's why AGW is dying. The truth is coming out.

Wild Cobra

06-11-2012, 02:29 AM

So we're back to disputing whether or not the US and the world are getting warmer?

:lol

WOW. Why would they correct for the urban heat island affect? That makes no fucking sense. That IS the temperature is those places.

:lmao @ complaining about supposedly fudging numbers and then saying that the numbers should be fudged in the direction he wants. That shit is gold.

Did BEST find it was not warming and that it was all the urban heat island effect? Let me know. Maybe one of your blogs can fill you in.
No, we are back to what the levels actually are, and from what timeframes are actually warmer and what are not.

Seriously. None of these temperature sensors in urban settings can be relied on. No matter how good we think we are at adjusting for the changes around them, a localized heat island cannot be used to accurately determine squat.

I am one who believes the global average has remained stable, or slightly dropping over the last decade. I most certainly see a serious drop where I live, and i believe on average, for every square mile of cooler temperatures, there is approximately the same area of warmer temperatures. Climate change is real, with or without mankind's help.

I have lived in the same place since 1994. My place gets warmer only because three old fir trees that use to provide me shade in the summer were cut down. Other than that, the last several years have been cooler.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-11-2012, 03:04 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

06-11-2012, 03:08 AM

No, we are back to what the levels actually are, and from what timeframes are actually warmer and what are not.

Seriously. None of these temperature sensors in urban settings can be relied on. No matter how good we think we are at adjusting for the changes around them, a localized heat island cannot be used to accurately determine squat.

I am one who believes the global average has remained stable, or slightly dropping over the last decade. I most certainly see a serious drop where I live, and i believe on average, for every square mile of cooler temperatures, there is approximately the same area of warmer temperatures. Climate change is real, with or without mankind's help.

I have lived in the same place since 1994. My place gets warmer only because three old fir trees that use to provide me shade in the summer were cut down. Other than that, the last several years have been cooler.

I hope you realize that by saying this you are arguing that the UAH professors methodology in unifying atmospheric temperatures doesn't mean squat too.

We have already determined that you such at statistics but to further that point, look up normalization. Just because you do not understand these things does not mean that scientists cannot figure out 'squat.' Similar methodology is behind pretty much every engineering success of the past 100 years. The proof is in the pudding, not in what you suppose is possible.

Wild Cobra

06-11-2012, 03:13 AM

You, WildDumbass, you ever going to respond to this or can we just assume that you are going to ignore it so that you can repeat you same drivel again here in a few more weeks?
LOL...

How am i suppose to knew "WD" is your pet initials for your pet name of me?

Am I suppose to be psychic?

No...

I'm, not wasting my time to go back and look at a stuipd question from your silly dumb ass.

Talk to the hand...

Wild Cobra

06-11-2012, 03:23 AM

boutons_deux

06-11-2012, 08:42 AM

Virginia Lawmaker Says ‘Sea Level Rise’ Is A ‘Left Wing Term,’ Excises It From State Report On Coastal Flooding

State Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who insisted on changing the “sea level rise” study in the General Assembly to one on “recurrent flooding,” said he wants to get political speech out of the mix altogether.

He said “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term” that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?

“What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door,” Stolle said. “Let’s focus on that. Let’s study that. So that’s what I wanted us to call it.”

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/300px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/10/496982/virginia-lawmaker-says-sea-level-rise-is-a-left-wing-term-excises-it-from-state-report-on-coastal-flooding/

FuzzyLumpkins

06-11-2012, 02:10 PM

Look here fuzznuts.

I'm not going to put you on "IGNORE," but when I don't respond, just know I an actively ignoring you.

You are too fucking stupid for me to waste my time with. I will respond from time to time, but just understand,m i will simply ignore your utter stupidity at time.

How the fuck, can you be so stupid, as to link and article to defend your opposition against what I am saying. Then... When I quote the parts of the article that support my viewpoint, and blow away your, you say I am the idiot for linking the article?

IT WAS YOUR LINK I USED YOU PATHETIC RETARD!

My fucking god...

Just how fucking stupid are you?

Really...

Just how funking pathetic, stupid, or what ever your problem is?

So you do not understand how partial derivatives work? MIT has a great set of lectures up about multivariable calculus on the subject.

I'll even help on the specific question you need to know the answer to:

"When taking a partial derivative, you hold the variables not being differentiated as ________."

And really Dr. Capacitor, you should never call anyone else stupid. All you did was quote stuff out of context and I am trying to get you to understand the context. I think I am doing a pretty decent job of illustrating how you are incapable of figuring it out.

DarrinS

06-11-2012, 03:54 PM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5488d07gs1rxhxa1o1_500.gif

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 12:14 AM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5488d07gs1rxhxa1o1_500.gif
I don't get it. FuzzNuts seems to be smart, yet he doesn't understand why his partial derivative angle is so stupid.

What do you think he's trying to get at?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 01:01 AM

I showed you the study that the 'Acquittal of CO2' was talking about and am trying to discuss why they held the solubility state as constant ie they did not differentiate it.

It's actually funny because when I posted it you acted as if it was some sort of revelation of what you have been saying when all it was was the study your shill was referencing. When you treated it as if it was some sort of epiphany it was clear that you were completely unfamiliar with the work and further you would not have the background to understand what they were doing.

You just cherrypicked quotes from what I posted without the context of the mathematical functions and operations that they were using just like your so called 'rocket scientist.'

That you claim that the "partial derivative angle is so stupid" just goes to show you have no basis to talk about anything. You have no idea of the mathematics that those scientists were using. You just had some random guy on the internet tell you something that you wanted to hear and you based your entire viewpoint on the subject on that. You did so without even an attempt at crosschecking or even checking it at all.

I am trying to do so for you but you cannot keep up. At this point, I am just doing it for the benefit of others who read this as to show that you deserve no credibility on any subject at any time.

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 03:11 AM

OMG....

You are so delusional.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 03:20 AM

RG, all he is doing is latching onto something said by Glassman, the nonpeerreviewed, guy. Before the MIT report that I linked, THIS (http://nsdl.org/archives/onramp/classic_articles/issue1_global_warming/n8._Bolin___Eriksson__1958corrected.pdf) was the defining piece on ocean atmospheric exxchange modeling.

There is a blurb on p 132 says "the constants K1, K2, L .... are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following."

That quote is what he is latching onto in making his claims that scientists do not consider them, That is clearly bullshit.

What he fails to acknowledge is that on step 5 and 6 of the same page, the equilibrium values divide out.

Look for yourself. pg 132.

Yes wow...

"The constants K1, K2, Lp, and x are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following."

LOL...

So they treat temperature as a constant...

LOL...

OK, this fifth link of Fuzzy's does address more of what I have been saying. However, it does not address the source and sink locations changes in temperature. As for claiming the very long cycle time for equilibrium, that is incorrect in one aspect. The primary sources and sinks are just that, and because of how they physically travel. The primary sinks do not accumulate the ionic changes. They move the whole mass of the water, along with it's changes to the deep ocean. This is a very big fator in that these long times they speak of would be only for areas that do not travel like these areas do. this is why the North Atlantic is the primary sink. It takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere than any other location. Once the cold waters are moving downward in the Thermohaline circulation, there is no accumulation, because these waters don't surface for hundreds of years later. The colder these waters become before their dive, the more CO2 they take with them. Just being warmer by a fraction of a degree changes their CO2 sinking ability by a notable amount. Same with the primary sourcing point in the tropical Pacific. Deep waters rise, saturated from the deep cold. the warmer the surface becomes, the more they release CO2 in the end result.

Show me where they address this in their study.

And...

LOL...

LOL...

Treating temperature as a constant...

LOL...

LOL...

What do partial differential mean? Seriously look it up. You obviously do not have the basis to comment on what they did. After you figure out what a partial differential is then go to their differentials, partial fractions and algebra and point out specifically where the error was in factoring out solubility in their equations. They said it was a function of temperature AND ph.

The better question is why are you talking about solubility states without considering ph.

Further as I knew you would, you are fixating on the 1958 paper. I showed you the 2003 MIT paper for modeling and they very clearly consider temperature in their transfer coefficient. I linked and quoted it for you.

What is clear is you are being a sophist piece of shit. You claim that it does not disagree with anything you say but it could not disagree more. they consider it and factor it very clearly. You are just too ignorant and dumb to understand.

Delusional huh?

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 03:23 AM

You can look at individual aspects all you want, but at some time you have to look at how changes in temperature has an effect also.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 03:28 AM

Uh-huh..... God you're dumb.

the constants K1, K2, L .... are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following.

When taking a partial derivative, you hold the variables not being differentiated as ________.

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 03:36 AM

Uh-huh..... God you're dumb.

When taking a partial derivative, you hold the variables not being differentiated as ________.
Listen NumbNuts.

I know what you are saying. I have been saying all along that all the articles you linked did not disagree with what I have been saying. I am trying to stop you from your lame way of wasting time. Unless you are going to tell us why your argument has merit, I'm not playing your silly ass game.

You lay out these articles, I say they have no merit, and the moment I say one even agrees with my argument, you try to place that on me as a ball and chain. Go fuck yourself you ignorant fool. How in hell does that have any merit at all? I am not claiming the article. It is yours!

Temperature does affect solubility. It is a fact. Like I said, we can argue over how much an effect it has over CO2, but your attempt to dismiss it is absolutely moronic!

Until you have something reasonable to add, talk to the hand.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 05:25 AM

I never tried to dismiss it. You are the one claiming that we are. Thats what this argument is about: how you claim that climate scientists do not factor solubility into their models.

You apparently are too stupid to follow your own arguments.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, and UW papers all that indicate that they do.

I even brought into the discussion the paper Glassman, whom you get your ideas from, uses to justify said position. I gave the specific quote with context and have been trying to walk you through partial differentials so you can understand that them holding K as constant in a mathematical operation was not to mean that they considered the solubility static.

Its just a partial differential where other variables are considered constants within the operation and not to mean that they remained constant. Its just language that they use in describing the operation. They even say that K is a function of temperature AND alkalinity in the damn quote.

You just do not understand multivariable calculus. A function of x and y remains a function of x and y even after you hold y as a constant to do a partial differential of x. The math is obviously beyond your scope but it is what it is.

if f(x,y) = (ln x)*y then the partial derivative of x = y/x. The y is still variable after the differential.

I would also posit that if Glassman is indeed a rocket scientist either working on propulsion, gyroscope based guidance or the like then he is completely disingenuous in his writing. Those engineers use partial derivatives as a matter of course and he would have known better. Its little surprise he didn't put the work up for peer review.

You keep saying that this doesn't disagree with what you are saying but it disagrees with your bullshit about climate scientists not considering temperatures effect on K.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, UW and even where the MIoS do.

So do you agree that climate scientists do consider temperature effects on K?

Thats what all of those papers say. If you still answer no then all of those papers disagree with what you say.

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 06:13 AM

I never tried to dismiss it. You are the one claiming that we are. Thats what this argument is about: how you claim that climate scientists do not factor solubility into their models.

I clarified that. are you too fucking stupid to understand what I mean?

I will try to expalin it to your dumb ass again.

they do make claims of the effect for the "change in temperature" over the long term times. Since indistrialization, CO2 has incres=ased by about 30% or so. they atribute all the change to mankind. I have never seen the AGW crowd publish the numbers atributed to delta T.

You apparently are too stupid to follow your own arguments.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, and UW papers all that indicate that they do.

I even brought into the discussion the paper Glassman, whom you get your ideas from, uses to justify said position. I gave the specific quote with context and have been trying to walk you through partial differentials so you can understand that them holding K as constant in a mathematical operation was not to mean that they considered the solubility static.

Another clear indication of your stupidity.

Taking your assumption and applying it as fact.

I do not believe as I do because or Dr. Glassman's work. I already believed as i do befopre i ever knew of him.

Do you have any clue at all, hiow irritaing you are, eveer tiome you apply your stupid innacurate assumptions as fact?

Its just a partial differential where other variables are considered constants within the operation and not to mean that they remained constant. Its just language that they use in describing the operation. They even say that K is a function of temperature AND alkalinity in the damn quote.

You just do not understand multivariable calculus. A function of x and y remains a function of x and y even after you hold y as a constant to do a partial differential of x. The math is obviously beyond your scope but it is what it is.

if f(x,y) = (ln x)*y then the partial derivative of x = y/x. The y is still variable after the differential.

Bla bla bla.

I know what they are. Stop wasting my time thinking you are proving a point.

Please...

Show me where in any of your lnked articles, they show their assessment of how much CO2 is caused by ocean warming.

You keep saying that this doesn't disagree with what you are saying but it disagrees with your bullshit about climate scientists not considering temperatures effect on K.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, UW and even where the MIoS do.

So do you agree that climate scientists do consider temperature effects on K?

Thats what all of those papers say. If you still answer no then all of those papers disagree with what you say.

I will say this again.

They do not show the effect to CO2 of their delta-temperature assessments of two or more distant times.

please...

Where do they say that?

From the start, if you had any intelligence, you should know that's what I was saying.

What is the change in CO2 due to the change in temperature?

Where do they show their assessment of that?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 06:22 AM

I have never seen them show the amount attributed to biomass either. Its in their functions though. Its funny too cause you just recently told me:

You can look at individual aspects all you want but at some time you have to look at how changes in temperature has an effect also.

I have shown you models that include temperature in them that are used with the data at any date. K is in the function. They also look at the reactions that take place in addition as is the circulation and windspeed and everything else. Solubility is a function of temperature AND ph amongst other things after all.

YOU CAN LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS ALL YOU WANT BUT AT SOME TIME YOU HAVE TO STOP DUMBING IT DOWN AND TRY TO SEE HOW ALL FACTORS INFLUENCE ALTOGETHER.

god you are dumb. You do not even understand the significance of your own arguments.

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 06:54 AM

I have never seen them show the amount attributed to biomass either. Its in their functions though. Its funny too cause you just recently told me:

I have shown you models that include temperature in them that are used with the data at any date. K is in the function. They also look at the reactions that take place in addition as is the circulation and windspeed and everything else. Solubility is a function of temperature AND ph amongst other things after all.

YOU CAN LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS ALL YOU WANT BUT AT SOME TIME YOU HAVE TO STOP DUMBING IT DOWN AND TRY TO SEE HOW ALL FACTORS INFLUENCE ALTOGETHER.

god you are dumb. You do not even understand the significance of your own arguments.
LOL....

I don't discount that the others have effect.

I will ask one last time.

Where does the AGW crowd show how much CO2 is attributed to ocean warming?

Yonivore

06-13-2012, 07:35 AM

So we're back to disputing whether or not the US and the world are getting warmer?
I think we're still disputing whether or not the US and the world are warming at the rate and for the reasons claimed by the AGCC crowd.

WOW. Why would they correct for the urban heat island affect? That makes no fucking sense. That IS the temperature is those places.
Are "heat islands" global or local phenomena?

:lmao @ complaining about supposedly fudging numbers and then saying that the numbers should be fudged in the direction he wants. That shit is gold.
Pointing out when a scientific body quits "normalizing" temperatures in a consistent manner because it doesn't fit the model isn't complaining, it's questioning the legitimacy of the scientific analysis.

Did BEST find it was not warming and that it was all the urban heat island effect? Let me know. Maybe one of your blogs can fill you in.
Nice diversion. Is what I posted true or not?

1) Is this statement true, "Historically, five adjustments have been made [to the raw NOAA data that is the basis for graphing long-term temperature trends]; the only one that tended to reduce temperatures apparently has been eliminated?"

2) Is this statement true, "Not only does NOAA not correct for the well-recognized urban heat island effect, as I think it obviously should, it goes out of its way to re-introduce the heat island effect where better data are available!?"

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 10:56 AM

My so called diversion answered your questions.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 11:10 AM

Its pretty obvious you know nothing about the statistical analysis of large temperature data sets so why act like you do, yoni?

boutons_deux

06-13-2012, 11:11 AM

The Heat Is On: U.S. Temperature Rise Is Accelerating

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Screen-shot-2012-06-13-at-10.44.02-AM.png

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/13/498840/the-heat-is-on-us-temperature-rise-is-accelerating/

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 11:15 AM

Pointing out when a scientific body quits "normalizing" temperatures in a consistent manner because it doesn't fit the model isn't complaining, it's questioning the legitimacy of the scientific analysis

This specifically makes me laugh. The quotes are a wonderful touch. You have no idea what was meant by normalize so you put quotes around it to treat it as some made open AGW creation. Awesome.

Yonivore

06-13-2012, 12:31 PM

This specifically makes me laugh. The quotes are a wonderful touch. You have no idea what was meant by normalize so you put quotes around it to treat it as some made open AGW creation. Awesome.
Glad to amuse, Manny.

I know what normalizing is; but, of course, that's not the question. Neither are my statistical skills at question.

The questions remain, "Have, as was alleged in the post above, those conducting the statistical analysis on global temperature, that tends to support the AGCC position, changed the way they normalize the temperatures used in their analysis and, if so, why and to what effect?"

So, put me some knowledge, Manny.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 12:49 PM

LOL....

I don't discount that the others have effect.

I will ask one last time.

Where does the AGW crowd show how much CO2 is attributed to ocean warming?

In their ocean CO2 ocean transfer models. I showed you the models. i showed you in the models where they accounted for K. Sorry they do not break it down the output by parts with a data column labeled K, so you can see it easily like your solubility chart but they do not do that for alkalinity or the like either. They do have gradient maps where they tell you what the surface temperatures are a that particular time and place.

If you need help with gradients here you go

2XraaWefBd8

That Weisz guy, from whose work the fuckhead that compiled your solubility chart pulled, created a formula that modeled that behavior. He was a climate scientist from the University of California San Diego.

His work was published in Nature HERE (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v300/n5892/abs/300511a0.html). thats a climate scientist quantifying it.

Your fuckhead whoever it was plugged in numbers into said formula and acted like he had something. I still find it hilarious that he posted the chart so stupid fucks such as your self could work with it rather than Weisz's formula.

Weisz's work has been cited by IPCC, MIT and the UH papers I linked you. So your chart that you use to make up numbers and make claims about how much CO2 the ocean should release comes from a formula that those other papers use in their formulas. Weisz was not some scientific outcast, dumbass.

3. Net sea–air CO2 flux

3.1. Computational method Net sea–air CO2 flux, F; can be estimated using: F ¼ k a ðDpCO2Þsea2air; where k is the CO2 gas transfer velocity, a is the solubility of CO2 in seawater (Weiss, 1974), and (DpCO2)sea–air is the sea–air pCO2 difference. The sea–air pCO2 difference is computedusing the mean monthly pCO2 values in surface waters obtainedin this study and the atmospheric pCO2 computedusing the zonal mean CO2 concentrations in the dry atmosphere for 1995 reportedby the GLOBALVIEW-CO2 (2000).

http://www.climate.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/2002Takahashi.pdf

p 1606 There is the NOAA CO2 flux model from 2002 where it clearly shows that Weiss formula is not only considered but cited. Its variable and they even tell you where they pull their empirical data from.

The climatological mean barometric pressure
(Pb) (Atlas of Surface Marine Data, 1994)
andequilibrium water vapor pressure (Pw) at
climatological surface water temperature and
salinity (WorldOcean Database, 1998) are used
for computing the atmospheric pCO2

I cannot spell it out any more clearly.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 02:24 PM

Glad to amuse, Manny.

I know what normalizing is; but, of course, that's not the question. Neither are my statistical skills at question.

The questions remain, "Have, as was alleged in the post above, those conducting the statistical analysis on global temperature, that tends to support the AGCC position, changed the way they normalize the temperatures used in their analysis and, if so, why and to what effect?"

So, put me some knowledge, Manny.

I pointed you to BEST. You said it was diversion because you're ignorant of what BEST actually is and what questions they answered.

If you want the answer as to why the methods were changed then consult the literature on every temperature (or really ANY large dataset) dataset. Why are there series of each of them? They develop new methods for making them more accurate. (this is exactly what BEST was an audit over)

You see not every square inch of the earth has a thermometer sitting within it. Some areas are sampled more than others. THAT is why we must use normalization and other statistical sampling methods to come up with a global temperature average. These methods change as scientists try new things and find things that are more accurate. The old shit you're now digging up was exactly why a study like BEST was done. The data is fully public as are the methods and the results are almost exactly the same as every temperature dataset shows.

Your shit has been addressed so man times its not funny. This is exactly like when you wondered why no one tried to use climate models to forecast the current climate with old data.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 02:34 PM

But they're manipulating the data!

http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 02:43 PM

In other news, the arctic is now being forecast to break the all time low in sea ice extent. Its already set record lows for the dates in the season.

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2012/june

But no, its not really warming.

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 02:50 PM

But they're manipulating the data!

http://berkeleyearth.org/images/decadal-land-surface-average-temperature-berkeley-earth.jpg

Choosing to only show that time period is a form of manipulation.

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 02:51 PM

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 02:58 PM

Don't you get it FuzzNuts...

I'll try this simplification.

If I have a temperature in which the seasonal high and seasonal lows cancel each other out for a net effect of zero, then we are in balance for the year. If I raise my average annual global water temperature, then the seasonal high temperature causes more sourcing than before, and the seasonal low causes less sinking of CO2. Now we have a net source. The reverse is true is we cool the average annual waters. The sourcing effect is less, and the sinking effect is more, for an annual average sinking effect.

TeyshaBlue

06-13-2012, 02:59 PM

Choosing to only show that time period is a form of manipulation.

Is 200 years not relevant?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 03:06 PM

I got this far FuzzNuts, and stopped:

Seasonal effects of temperature and salinity on the partial pressure of CO2 in seawater

"seasonal..." Trying to make me die laughing? Where is the long term change?

What about when there is more warming year round? What about when the annual averages increase?

Thats the source of your solubility chart you dumbass. Look at it. Notice the name Weiss? You are now arguing that your chart that you have been using for the last two years is bad.

You are really fucking dumb.

TeyshaBlue

06-13-2012, 03:07 PM

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Forrest_Gump_22.jpg

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 03:08 PM

Is 200 years not relevant?

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I'm saying it is manipulative. It has been standard practice of the agw crowd to try and scare people into agreeing with them. Showing only 200 years is a great way to say look at the huge temp spike, you're all going to die, be afraid. They could show this temp graph but the average person wouldn't find it quite as scary.

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 03:08 PM

Thats the source of your solubility chart you dumbass. Look at it. Notice the name Weiss? You are now arguing that your chart that you have been using for the last two years is bad.

You are really fucking dumb.
No, I'm not saying Weiss' chart is bad. You are too stupid to understand the nuances.

Why do you say it's bad?

Yonivore

06-13-2012, 03:11 PM

I pointed you to BEST. You said it was diversion because you're ignorant of what BEST actually is and what questions they answered.

If you want the answer as to why the methods were changed then consult the literature on every temperature (or really ANY large dataset) dataset. Why are there series of each of them? They develop new methods for making them more accurate. (this is exactly what BEST was an audit over)

You see not every square inch of the earth has a thermometer sitting within it. Some areas are sampled more than others. THAT is why we must use normalization and other statistical sampling methods to come up with a global temperature average. These methods change as scientists try new things and find things that are more accurate. The old shit you're now digging up was exactly why a study like BEST was done. The data is fully public as are the methods and the results are almost exactly the same as every temperature dataset shows.

Your shit has been addressed so man times its not funny. This is exactly like when you wondered why no one tried to use climate models to forecast the current climate with old data.
I see; you can't answer the direct question. Thanks.

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 03:15 PM

I see; you can't answer the direct question. Thanks.
That's my complaint about these AGW lemmings.

They will link material all day long, but they cannot put it in their own words, showing that they understand what they are agreeing with.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 03:29 PM

No, I'm not saying Weiss' chart is bad. You are too stupid to understand the nuances.

Why do you say it's bad?

I understand the nuance where you have been trying to use the chart using his formula to derive to demonstrate that the ocean has just been fizzinlg like a soda to explain the long term trends. So its okay for you to use the data with made up numbers over a long period of time but when scientists use it in their models with actual empirical data it's not?

I will ask the question again: does anyone on this board think that another semiregular poster is dumber than WC?

Yonivore

06-13-2012, 03:30 PM

Is 200 years not relevant?
In the context of cycles that run eons? Probably not.

Wild Cobra

06-13-2012, 03:31 PM

I understand the nuance where you have been trying to use the chart using his formula to derive to demonstrate that the ocean has just been fizzinlg like a soda to explain the long term trends. So its okay for you to use the data with made up numbers over a long period of time but when scientists use it in their models with actual empirical data it's not?

I will ask the question again: does anyone on this board think that another semiregular poster is dumber than WC?
Idiot.

That study has nothing to do with long term, change. It says "seasonal."

Please... quote me the part you think matters, or put it I your own words.

Notice in your quoted formula where it show the net uptake, that it treats temperature and salinity as another variable... What happens when temperature changes?

This article acknowledges temperature has an effect. It however does not quantify that effect as a long term net change. It is a seasonal study.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 03:39 PM

Choosing to only show that time period is a form of manipulation.

Um what? Thats the time frame covered by the BEST study and thats their graphic. Why on earth would they show more?

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 03:41 PM

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I'm saying it is manipulative. It has been standard practice of the agw crowd to try and scare people into agreeing with them. Showing only 200 years is a great way to say look at the huge temp spike, you're all going to die, be afraid. They could show this temp graph but the average person wouldn't find it quite as scary.

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg

I find it really scary that you said my chart with error bars was manipulative and yours with a thin line to a time before instrumentation as somehow honest.

REALLY?

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 03:42 PM

I see; you can't answer the direct question. Thanks.

If thats what you want to take from this then go right ahead.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 03:43 PM

In the context of cycles that run eons? Probably not.

According to your scientific expertise in the matter, correct?

:lol

Its VERY significant. I actually study the climate. I don't just read blogs.

Yonivore

06-13-2012, 03:44 PM

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 03:46 PM

Nope. Its been ice free before.

Yonivore

06-13-2012, 03:47 PM

According to your scientific expertise in the matter, correct?

:lol

Its VERY significant. I actually study the climate. I don't just read blogs.
I don't care in what is your expertise; 200 hundred years in the context of a planetary life of what is it, 4 billion years, is not significant. I doesn't mean squat.

So, Manny, why did they quit factoring out the heat sink effect when normalizing temperatures?

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 03:53 PM

1 minute in the existence of a planet can be relevant. Just because something has existed for a long period of time doesn't mean it can't be changed very quickly. Thats a pretty stupid argument to make.

Go read the BEST study if you want information about temperature calculations. I've told you several times.

PS I know you don't car what people with actual expertise in the field have to say. You've made that quite obvious. You listen to bloggers.

Yonivore

06-13-2012, 04:12 PM

1 minute in the existence of a planet can be relevant. Just because something has existed for a long period of time doesn't mean it can't be changed very quickly. Thats a pretty stupid argument to make.
I thought we were talking about a 200 year trend being significant -- not an event.

Go read the BEST study if you want information about temperature calculations. I've told you several times.
Yes, you've told me several times to go read another study. Probably because you're unable to answer the question.

PS I know you don't car what people with actual expertise in the field have to say. You've made that quite obvious. You listen to bloggers.
Actually, the blogger I posted was just repeating the assertion of a scientist.

Have the people responsible for analyzing the global temperature changed the manner by which they normalize the raw data? Why? And, to what effect?

Seems like fairly straightforward questions for a person claiming expertise in the field.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 04:48 PM

I gave you the answer. Its not my fault you can't read.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 04:52 PM

A 200 year trend has a cause. Aka an event.

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 04:53 PM

Um what? Thats the time frame covered by the BEST study and thats their graphic. Why on earth would they show more?

Why on earth would they not show more? Clearly they were not opposed to using estimated temps.

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 04:57 PM

I find it really scary that you said my chart with error bars was manipulative and yours with a thin line to a time before instrumentation as somehow honest.

REALLY?

I find it scary that you think any graph showing the earths temperature changes somehow qualifies as proof of agw theory.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 05:10 PM

I find it scary that you think any graph showing the earths temperature changes somehow qualifies as proof of agw theory.

I said that? The dispute at hand was the temp record and its analysis.

Do you be live your chart with no error bars is a good one?

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 05:11 PM

Also its mislabled. Do you know why?

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 05:14 PM

Why on earth would they not show more? Clearly they were not opposed to using estimated temps.

except they clearly are against just that.

http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 05:59 PM

I said that? The dispute at hand was the temp record and its analysis.

In the context of this thread yes you are arguing that manmade CO2 is warming the planet and using a temp graph as proof. I haven't read any of the "dispute" and I'm not going to because I know that's what you are arguing and Yoni, WC, etc. are arguing the that manmade CO2 is not warming the planet.

If that's not what you're arguing then your just wasting time talking about the weather.

Do you be live your chart with no error bars is a good one?

It shows the earths temp is not static same as yours. It's good enough for me.

Also its mislabled. Do you know why?

Nope, don't care either. It shows the earths temp is not static, good enough for me.

except they clearly are against just that.

http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/

Then why are they including inaccurate data.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 07:18 PM

In the context of this thread yes you are arguing that manmade CO2 is warming the planet and using a temp graph as proof. I haven't read any of the "dispute" and I'm not going to because I know that's what you are arguing and Yoni, WC, etc. are arguing the that manmade CO2 is not warming the planet.

If that's not what you're arguing then your just wasting time talking about the weather.

Nothing says I'M RIGHT like admitting your ignorance on a subject. Well done!

It shows the earths temp is not static same as yours. It's good enough for me.

It doesn't show that. Well, it tries to show that, but removal of the error bars which show the RANGE of possible values is a complete manipulation. The maker of that chart can't say what the temperature was during that time period. They can provide you with error bars of a range of what was the most likely temperature of that time. Why didn't they do that?

Its funny that you come into the thread and shout FIRE while holding the god damn torch. Actually, its more sad than funny.

Nope, don't care either. It shows the earths temp is not static, good enough for me.

Holy shit let me get you a chart that shows the sky is blue and water is wet too! You can take your strawman down as no one is claiming a static temp on earth. More conformation of just how shitty your standards are.

Oh shit, show me the temp changes!

Then why are they including inaccurate data.

Because they have found that large amounts of data with low accuracy but high precision are worthy of being included if they are weighted properly. On what grounds do you dispute their use of the data?

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 07:31 PM

In any event, in addition to your graph being intentionally misleading it is also inaccurate as hell. The North Atlantic was warm (hence the viking shit) which in turn caused parts of North America and Europe to be warmer. But what about the rest of the planet? It was cooler.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif

This one is a bit out of date now and it only goes back 1000 years but you can see exactly how the error bars work. As soon as you get out of the instrumental record and start relying on proxies, you develop large margins of error due to the uncertainty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

Any graph showing a reconstruction that is based on proxies without error bars is dishonest as hell.

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 07:42 PM

Holy shit let me get you a chart that shows the sky is blue and water is wet too! You can take your strawman down as no one is claiming a static temp on earth.

Make up your mind Manny. If no one is claiming the earths temp is static AND you are not posting temp graphs as some sort of proof of agw theory as you say then what the fuck are you doing. You might as well be posting charts showing the sky is blue and water is wet.

Funny to see you get pissed though. I recall a few years ago another global warming thread where you were pressed to show your proof and you posted a pic of a glacier melting. For all your attempts to be so scientific and knowlegable it always boils down to you posting obvious shit and claiming you're smarter than everyone. Here see the temp changes, oh look ice melts...lol you're a one trick pony Manny.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 08:00 PM

Make up your mind Manny. If no one is claiming the earths temp is static AND you are not posting temp graphs as some sort of proof of agw theory as you say then what the fuck are you doing. You might as well be posting charts showing the sky is blue and water is wet.

Why do I need to make up my mind? You're the one jumping all over the place here. If you had bothered to actually read what you were replying to instead of just posting out of ignorance you would have seen that Yonivore was claiming that the methods of calculating global temp from the instrument record were wrong. Thats why I brought up BEST and thats exactly why I posted their graph. Whether AGW is true or not is not central to the instrument record.

Thats why I didn't need to post a temperature recostruction record dating back 2000 years (We can go way further than that from proxies so I'm not even sure why you're acting like 2000 years is some kind of domain holy grail) but rather simply the duration of the instrumental record. You then went ahead and posted a chart that was COMPLETELY DISHONEST (not to mention inaccurate).

So, you call one chart with error bars misleading because it didn't include proxies when its intent was never to do so and then followed it up with a graph that intentional omits many proxy datasets and then completely removes error bars.

Nice job!!!!!

Funny to see you get pissed though. I recall a few years ago another global warming thread where you were pressed to show your proof and you posted a pic of a glacier melting.

Link? You won't find one because it wasn't me that did that. I know exactly who did but I'd love for you to find the link and show that I EVER did that.

I'll save you the time for your response. You're going to say that its not worth your time to look for it right? You're just going to throw up a bullshit accusation that you can't back up, right?

Its going to be really fucking ironic when I show you what thread it was, too.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668285&postcount=8

SMH

For all your attempts to be so scientific and knowlegable it always boils down to you posting obvious shit and claiming you're smarter than everyone. Here see the temp changes, oh look ice melts...lol you're a one trick pony Manny.

Butthurt poster is butthurt. THAT much is obvious. You came into a thread, saw a picture you didn't like and called it dishonest. You didn't bother to read before you posted and you then followed it up with an actual dishonest graph.

And now, you're just pissed because you look like a moron.

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 09:15 PM

Its going to be really fucking ironic when I show you what thread it was, too.

Damn I always get you two confused. Should have used the one where you claimed the relationship of ocean ph & co2 levels were simple and completely understood...that was you right or am I attributing every stupid thing to the wrong person?

You may now return to arguing about the weather.

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 09:17 PM

And now, you're just pissed because you look like a moron.

Yes and you look smart because you've proved the temperature changes.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2012, 09:33 PM

Damn I always get you two confused. Should have used the one where you claimed the relationship of ocean ph & co2 levels were simple and completely understood...that was you right or am I attributing every stupid thing to the wrong person?

You may now return to arguing about the weather.

Yes and you look smart because you've proved the temperature changes.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol All of this because you just couldn't admit you were wrong and man up. Jesus this thread never fails to deliver from one dumb ass or another.

PS

If you want to dig your hole even digger, provide a link to the CO2 thing.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 09:54 PM

Notice in your quoted formula where it show the net uptake, that it treats temperature and salinity as another variable... What happens when temperature changes?

This just demonstrates a fundamental inability to understand how the dynamics of systems work. K is a function of both. Its like talking about motion but only wanting to talk about mass.

Simpleminded and you want to talk about nuance.

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 10:57 PM

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol All of this because you just couldn't admit you were wrong and man up. Jesus this thread never fails to deliver from one dumb ass or another.

PS

If you want to dig your hole even digger, provide a link to the CO2 thing.

What are you talking about, I clearly admitted I was wrong and got you confused with baseline bum. I also said I may have you confused with someone else on the CO2 thing. I'm not going to spend the time looking for that thread as I don't remember what the topic was or when it was. As you can see from my post count in 4 years, I'm just not that into ST.

I'm not wrong that how data is presented can be a form of manipulation. I'm not wrong that this study only shows a brief period of time and includes unreliable data. I'm not wrong that a longer term look at global temps doesn't have the same "OMG the earth is going to overheat" effect.

But on top of admitting I got you confused with someone else, I'll even go so far as to tell you that you are right in your argument that the historical temps that the agw crowd have built their dogma around are highly inaccurate and should always be shown with error bars.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-13-2012, 11:32 PM

You can measure accuracy of things and all you are doing is characterizing it such as to ridicule it. There is a degree of error in literally everything. To claim something as being irrefutable is just hubris.

Also, using vague scare tactics like "how data is presented can be a form of manipulation" does not posit much at all. I could just as easily say "skeptics can be shills for the oil lobby" and it has just as much merit.

Normalization can be misrepresented with intent to mislead but BEST for example has their dataset publicly available. If you want to argue where they misrepresent data then you can look at if yourself. I guarantee you that the oil lobby has people doing just that and if they find any anomaly that they will pimp it until the end of days.

BEST's finding are 100% empirical and they refuse to attribute causation. They just say it's getting hotter relative to historical cycles and has been doing so for over the past 100 years.

When you make claims as to the misrepresentation of statistics its not difficult to make the arguments. Look at MiG's response to the data of the supposed MWP. Using the data of one geographic region and claiming that it is representative of the whole earth is a misrepresentation.

If BEST did that or something similar its open for evaluation. Do you have a observation of any particular thing such as limited observation or are you just going to leave it at that vague bullshit?

SnakeBoy

06-13-2012, 11:53 PM

Do you have a observation of any particular thing such as limited observation or are you just going to leave it at that vague bullshit?

Just the vague bullshit. I don't have a problem with BEST methods or results. It's a study that proves water is wet. Hell, even Sarah Palin knows the climate has been warming. I just have a problem with it being touted as proof of agw, which I assumed Manny was doing.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 12:16 AM

Just the vague bullshit. I don't have a problem with BEST methods or results. It's a study that proves water is wet. Hell, even Sarah Palin knows the climate has been warming. I just have a problem with it being touted as proof of agw, which I assumed Manny was doing.

If you do not disagree with their results then you do not disagree that the current warming trend is not explained by historical natural cycles. That was the entire point of their correlation analysis. Thats why you see the term anomaly. It's a deviation from a cycle. Spectrum analysis and all that good stuff.

SnakeBoy

06-14-2012, 12:50 AM

If you do not disagree with their results then you do not disagree that the current warming trend is not explained by historical natural cycles.

There isn't enough historical data to make that call. The best study shows a significant margin of error just from 1800. Manny's error bar 2000 year chart shows a huge margin of error. Even if we had an accurate 2000 or even 10000 year chart it would still be insufficient to claim the recent warming has never occured before and is unnatural.

The only thing I'm interested in on the topic of agw is how much of the co2 increase are we responsible for thru co2 production vs deforestation. And then can that increase have enough of a greenhouse effect to account for the temperature increases.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 02:08 AM

This just demonstrates a fundamental inability to understand how the dynamics of systems work. K is a function of both. Its like talking about motion but only wanting to talk about mass.

Simpleminded and you want to talk about nuance.

I'm not talking about "k" you idiot. I'm talking about "α."

Don't you read the material you link?

Do you not understand anything? Can't you get anything right?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 03:09 AM

I'm not talking about "k" you idiot. I'm talking about "α."

Don't you read the material you link?

Do you not understand anything? Can't you get anything right?

:lol

I am talking about the solubility of CO2. You can dither about labels all you like.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 03:16 AM

:lol

I am talking about the solubility of CO2. You can dither about labels all you like.
You obviously don't understand how temperature affects it. I believe that link you provided stated it changes by 4.23% per degree. That becomes a pretty huge difference if the global temperature of the ocean increases by 1 degree. So much more sourcing, so much less sinking...

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 05:26 AM

What part of "function of temperature and ph" is difficult to understand?

I mean we do not even need to talk about how thermal layering acts as a buffer that keeps surface waters supersaturated or the influence of calcium or the influence of biotics.

There are actually three different dissociation states for CO2 in water. There are two transitions between the three sates both with a relative solubility. Both K's are a function of ph and temperature.

The links I gave you didn't say shit about 4%. Weiss talks in terms of a formula not a chart, dolt.

However if they had said that then they would have been climate scientists discussing the effects of temperature and relative solubility of the oceans.

You cannot even keep up with your own bullshit.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 06:31 AM

boutons_deux

06-14-2012, 09:21 AM

Public Understanding Of Climate Science Rebounds, 72% of Independents Say There Is ‘Solid Evidence’ Of Global Warming

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Brookings.gif

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/13/498892/public-understanding-of-climate-science-rebounds-72-of-independents-say-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

When a science discussion is split between right-wing-fucktards vs non-right-wing-fucktards, it's certain the right-wing-nuts are taking an anti-science political stand (as dictated to them by the UNION of UCA financiers protecting their profits).

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 11:32 AM

A 200 year trend has a cause. Aka an event.
A 200-year trend, in a 4-billion-year timeline, isn't even a data point.

Whatever killed the dinosaurs is an event.

And, causes can be natural.

Oh, and you never did answer the question.

Did the AGCC proponents analyzing the raw temperature data change the way they normalize them, why, and to what effect?

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 11:45 AM

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 12:01 PM

lol @ 4 billion year timeline. Have you established that the data population needs to include 4 billion years of data? Do trends need the support of 4 billion years to be a trend?

I don't understand the AGW mechanics very well. I'm pretty ignorant of atmospheric studies and sorely lacking in the fundamentals. However, I do understand statistical analysis.
You've got to make the case for 4 billion years as a required data set before you make it a critical attribute of an argument.
Thus far, I've not seen that case made.
I think it's germane in the sense of establishing the climate of the earth is not behaving any differently than it did before man ever existed.

Over the life of the planet, it has gotten cold -- much colder than anything ever experienced in the history of man -- and hot -- much hotter than anything ever experienced in the history of man. And, it will be again.

The thing to determine -- if it's even worth worry about except from the perspective of preparation and adaptation -- is where we are in the climate cycle of the planet...not what effect an insignificant species is having on it.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 01:42 PM

I don't understand the AGW mechanics very well.
I think you make an important point here.

I believe it is the height of arrogance for mankind to believe it has achieved an understanding of the almost infinite variables involved in global climate sufficient to make any definitive claims on what the climate is doing, why it's doing it, and what's causing it to behave the way it does.

For the past five decades I've watched the "experts" predict, time and time again, about what is going to happen in my future...only to witness them be wrong, time and time again. Manny, et. al., would have us believe that, NOW, scientists have arrived at "settled science" on the matter and that the debate is over -- time for us to act before it's all too late. (Of course, that ignores the scientists, who also happen to agree with Manny about the cause of global climate change, that say "It's too late, there's nothing we can do, all is lost.").

Throw into the mix we could be annihilated, in the blink of an eye, by a true event such as an asteroid or an unfortunately aimed plasma stream from an exploding star -- or any number of true planet-killing scenarios, and it's hard to get excited about an egocentric crisis that doesn't really demonstrate the climate is behaving any appreciably different than it did before we were here.

But, to your point because, it's a good one and, I believe it was echoed in one of the quotes posted earlier in this thread from a real climate scientist.

The global climate is just too complicated a mechanism for anyone -- with today's knowledge -- to be able to make any kind of rational claim to understand precisely what it will do, why it will do it, or when what it does will occur.

Better to set our minds at adapting to an inevitable change than to waste our time spitting into the wind of change.

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 01:51 PM

I don't understand orbital mechanics all that well either. That doesn't preclude others do.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 01:56 PM

I don't understand orbital mechanics all that well either. That doesn't preclude others do.
I would argue the number of conditions having influence on orbital mechanics is small when compared to the number having influence on global climate.

And, mind you, this certitude about global climate change is coming from -- in the case of this forum, anyway -- people who completely refute the belief mankind can economically extract oil from shale.

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 01:58 PM

Actually I think the height of arrogance is someone who doesn't understand a subject telling others they can't understand it either.

DarrinS

06-14-2012, 01:59 PM

This thread is still here?

1-Sgvq98mjc

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 02:00 PM

I would argue the number of conditions having influence on orbital mechanics is small when compared to the number having influence on global climate.

And, mind you, this certitude about global climate change is coming from -- in the case of this forum, anyway -- people who completely refute the belief mankind can economically extract oil from shale.

I would counter that you don't know the number of conditions for understanding either...much less being able to extrapolate a ranking from that lack of knowledge.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:00 PM

Actually I think the height of arrogance is someone who doesn't understand a subject telling others they can't understand it either.
Hey, Manny; what would a super volcano do to global climate change?

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 02:01 PM

Snake Boy, I appreciate your posts made today. I don't have time to post more, but I'll follow up on some of the posts later.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:02 PM

I would counter that you don't know the number of conditions for understanding either...much less being able to extrapolate a ranking from that lack of knowledge.
And, you do?

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:03 PM

And, Manny, the question is still open; "Did the AGCC proponents analyzing the raw temperature data change the way they normalize them, why, and to what effect?"

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 02:07 PM

And, you do?

I'm not the person positing the number of variables for orbital mechanics being less or greater than atmospheric analysis.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:08 PM

I would counter that you don't know the number of conditions for understanding either...much less being able to extrapolate a ranking from that lack of knowledge.
I really shouldn't have let you get away with this.

The fact is, mankind understands orbital mechanics to the point that we can successfully predict -- and have been doing so for thousands of years -- the position of the planets, their trajectories, and the length of their orbits. And, applying that scientific knowledge, we have successfully flung men and machinery into space with the confidence and know-how to bring it all safely back to earth. TeyshaBlue, that takes a command of orbital mechanics not even remotely duplicated in the global climate field.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:09 PM

I'm not the person positing the number of variables for orbital mechanics being less or greater than atmospheric analysis.
No, you're not, but it's clear from our accomplishments in both fields, on which mankind has a better understanding.

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 02:10 PM

I really shouldn't have let you get away with this.

The fact is, mankind understands orbital mechanics to the point that we can successfully predict -- and have been doing so for thousands of years -- the position of the planets, their trajectories, and the length of their orbits. And, applying that scientific knowledge, we have successfully flung men and machinery into space with the confidence and know-how to bring it all safely back to earth. TeyshaBlue, takes a command of orbital mechanics not even remotely duplicated in the global climate field.

We might very well be doing the very same thing with climate science. But for whatever reason, the very mere thought that we could do this is "the height of arrogance".

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 02:11 PM

Orbital Mechanics is incredibly simple compared to atmospheric sciences. That doesn't change anything about AGW or Yonivores ignorance of atmospheric dynamics in general.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:12 PM

Orbital Mechanics is incredibly simple compared to atmospheric sciences. That doesn't change anything about AGW or Yonivores ignorance of atmospheric dynamics in general.
Thanks for making my point, Manny. Think you can now respond to the question?

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 02:12 PM

"the height of arrogance for mankind to believe it has achieved an understanding of 'fill in the blank'..." is a common meme of opposition to emerging sciences.

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 02:13 PM

Orbital Mechanics is incredibly simple compared to atmospheric sciences. That doesn't change anything about AGW or Yonivores ignorance of atmospheric dynamics in general.

Well it aint to me!:depressed

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:16 PM

We might very well be doing the very same thing with climate science. But for whatever reason, the very mere thought that we could do this is "the height of arrogance".
Climate science, at best to date, is a guessing game filled with models run on assumptions that have either been proven wrong or had to be tossed because they took the model in the "wrong" direction.

Manny's right, climate science is extremely complicated -- probably more complicated than devising a method of extracting oil from shale.

Hey, Manny, what does an unpredictable global event -- such as a super volcano -- or, an unpredictable cosmic event -- such as a large asteroid strike, do to your global climate science?

And, of course, the ever-present question; "Did the AGCC proponents analyzing the raw temperature data change the way they normalize them, why, and to what effect?"

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 02:19 PM

Climate science, at best to date, is a guessing game filled with models run on assumptions that have either been proven wrong or had to be tossed because they took the model in the "wrong" direction.

See meme. Congrats on filling in the blanks.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:31 PM

"the height of arrogance for mankind to believe it has achieved an understanding of 'fill in the blank'..." is a common meme of opposition to emerging sciences.
That's not true.

First, climate science isn't an "emerging" science. It's been studied for as long and in as much depth as just about any other science. What's emerging is the belief mankind has a larger role in global climate than was before believed...and, there is still serious disagreement over whether or not that is true.

Also, I don't think it's arrogant to believe mankind can have a thorough understanding of physics; orbital mechanics, for instance.

The arrogance, I believe, lies in the fact global warming proponents now believe mankind is a significant factor in the process of global climate change and, as such, should seek to discover how we can alter something they don't yet completely understand. Once we are able to control the Moon's global effect on the tide, I'll believe we can affect climate.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 02:33 PM

See meme. Congrats on filling in the blanks.
You betcha.

ChumpDumper

06-14-2012, 02:41 PM

So yoni's argument is "I'm stupid, so everyone else must be stupid also."

Half-right, at any rate.

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 02:54 PM

That's not true.

First, climate science isn't an "emerging" science. It's been studied for as long and in as much depth as just about any other science. What's emerging is the belief mankind has a larger role in global climate than was before believed...and, there is still serious disagreement over whether or not that is true.

Also, I don't think it's arrogant to believe mankind can have a thorough understanding of physics; orbital mechanics, for instance.

The arrogance, I believe, lies in the fact global warming proponents now believe mankind is a significant factor in the process of global climate change and, as such, should seek to discover how we can alter something they don't yet completely understand. Once we are able to control the Moon's global effect on the tide, I'll believe we can affect climate.

I'm just going to call bullshit on your first two sentences. And, it was vehemently argued that mankind had no business whatsoever putting men in space...the very thought was dangerous. Such blind hubris..the arrogance of such a thing was unthinkable to some segments of society.
Predicating control of a heretofore immovable object is not a particularly strong metaphor.

That being said, as soon as we take control of something we own it. It becomes our responsibility, and we will have to work harder to maintain and manage it. One example that illustrates this well is agriculture. Agriculture requires a great deal of control over resources. In addition it creates new problems which in addition require even more work to solve....much like the emerging thought that we have an impact upon our climate.

boutons_deux

06-14-2012, 03:28 PM

"belief mankind has a larger role in global climate than was before believed...and, there is still serious disagreement over whether or not that is true."

not a belief, it's scientific fact.

the disagreement is not serious, is paid for by carbon-industry, etc corps

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 04:10 PM

I'm just going to call bullshit on your first two sentences. And, it was vehemently argued that mankind had no business whatsoever putting men in space...the very thought was dangerous. Such blind hubris..the arrogance of such a thing was unthinkable to some segments of society.

Predicating control of a heretofore immovable object is not a particularly strong metaphor.
There's a difference between believing man shouldn't do something because it's dangerous and believing a man can't do something because it is infinitely larger than he is.

Space exploration <> global climate control.

That being said, as soon as we take control of something we own it. It becomes our responsibility, and we will have to work harder to maintain and manage it. One example that illustrates this well is agriculture. Agriculture requires a great deal of control over resources. In addition it creates new problems which in addition require even more work to solve...
The effects of agriculture is localized, regional at best...not global.

...much like the emerging thought that we have an impact upon our climate.
I agree, it's an emerging thought. One that's not settled. One over which there is serious disagreement among people much smarter, about such things, than anyone that visits this forum. And, certainly, one at which it would be foolish to thrown costly and draconian fixes.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 04:15 PM

Wow...

just wow...

How can you be so fucking stupid?

pH has little to do with differences, because it changes so little. Why are you bringing up pH? Why are you going off on some stupid tangent again? Your "k" factor also changes little over the long term.

From your link:

Also from your link:

Now I thought it was only about 3.1% per degree, but your link says it's more. I guess I could be misunderstanding what they mean.

Why can't you accept, the the oceans have a sourcing flux of about 90 GtC and a sinking flux of about 94 GtC, and that temperature has a notable effect on this. An increase in global temperature both increases the sourcing and decreases the sinking. Your link with the formula is a simplified formula for approximation. Look what it does.

I don't think you understand how all this works. Maybe these will help:

Appendix A
Calculations (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/ndp_067/ndp067append.html)

A New Formula for the Effect of Temperature on the Partial Pressure of CO 2 in Seawater (http://mounier.univ-tln.fr/rcmo/php_biblio/PDF/5359.pdf)

Now before you dismiss the water vapor one, keep in mind the immediate humidity in the fractions of a centimeter above a water surface.

You have officially entered the realm of asshole shitbag. Why didn't you quote the entire Takahashi blurb?

However, if 0.281C is taken as a measure for a systematic error introduced by imperfections of our interpolation scheme, it
shouldcorres pondto an error of 73 matm in seawater pCO2, on the basis that the seasonal temperature effect on ocean-surface-water pCO2 is in a range between +4 and 4%1C1 over the global oceans (Takahashi et al., 1993).

While the temperature effect on pCO2 in isochemical conditions (qln pCO2/qT) is +4.23% 1C1 (Takahashi et al., 1993), the temperature dependence changes over the range indicated above because seasonal temperature changes in mixed-layer water are accompanied with an increase (by deep-water upwelling andsea–ai r CO2 exchange) or decrease (by photosynthesis andsea–ai r CO2 exchange) in the total CO2 concentration.

He is quantifying not only the surface flux, but also the chemcial ratio change in the water itself, the mixing of the waters and biotics.

Your dumbass does not get let off the hook and I guess I am going to have to rub your nose in your quotes from before because your too stupid to keep up with the discussion.

I a not the one making these claims.

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

Below is crown stupid and has been the basis of Glassman proxied through you in the aqcuital nonsense.

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?

It's annoying that I cannot talk to you about anything more complex than a couple of variables but this is simple enough: do you withdraw that last quote?

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 04:19 PM

There's a difference between believing man shouldn't do something because it's dangerous and believing a man can't do something because it is infinitely larger than he is.

Space exploration <> global climate control.

The effects of agriculture is localized, regional at best...not global.

I agree, it's an emerging thought. One that's not settled. One over which there is serious disagreement among people much smarter, about such things, than anyone that visits this forum. And, certainly, one at which it would be foolish to thrown costly and draconian fixes.

You missed the point, again. At the inception of the meme, all endeavors are infinitely larger than man. Btw, that concept makes no sense when broken down. Infinitely? Not really.

Nobody said it was settled. But the resistance to the mere mention of it is a very strong call back to the meme.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 04:41 PM

The effects of agriculture is localized, regional at best...not global.

If by regrional you mean the region being the entire earth then I agree with you. Being able to make nitrates using N2 from the air and diesel power changed everything from population capacity, to fuel consumption, to removal of covered terrain to plant crops and free range livestock etc.

It also gotten to the point that every continent but one is covered in agricultural regions. this notion that there is a magical line where things stop having an effect doesn't exist.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 04:55 PM

You missed the point, again. At the inception of the meme, all endeavors are infinitely larger than man.
I've never believed that.

Btw, that concept makes no sense when broken down. Infinitely? Not really.
Don't start Chumping the thread TeyshaBlue.

Nobody said it was settled.
Sure they have. I believe the words, "the science is settled," have been used.

But the resistance to the mere mention of it is a very strong call back to the meme.
It's not the "mere mention" of it that is the problem. It's the bloated bureaucracy and nonsense that accompanies it -- cap and trade, defining CO2 as a toxin, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Rio, AGC proponents with larger carbon footprints than most countries in the world, just to name a few.

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 04:57 PM

I've never believed that.

Don't start Chumping the thread TeyshaBlue.

Sure they have. I believe the words, "the science is settled," have been used.

It's not the "mere mention" of it that is the problem. It's the bloated bureaucracy and nonsense that accompanies it -- cap and trade, defining CO2 as a toxin, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Rio, AGC proponents with larger carbon footprints than most countries in the world, just to name a few.

"I've never believed that."
Then stop saying it.:lol

Don't conflate political nonsense with the underlying science. I can understand why you would want to do that, but it's pretty hollow.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 05:00 PM

Yep, sure enough...someone did say, "the science is settled."

Gore Takes Global Warming Message to Congress (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642)

The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.

Yonivore

06-14-2012, 05:03 PM

"I've never believed that."
Then stop saying it.:lol
When did I say "all endeavors are infinitely larger than man?"

Don't conflate political nonsense with the underlying science. I can understand why you would want to do that, but it's pretty hollow.
The underlying science is only on our plates because of the political nonsense. If Algore and company hadn't made a religion out of AGCC, it wouldn't even be on our radars. As it stands, as the clowns lose their credibility, the fad seems to be passing and the world seems less inclined to buy into the hysteria.

I suspect we won't even be arguing over it in a few years. Well, except for Manny.

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 05:07 PM

"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.

Gore <> Scientist.

Alex Jones says a great many things. They're about as relevant. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 05:35 PM

Yonivore loves to say shit 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 shit 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.

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 05:35 PM

Dupe

CosmicCowboy

06-14-2012, 05:44 PM

Dupe

I love it when you talk dirty in climate change threads...your passion is just so...uhhh...passionate...:p:

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 06:01 PM

"I've never believed that."
Then stop saying it.:lol

Don't conflate political nonsense with the underlying science. I can understand why you would want to do that, but it's pretty hollow.

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 06:04 PM

CosmicCowboy

06-14-2012, 06:12 PM

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 06:32 PM

The urban heat island affect is very much real. But urban environments make up a tiny amount of the entire planet.

CosmicCowboy

06-14-2012, 06:39 PM

The urban heat island affect is very much real. But urban environments make up a tiny amount of the entire planet.

I honestly try to stay out of this thread but I know that I read that a lot of the global collection sites were in urban areas. If you look at how some of those sites have exploded in the last 30 years (China, India, Asia, etc.) then there may be SOME validity of potential data skew from urban island contamination. Just sayin. Not really wanting to get in this argument.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 07:14 PM

He is quantifying not only the surface flux, but also the chemcial ratio change in the water itself, the mixing of the waters and biotics.

If that's what you wish to believe. Remember, this exchange of CO2 levels between atmosphere and ocean only occur where they meet. The rest of the mixing changes the levels as they mix. Regardless of what other functions do, consider them constant for the purpose of how temperature changes mixing, in your partial derivative. This mixing is limited by temperature and salinity, and the rate is limited by wind, pH, and humidity.

edit add...

Seems to me pH and wind have very little long term change, but the heating effect on the water via solar changes are known long term changes. Deeper mixing also doesn't matter unless it reaches the surface pressure saturation point, and resurfaces. Gas solubility is also based on pressure, and the pressure increases rapidly as you get deeper and deeper.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 07:21 PM

Also, am I the only one who can't help but capture the huge irony in claiming that an urban heat island affect is the cause for global warming while at the same time claiming humans can't affect the climate?

:lol The inconsistencies don't even occur to him.
I don't see it as the heat island being the cause of global warming. I see it as a cause for assumed temperatures to be higher than they are. It's just that all the temperature data taken from these places skews the real global change. These little island of heat an indication of a very small percentage of global land size, yet they are probably more than 70% of the data points.

What if the only data we looked at were untouched sites from the day they were built with no other buildup around them over time?

Now again, I am not denying there is global warming. I am only disagree with the degree claimed and root cause.

Now I don't know what the global buildup land area is vs. unimproved, but I would thing it's well under 1%. Sure, the heat islands have an effect, but what is only 1$ of their effect.

What if...

What if the temperature data says global temperature is 1C greater, and 70% of the data points are influence by the heat island effect. The 30% are real data and a sample of 99% of the earth, and shows a 0.2C change. If I do the math based on that, treat all data points as being equal, I get a a 0.76 C rise in temperature. If I give each the weight based on a value to represent how much surface area is apportioned to each, I only get a 0.208 C rise.

I know they attempt to correct the actual readings, but how can they actually do that? All urban sites are contaminated data points. Their is no way to disagree with that fact.

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 07:28 PM

I honestly try to stay out of this thread but I know that I read that a lot of the global collection sites were in urban areas. If you look at how some of those sites have exploded in the last 30 years (China, India, Asia, etc.) then there may be SOME validity of potential data skew from urban island contamination. Just sayin. Not really wanting to get in this argument.

It may be counterintuitive, but when you only look at sites that are outside of an urban heat island effect you actually see a LARGER temp growth. Scientists have undertaken many studies to take a look at the effect these sites have on the record and its really not a big effect either way because they make up so little of the surface.

Then you have measurements from space which say the same thing.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 07:43 PM

If that's what you wish to believe. Remember, this exchange of CO2 levels between atmosphere and ocean only occur where they meet. The rest of the mixing changes the levels as they mix. Regardless of what other fictions do, consider them constant for the purpose of how temperature changes mixing, in your partial derivative.

As someone that can grasp more complex ideas better than you I can see where your ability to interrelate things stops. Its not what I want to believe its literally what the quote says.

the temperature dependence changes over the range indicated above because seasonal temperature changes in mixed-layer water are accompanied with an increase (by deep-water upwelling andsea–ai r CO2 exchange) or decrease (by photosynthesis andsea–ai r CO2 exchange) in the total CO2 concentration.

temperature dependence changes

accompany

an increase by deep-water upwelling and

a decrease by photosynthesis

You teach 7th grade reading students to pull out the subjects and the verbs. There they are.

We have just seen where the rubber meets the road on your scope of understanding. You do not understand functions as descriptions of systems at all and you suck at math. Hell, you aren't very good at reading.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 07:50 PM

As someone that can grasp more complex ideas better than you I can see where your ability to interrelate things stops. Its not what I want to believe its literally what the quote says.

temperature dependence changes

accompany

an increase by deep-water upwelling and

a decrease by photosynthesis

You teach 7th grade reading students to pull out the subjects and the verbs. There they are.

We have just seen where the rubber meets the road on your scope of understanding. You do not understand functions as descriptions of systems at all and you suck at math. Hell, you aren't very good at reading.
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.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-14-2012, 07:52 PM

What if...

What if the temperature data says global temperature is 1C greater, and 70% of the data points are influence by the heat island effect. The 30% are real data and a sample of 99% of the earth, and shows a 0.2C change. If I do the math based on that, treat all data points as being equal, I get a a 0.76 C rise in temperature. If I give each the weight based on a value to represent how much surface area is apportioned to each, I only get a 0.208 C rise.

:lol

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.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 07:55 PM

:lol

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

06-14-2012, 08:01 PM

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 shit.

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 bullshit.

Wild Cobra

06-14-2012, 08:09 PM

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 shit.

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 bullshit.

What is wrong about what I say, please elaborate.

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 08:10 PM

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

06-14-2012, 08:18 PM

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

06-14-2012, 08:25 PM

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

you

are

dumb

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 08:38 PM

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

06-14-2012, 08:46 PM

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 fucking retarded.

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 fucking 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

06-14-2012, 08:50 PM

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

06-14-2012, 10:42 PM

"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. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif
I wouldn't know.

TeyshaBlue

06-14-2012, 10:58 PM

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

06-14-2012, 11:03 PM

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

06-14-2012, 11:09 PM

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

06-14-2012, 11:11 PM

MannyIsGod

06-14-2012, 11:48 PM

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

06-14-2012, 11:55 PM

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

06-14-2012, 11:59 PM

:lol

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

06-15-2012, 12:02 AM

:lol

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

06-15-2012, 12:06 AM

If you want conformation that I don't have the current concentration of every greenhouse gas in the atmosphere memorized I'll give it. :lmao 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 shit, I'm worn out after that math session. Gonna get some rest and recharge for the hard subtraction that awaits me tomorrow.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 12:09 AM

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

06-15-2012, 12:10 AM

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

06-15-2012, 12:11 AM

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

06-15-2012, 12:14 AM

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 fuck do you think the energy comes from?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-15-2012, 12:16 AM

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

:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol:rollin:lol

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 12:16 AM

:lmao

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 12:17 AM

Seriously, I have so much fun in this thread its just not right.

:lmao :lmao

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 12:18 AM

390.5 - 280 = 110.5 ppm.
So, your answer is that man is responsible for 100% of the CO2 increases since pre-industrialization sampling and that 28.3% of the current inventory is man-contributed?

Just testing my understanding.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-15-2012, 12:21 AM

Seriously, Yoni? C'mon man.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 12:27 AM

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.

YOU

ARE

DUMB
LOL....

Don't you get it?

The CO2 percentage of absorption in sea water changes by a specific percentage from one temperature to another. No matter how many other variables you throw at it that are in a normal seawater mix, that percentage changes very very little. The "α" variable, determined by temperature and salinity, applies with or without your wind factors, pH, etc. It remains a multiplier throughout all this, with the same magnitude of influence as your "k" variable.

You really are maniacal, aren't you. PopTech was completely correct about you, and I thought he was just playing you.

You hold a person to your assumed idea of what they say, and no matter how much they clarify or change a perspective, even admit a flaw and corrected it, you hold them to you idiotic assumption of what you want their words to mean.

Don't you have a clue as to what you are doing?

Did I or did I not change my point of octane when I read the newer literature on it? What I knew from the past, was changed because the reformulated gas is more consistent in hydrocarbon types from what it used to be. My statement was factual before they changed the formulation. I'm sure you saw that admission of being incorrect, yet here you are, once again, claiming I am stupid over something so fucking trivial.

Why are you so fucking retarded that you cannot accept when a person changes their mind? Why do you still use it as a reason to say "you are dumb" when it is so fucking obvious to other, it is your stupidity?

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 12:28 AM

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

Wow...

You are really stupid for saying that.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 12:29 AM

So, your answer is that man is responsible for 100% of the CO2 increases since pre-industrialization sampling and that 28.3% of the current inventory is man-contributed?

Just testing my understanding.
These guys will simply not acknowledge that ocean warming changes the CO2 exchange sinking and sourcing flux.

Of course it's his answer that 100% of the increase is man made.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 12:35 AM

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 12:39 AM

I am saying man is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre industrial levels to the levels we see today but that doesn't mean the entirety of the inventory comes directly from anthropogenic sources. The carbon cycle takes up as much of the CO2 as it can and some of that CO2 is anthropogenic in nature but it does not distinguish between sources (well - it does actually but I digress).
No one suggested you claimed man was responsible for the entirety of the CO2 inventory.

Building on your simple math problem, I calculate that you believe man is responsible for 28.3% of the inventory. Is that your assertion?

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 12:43 AM

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 12:46 AM

Nope. As I said, the entirety of the increase is due to man but that does not mean the entirety "extra" CO2 in the atmosphere is from an anthropogenic source. If I deposit 100 dollars at an ATM that does not mean that when I go back and get 100 dollars from the ATM the next week that 100 dollars will be the same I deposited. The fact remains that the bank does have 100 dollars more than it would have after my deposit, however.
So, apparently, the math wasn't that simple and your chart didn't answer the question.

What percentage of the current greenhouse gas inventory is anthropogenic and how much does the total inventory of greenhouse gases vary from year to year.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:02 AM

The amount they vary from year to year is available from the link I provided you. As far as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is directly from anthropogenic sources I don't know. What I do know and what has been shown is that the increase is due to the CO2 that is emitted by humans. The math was that simple, because unless CO2 molecules that come from non anthropogenic sources act differently than those that do, all that matters is the increase and not the source of each individual molecule.

I'll admit the chart did not answer that question quite readily. I don't suppose you want to show why your question is relevant?

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 01:10 AM

The amount they vary from year to year is available from the link I provided you.
Is it as simple as the math in that first link?

As far as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is directly from anthropogenic sources I don't know. What I do know and what has been shown is that the increase is due to the CO2 that is emitted by humans.
Well, according to you, since industrialization began, that's about 28.3%

If I deposit 100 dollars at an ATM that does not mean that when I go back and get 100 dollars from the ATM the next week that 100 dollars will be the same I deposited. The fact remains that the bank does have 100 dollars more than it would have after my deposit, however.
And, after your withdrawal, the bank is back where it started.

But, if we're not withdrawing CO2 from the atmosphere -- after the total of our deposits over the past century+ comprises 100% of the measured increase -- you're saying 28.3% of the current inventory is of anthropogenic sources.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 01:11 AM

I am saying man is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre industrial levels to the levels we see today but that doesn't mean the entirety of the inventory comes directly from anthropogenic sources. The carbon cycle takes up as much of the CO2 as it can and some of that CO2 is anthropogenic in nature but it does not distinguish between sources (well - it does actually but I digress).
Cool. We agree for the most part on that. Just not that all is mans responsibilty

Now...

If the oceans were cooler than they are today, would you say that CO2 levels would be less, more, or the same?

I take it by your statement, you either agree with Fuzzy that changes in ocean temperature has had no effect of atmospheric levels, or that you disagree that the oceans have warmed since preindustrial times.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:14 AM

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:15 AM

Cool. We agree for the most part on that. Just not that all is mans responsibilty

Now...

If the oceans were cooler than they are today, would you say that CO2 levels would be less, more, or the same?

I take it by your statement, you either agree with Fuzzy that changes in ocean temperature has had no effect of atmospheric levels, or that you disagree that the oceans have warmed since preindustrial times.

Fuzzy doesn't think what you say he does but you're too stupid to keep up with the conversation.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 01:21 AM

Fuzzy doesn't think what you say he does but you're too stupid to keep up with the conversation.
He ignores the fact that I am talking long term changes. When I say the AGW crowd doesn't calculate in the long term ocean temperature variations, he says I'm wrong by showing me seasonal assessments. One of his links showed only three different years of measurements, and they were far from complete.

You didn't answer my question. You are hiding around other arguments like Fuzzy does, that have no direct effect on my question.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:27 AM

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064508004311
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5682/367.abstract

What do those papers tell you, WC?

They tell me that Fuzzy is much smarter than you. Much.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:30 AM

Partial fucking pressure. Learn about it.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 01:37 AM

Interesting. The fact that you and Fuzzy time and time again, reply with links, and not quoting the relevant material tells me one thing.

You don't understand.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 01:37 AM

Actually with a little bit of reading you don't even need to do the math because someone has done it for you.

Jesus you're dense. The increase is because of man. Not every CO2 molecule above the 280 count is anthropogenic because CO2 is going in and out of the system. It IS being withdrawn from the atmosphere. I can't simplify this anymore for you. If you can't understand the concept then I don't know what to tell you but I can't overcome your limitations for you.
I understand what you're saying but, it's illogical.

Using your explanation, if there were no manmade CO2 in the atmosphere, it would still be going in and out of the system (at a rate determined by nature) but, would remain unchanged IF, as you say, the increase, over the past 250 years, is completely due to anthropogenic sources.

It doesn't matter which CO2 molecules are being deposited and withdrawn, if man is responsible for 100% of the increase in the static inventory of CO2, since industrialization, then you're claiming man is responsible for 28.3% of the CO2 in the current inventory. It doesn't have to be the same CO2 we contributed to be attributable to man.

If a banks starts with $280.00 and, over the course of 150 years, you deposit $110.50 and withdraw nothing while others make deposits and take withdrawals; if the bank ends up with $390.50, you are responsible for the entire increase -- EVEN IF IT ISN'T THE $110.50 CURRENCY INSTRUMENTS YOU DEPOSITED.

Your assertion that man is responsible for the entire 110.5 ppm increase since industrialization is the same as saying man is responsible for 28.3% of the existing inventory of atmospheric CO2.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:45 AM

Man is responsible for the entire 110.5 ppm increase since industrialization. The surplus is due to man. I've said it several times now.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 01:45 AM

Yoni, his argument makes sense. He just isn't attributing any of the extra CO2 to be from increased natural sourcing, or decreased natural sinking. Which global warming will do as the surface temperature of the ocean warms.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 01:47 AM

Man is responsible for the entire 110.5 ppm increase since industrialization. The surplus is due to man. I've said it several times now.
And, that's 28.3% of the current inventory.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 01:47 AM

Man is responsible for the entire 110.5 ppm increase since industrialization. The surplus is due to man. I've said it several times now.
And I disagree. I say if the oceans haven't warmed, they would have absorbed more in man's addition to the atmosphere, and atmospheric levels would be less. An extension of that becomes if man had never emitted CO2, the atmospheric levels would still be higher than in the past, because the solubility constant of CO2 in the water has decreased as temperature increased.

What I find so funny about my statement, is it is absolute fact. If you wish to argue that temperature of the oceans have no effect, then you are a denier. The argument should be over how much the effect is. Not if the effect is real or not.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 01:48 AM

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 01:49 AM

Then, man isn't responsible for 100% of the increase.
That's my argument, which nobody seems to understand.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:50 AM

And, that's 28.3% of the current inventory.

Yes, Yoni. The current levels would be about that much lower if not for man, give or a take a few PPM from the natural increase.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 01:51 AM

That's my argument, which nobody seems to understand.
So, I'm back to my original question; what percentage of the current greenhouse gas inventory is due to anthropogenic sources and by how much do the annual atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases vary?

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 01:51 AM

And I disagree. I say if the oceans haven't warmed, they would have absorbed more in man's addition to the atmosphere, and atmospheric levels would be less. An extension of that becomes if man had never emitted CO2, the atmospheric levels would still be higher than in the past, because the solubility constant of CO2 in the water has decreased as temperature increased.

What I find so funny about my statement, is it is absolute fact. If you wish to argue that temperature of the oceans have no effect, then you are a denier. The argument should be over how much the effect is. Not if the effect is real or not.

Jesus Christ you really don't understand partial pressure at all.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 01:58 AM

Jesus Christ you really don't understand partial pressure at all.
I do understand partial pressure. Do you understand the effect that temperature has on the same system, when applying to solubility?

SnakeBoy

06-15-2012, 02:05 AM

Man is responsible for the entire 110.5 ppm increase since industrialization. The surplus is due to man. I've said it several times now.

How are you able to make that statement? Since we cannot simply use the amount manmade CO2 in the atmosphere as an accurate measure. How do you dismiss natural releases of co2 from volcanic activity, ocean upwelling etc etc.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 02:06 AM

Yes, Yoni. The current levels would be about that much lower if not for man, give or a take a few PPM from the natural increase.
Well, just so you know, the chart DOES NOT account for water vapor (you weren't sure earlier). So, the Department of Energy leaves off the one atmospheric constituent most responsible for the greenhouse effect -- about 95%, according to my sources. And, a constituent comprised of 94.999% natural sources and only .001% man made sources.

Throw that into the mix and only about .28% of the greenhouse effect can be attributed to man made causes. And, that's TODAY! At .28% of current contribution, I don't think your math works that man has increased the inventory by 28.3% over the past couple of centuries.

But, that also leads to my second question about the variation in greenhouse gases over time. If it varies by more than .28% (which seems quite likely), man made contribution to the greenhouse effect becomes negligible, no?

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 02:26 AM

How are you able to make that statement? Since we cannot simply use the amount manmade CO2 in the atmosphere as an accurate measure. How do you dismiss natural releases of co2 from volcanic activity, ocean upwelling etc etc.

Because his faith and dogma tell him to. He is a denier of how temperature affects ocean solubility of CO2, and it's dissolved forms.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 02:27 AM

Well, just so you know, the chart DOES NOT account for water vapor (you weren't sure earlier). So, the Department of Energy leaves off the one atmospheric constituent most responsible for the greenhouse effect -- about 95%, according to my sources. And, a constituent comprised of 94.999% natural sources and only .001% man made sources.

Throw that into the mix and only about .28% of the greenhouse effect can be attributed to man made causes. And, that's TODAY! At .28% of current contribution, I don't think your math works that man has increased the inventory by 28.3% over the past couple of centuries.

But, that also leads to my second question about the variation in greenhouse gases over time. If it varies by more than .28% (which seems quite likely), man made contribution to the greenhouse effect becomes negligible, no?
You don't expect him to believe you over his AGW religion, do you? He's a faithful follower.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 02:28 AM

Manny...

have you seen this:

Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600 (http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf)

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 02:28 AM

You don't expect him to believe you over his AGW religion, do you? He's a faithful follower.
But, he's having fun.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 02:37 AM

I will say this again.

I believe, from the evidence I have seen that:

1) Increases in solar output since 1700, and again from 1900 to 1950 are a leading contributor to global warming during the period surveys by the IPCC AR4.

2) I am in agreement with the IPCC's contention that the solar changes amount to 0.12 watts/sq meter of direct radiative forcing increases.

3) The direct solar increases are those caught by the atmosphere before the remaining energy increases the actual surface temperature.

4) The increased surface illumination becomes more upward IR energy to fuel the greenhouse effect, of which approximately another 0.8 watts/meter of indirect forcing occurs in the greenhouse effect.

5) This added radiative downforce in the greenhouse effect is incorrectly attributed to the added CO2.

6) Black carbon on Ice changes the albedo of ice dramatically. An invisible dusting of soot may reduce it's reflective ability so little that it is invisible without measuring equipment. However, changing the reflection of light from 90% to 80% is the same as increasing the albedo from 10% to 20%, doubling the heating of the ice.

Should I go on?

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 02:38 AM

But, he's having fun.

I just wonder if in 5 years, when all he is learning from the University of Indoctrination is found to be incorrect, if he will be able to find a job?

SnakeBoy

06-15-2012, 02:42 AM

Because his faith and dogma tell him to. He is a denier of how temperature affects ocean solubility of CO2, and it's dissolved forms.

I don't that's the case. I did earlier when I had him confused with other posters. Manny saying it's 100% manmade is a pretty bold statement, I would guess he has something to back it up.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 02:47 AM

I don't that's the case. I did earlier when I had him confused with other posters. Manny saying it's 100% manmade is a pretty bold statement, I would guess he has something to back it up.
LOL...

I agree, he's not that faithful to the indoctrination. Still, he does not acknowledge anything that disputes his beliefs.

I don't think he has anything to back it up. At least nothing factual enough to deny any real scientific skepticism. I think he would have if he did.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 02:49 AM

What I'm not clear on is why, if it only accounts for approximately 3.5% of the greenhouse effect, is such a big deal being made of CO2?

Why aren't we doing something about water vapor?

SnakeBoy

06-15-2012, 02:56 AM

Why aren't we doing something about water vapor?

Because we aren't pumping water vapor into the atmosphere.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 02:59 AM

Because we aren't pumping water vapor into the atmosphere.
So, we're not causing global climate change?

SnakeBoy

06-15-2012, 03:07 AM

Should I go on?

Well I would prefer you don't because those are imo distractions from the topic of agw theory just like arguing over whatever the hell the temperature was a 1000 years ago.

Like I said earlier I think the only relevant questions on agw theory are 1.) How much of the co2 increase is manmade (and of course how do you know that) and 2.) how does that increase account for the temperature increase we've seen when co2 is a minor greenhouse gas (and of course how do you know that) . Funny to me that in all the agw threads/articles those two most basic questions on the topic never get answered.

So I'd really like to hear Manny's answers since he has apparently studied the topic.

That doesn't mean I'm going to jump on board the alarmist's political agenda, they've already lost that fight.

SnakeBoy

06-15-2012, 03:10 AM

So, we're not causing global climate change?

I'm not following you???

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 03:11 AM

What I'm not clear on is why, if it only accounts for approximately 3.5% of the greenhouse effect, is such a big deal being made of CO2?

Why aren't we doing something about water vapor?
Where are you getting 3.5% of the effect from? Now I agree it may be that low, but AGW scientist are saying it contributes to somewhere between 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect.

The chart Al Gore used would indicate that CO2 is approximately 20% of the Greenhouse Effect:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/ppmCO2.jpg

I get the 20% by taking the total greenhouse effect of about 33 degrees, and dividing the 6.6 into it.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 03:14 AM

Like I said earlier I think the only relevant questions on agw theory are 1.) How much of the co2 increase is manmade (and of course how do you know that) and 2.) how does that increase account for the temperature increase we've seen when co2 is a minor greenhouse gas (and of course how do you know that) . Funny to me that in all the agw threads/articles those two most basic questions on the topic never get answered.

I've been trying like hell to find those answers with any level of certainty, but it's real hard to, especially when these people refuse to acknowledge natural solar changes and increased sea temperatures reducing solubility.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 03:16 AM

I'm not following you???
I take it as his sense of humor.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-15-2012, 04:56 AM

Jesus Christ you really don't understand partial pressure at all.

Don't you know? The temperature changes and the ocean fizzes like a soda until equilibrium is reached. All of it!

FuzzyLumpkins

06-15-2012, 05:01 AM

I do understand partial pressure. Do you understand the effect that temperature has on the same system, when applying to solubility?

:lol

He still thinks that he is the only one considering solubility states.

Fizz Fizz Dumb Dumb

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 07:51 AM

Jesus Christ you really don't understand partial pressure at all.
Manny.

I do understand partial pressure, but I can only guess as to why you say I don't understand. It also makes me think you don't understand, but how can you not understand such a simple concept?

Why do you claim I don't understand partial pressure. Please elaborate. Are you sure you aren't missing a key element that still allows me to be correct? Is there some misunderstanding that needs resolved?

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 08:24 AM

I'm not following you???
If water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect and we only contribute .001% of atmospheric water vapor, I find it difficult to believe man has any influence on warming the planet.

Yonivore

06-15-2012, 08:26 AM

Where are you getting 3.5% of the effect from? Now I agree it may be that low, but AGW scientist are saying it contributes to somewhere between 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect.
If water vapor accounts for 95% of the effect, all other contributors, combined, can't be more than 5% - (CO2, Methane,N2O, and other miscellaneous gases).

johnsmith

06-15-2012, 09:16 AM

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 09:16 AM

How are you able to make that statement? Since we cannot simply use the amount manmade CO2 in the atmosphere as an accurate measure. How do you dismiss natural releases of co2 from volcanic activity, ocean upwelling etc etc.

Many reasons.

First, you need a natural source. Volcanoes emit far less CO2 than humans on an annual basis. Something like 1-2% of our emissions. You can also go back and look at the CO2 measurements from the atmosphere around the time of larger volcanic eruptions in the recent past and you'll see that the actual noticeable change is a tiny drop (the thought process is that this might be caused by the aerosol cooling allowing more uptake over a 1-2 year period following a very large eruption).

The ocean is currently taking in more CO2 than its letting out and is a net sink. Yes, as the oceans have warmed they've had reduced solubility but as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have gone up they have gained solubility as well and the net result is that they are taking in more CO2 than the are letting out. I linked two studies in a response to WC in the past two pages talking about this very subject. I can provide you with those and others if you like.

Second is rate of change. I'm sure at some point you've seen the CO2 records and how they've oscillated between ~190 and ~290 over the past million years. Those changes happened at a very slow rate and a 100pm increase took thousands or tens of thousands of years. The current increase beyond the levels seen for the last 1 million years has been incredibly fast in comparison and has risen well past those other levels. CO2 concentrations in the past have definitely been higher, but you have to go back to very different times in the earth's history where plate tectonics played a much larger role in the CO2 release. We simply don't have that kind of mechanism at work that we can pin the increase on right now. If you look at the rate of CO2 emissions you will see that it follows the curve of CO2 growth (especially when you take into consideration the calculated amount of ocean uptake as given by the studies I posted earlier).

Then you have molecular footprints. Oxygen is actually decreasing in the atmosphere at pretty much the same rate CO2 is going up. This is a strong indicator that the increase in CO2 is tied to oxidation. If the source was volcanic or oceanic in nature, CO2 would be released as CO2 and would there would not be a known process removing oxygen from the atmosphere at the same rate.

Plants take in the lighter carbon elements before the heavier. So, they are going to use Carbon12 more than they will use Carbon13 so the carbon within plants ends up with a C12/C13 ratio that is higher than other sources of CO2. The same signature stays within fossil fuels that formed from ancient plant life. What this means is that CO2 released from burning fossil fuels is traceable by looking at the change in atmospheric carbon isotope ratios. As CO2 levels have gone up, the ratio of C13 to C12 has gone down. This is not what you would see if the CO2 were coming from the ocean or from volcanoes as both sources emit CO2 with different isotopic ratios.

There have been studies done (I'm not very familiar with them or their methods TBH) that show that these ratios are the lowest they've been in a long time.

I can provide the studies to back up these statements if you'd like. I just didn't want to go pull them when I don't have all that much time this morning unless you were actually wanting them. (or anyone else, for that matter)

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 10:13 AM

If water vapor accounts for 95% of the effect, all other contributors, combined, can't be more than 5% - (CO2, Methane,N2O, and other miscellaneous gases).
Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but I don't think it has that much of affect. the numbers I see are around 70%. I agree they may be higher than that, but 95% seems unreasonable high to me.

Where do those numbers come from?

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 10:18 AM

Many reasons.

First, you need a natural source. Volcanoes emit far less CO2 than humans on an annual basis. Something like 1-2% of our emissions. You can also go back and look at the CO2 measurements from the atmosphere around the time of larger volcanic eruptions in the recent past and you'll see that the actual noticeable change is a tiny drop (the thought process is that this might be caused by the aerosol cooling allowing more uptake over a 1-2 year period following a very large eruption).

The ocean is currently taking in more CO2 than its letting out and is a net sink. Yes, as the oceans have warmed they've had reduced solubility but as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have gone up they have gained solubility as well and the net result is that they are taking in more CO2 than the are letting out. I linked two studies in a response to WC in the past two pages talking about this very subject. I can provide you with those and others if you like.

Second is rate of change. I'm sure at some point you've seen the CO2 records and how they've oscillated between ~190 and ~290 over the past million years. Those changes happened at a very slow rate and a 100pm increase took thousands or tens of thousands of years. The current increase beyond the levels seen for the last 1 million years has been incredibly fast in comparison and has risen well past those other levels. CO2 concentrations in the past have definitely been higher, but you have to go back to very different times in the earth's history where plate tectonics played a much larger role in the CO2 release. We simply don't have that kind of mechanism at work that we can pin the increase on right now. If you look at the rate of CO2 emissions you will see that it follows the curve of CO2 growth (especially when you take into consideration the calculated amount of ocean uptake as given by the studies I posted earlier).

Then you have molecular footprints. Oxygen is actually decreasing in the atmosphere at pretty much the same rate CO2 is going up. This is a strong indicator that the increase in CO2 is tied to oxidation. If the source was volcanic or oceanic in nature, CO2 would be released as CO2 and would there would not be a known process removing oxygen from the atmosphere at the same rate.

Plants take in the lighter carbon elements before the heavier. So, they are going to use Carbon12 more than they will use Carbon13 so the carbon within plants ends up with a C12/C13 ratio that is higher than other sources of CO2. The same signature stays within fossil fuels that formed from ancient plant life. What this means is that CO2 released from burning fossil fuels is traceable by looking at the change in atmospheric carbon isotope ratios. As CO2 levels have gone up, the ratio of C13 to C12 has gone down. This is not what you would see if the CO2 were coming from the ocean or from volcanoes as both sources emit CO2 with different isotopic ratios.

There have been studies done (I'm not very familiar with them or their methods TBH) that show that these ratios are the lowest they've been in a long time.

I can provide the studies to back up these statements if you'd like. I just didn't want to go pull them when I don't have all that much time this morning unless you were actually wanting them. (or anyone else, for that matter)
Still didn't answer his question. That long winded statement, and still no quantification.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 10:22 AM

Ummmm, silly question, but since I just opened this thread and all, did RG ever answer why he thinks climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience? If so, please post it now, and explain everyones arguments to me.....in detail.

Go!
Well, I think it's been pointed out several times that his title doesn't make sense. He hasn't found anyone in the "denial" camp here. We are skeptics. Skeptical of the values the AGW community keeps coming up with. I would say if anything, that the current teaching of climate change is a pseudo science. They use correlation to imply causation, they hide their data and methods, they use closed peer review processes, etc. etc.

Wild Cobra

06-15-2012, 10:22 AM

Manny.

I do understand partial pressure, but I can only guess as to why you say I don't understand. It also makes me think you don't understand, but how can you not understand such a simple concept?

Why do you claim I don't understand partial pressure. Please elaborate. Are you sure you aren't missing a key element that still allows me to be correct? Is there some misunderstanding that needs resolved?

MannyIsGod

06-15-2012, 06:55 PM

I'll address the subject of water vapor once again since its been brought up. I doubt that Yonivore is going to take anything I say and actually process it in but its a useful exercise for me in explaining these subjects anyway.

Water vapor is definitely the strongest green house gas. Its effect is a little bit more than twice that of CO2. So of course, when someone hears this the intuitive thought is to think that CO2 can't be a huge culprit if a gas that we're not emitting causes more of a green house effect. That being said, water vapor is a feedback and is not a forcing.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is residence time. The atmosphere is a fairly small reservoir when compared to the oceans and even fresh water sources. Residence time is on the order of 10 days.

The second, is that water vapor content in the any given parcel of atmosphere is a function of temperature. How much WV a parcel is able to hold is determined by the temperature that parcel of air is at. When you go above that, you will have precipitation. This is why rain forms as air rises and cools. As the air cools it is no longer to maintain the same level of water vapor as it was when it was warmer and that excess water vapor condenses into precipitation (or at least clouds) and leaves the atmosphere. This is why water has such a low residence time in the atmosphere.

These are the main differences with CO2. If we were emitting water vapor as opposed to CO2 the excess gas would simply leave the system as precipitation and would not buildup and cause a larger greenhouse effect. The saturation of air parcels prevents that from occurring. On the other hand, the mechanisms for taking CO2 of the atmosphere are not as simple as precipitation and the residence time in the atmosphere is much longer (years, not days). However, we're developing a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby increasing that residence time by causing "bottlenecks" in the system. This is why CO2 is rising. The system is unable to process the CO2 we put into the atmosphere and it will now wait longer before it is moved through the cycle. This is not the way the water cycle works as I explained above.

A big part of what makes CO2 warming harmful, is that as CO2 increases the temperature of the air it also increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere is able to hold which then itself adds to the warming. That is what is meant by a feedback. For every degree of Celsius of warming caused by CO2, you can expect another degree to be caused by the water vapor feedback mechanism.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 01:45 AM

Water vapor is definitely the strongest green house gas. Its effect is a little bit more than twice that of CO2.

Strongest by which measurement? It definitely has a greater effect because of quantity, but on an equal number of molecules, how does it compare?

A big part of what makes CO2 warming harmful, is that as CO2 increases the temperature of the air it also increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere is able to hold which then itself adds to the warming. That is what is meant by a feedback. For every degree of Celsius of warming caused by CO2, you can expect another degree to be caused by the water vapor feedback mechanism.

One degree for another one degree? that seems pretty exaggerated to me. I'd like to see the numbers if you have them. I don't see the atmosphere as holding enough more water from just an additional one degree change What is the H2O curve? It has to be way more than CO2 to actually cause that severe of a change. Are you saying that only a 7% increase in water vapor increases warming by 1 degree when it's claimed it takes a 100% increase in CO2 to increase temperature between about 3 degrees?

Wow...

that means a doubling of water vapor increases the temperature by 10 degrees. If it really more than 3 times more powerful than CO2 in the AGW community view?

No wonder in sun on the soot on ice is melting the ice so fast!

What about the minor increases in solar output? It has a more dramatic effect of the oceans than on land because of the difference in albedo. It directly creates more water vapor, and doesn't need to be warmer in the air.

Now...

Do you realize how contradictory your statement is?

Yonivore

06-16-2012, 12:18 PM

Do you realize how contradictory your statement is?
It took the left a long damn time to find some human activity to blame for the negative aspects of some natural process and, now that they've found it, they're not about to let go easily.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 12:48 PM

In other words, you couldn't follow my explanation. I'm not surprised.

Yonivore

06-16-2012, 01:06 PM

In other words, you couldn't follow my explanation. I'm not surprised.
I followed it fine.

Forcing and feedback are, at best, imprecise because of the infinite possible influences in an atmosphere as large as Earth's and for which there are a multitude of other influences terrestrial, atmospheric, and celestial.

In one place I looked, the scientist explained the whole think pretty well (by the way, before you bash him, his site agrees with you) by saying, the mixture of greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere is like a pile of of laundry laying on the floor. You can't possibly know how much of the floor is covered by underwear (CO2) and how much is covered by fitted sheets (water vapor) until you start removing them from the pile and measuring their size. But, then, you change the pile and other things fall into the hole you've created...

It went on but, it made sense to me. It also underscores the complexity of the issue and the inadequacy of any model to accurately reflect the behavior of our atmosphere with any degree of certainty.

At worst, calculating the forcing and feedback properties of the various elements involved is just another way for the left to play their carnival road show huckster routine in a way they know they can make too complicated for the average person to understand or even care about.

Bottom line, you can't accurately model the behavior of the atmosphere and you can't accurately measure what's going on in every cubic foot of it, at any given time, and so, you make guesses about why the climate is doing what it is doing, plug those guesses into your models, and -- when you arrive at a conclusion you like -- pronounce the science settled and present the models conclusions and start demanding humanity institute draconian measures to change the outcome.

I've witnessed this same self-serving phenomenon, first hand, with the EPA's MOBIL model (now called MOVES, I believe -- I've been out of the business awhile). The MOBIL model was designed for governments to plug all the variables of their Air Quality programs and see to what extent they were reducing their contribution to pollution and to determine which programs needed to be added, reduced, enhanced, etc... Once they found the right variables and achieved the most bang for their buck, in terms of an overall program that would improve air quality in their area, region, state, etc..., they would present the plan to the EPA who would approve it and then give them a time table for implementing.

In the time I was involved, the MOBIL model was changed 8 times and they finally threw it out and developed the MOVES model.

NOT ONCE, have any of the models accurately predicted either the reality of pollution or the effects of programs on it. But, they keep trying.

Manny, how much do we need to reduce our CO2 output in order to have a significant impact on the global climate change. Then, when you answer that, how do we get the Chinese and Indians to play along?

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 01:18 PM

It took the left a long damn time to find some human activity to blame for the negative aspects of some natural process and, now that they've found it, they're not about to let go easily.
Of course they wont.

I wonder where the error is that Manny has in his statement. The air will hold about 13.2% more water to normalize to a 2 degree increase. This means, he is saying it takes a 13.2% increase in CO2 for a 1C increase in temperature. It also means a doubling of H2O increases the temperature by about 17 C. The 17 C is a corrected calculation, simplistic but at least close. Based on air holding 13.2% more water with a 2 C increase, and the 13.2% being responsible for 1C. My error before was assigning only a total 1 C increase when I came up with approximately 10 C/doubling.

Math is your friend Manny... How can this be? I know there are other things that go into such calculations, but they will not be real far off.

If I am to believe that H2O feedback to CO2 matches 1:1, then I will agree with Yoni's number, that H2O is at least 95% of the greenhouse effect, and his 3.5% number for CO2 as well.

Silly me. Here I was thinking CO2 might contribute to as much as 10% of the greenhouse effect.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 01:30 PM

In other words, you couldn't follow my explanation. I'm not surprised.
I follow it quite well. You are saying the added water vapor adds another degree of warming.

How much more vapor does it add?

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 01:56 PM

Manny...

Where did you get such laughable numbers from?

For the life of me, I cannot believe that H2O is that strong of a greenhouse gas. If it was, we would be so much warmer than we are.

Really now...

A 1C increase for the extra humidity?

Really now...

A calculated 17 degree increase for doubling of H2O...

Don't cook with water!

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 02:22 PM

I guess Manny doesn't see his contradiction.

If H2O has only slightly more than double the greenhouse effect of CO2, then little more added water vapor would never have a 17 degree per doubling effect.

First of all, there is approximately 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere as CO2.

Running guesstimates of numbers, for CO2 to have a 3 C per doubling and H2O to have a 17 C per doubling, I get a factor difference of 9.64 between the effect of H2O in the atmosphere and CO2. I did this at a strait 100:1 ration, in other words, if CO2 was at 400 ppm, H2O was at 40,000 ppm, so of course I have an error range pretty large.

If I use 3% and 383 ppm, I get a factor of 9.37.

OK, since I just did the 383 to 30,000 ppm, I'll use the factor of 9.37. If the 9.37 represents 70% of the greenhouse effect for H2O, then CO2 can only be 7.5% of the greenhouse effect.

Please explain how H2O is only slightly double that of CO2. Apparently, I don't understand.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 03:44 PM

This becomes more and more interesting as I crunch numbers.

If the IPCC assessment of 1.66 w/m-2 for CO2 increase is correct, and your 1 C increase for the added humidity for 2 C total, then that puts the gross radiative forcing of CO2 at 31.6 and of H2O at 506, for a total of 537.6 W/m-2. This is using a rough sensitivity of 2 W/m-2 per C.

How can that be? Total downward forcing from greenhouse gasses is only around half that value. Now assuming this was correct, the ratios would indicate much closer to Yoni's claim of 3.5% for CO2. The number I get is that by your claim, and by the IPCC's 1.66 number, CO2 is only 4.4% as strong in the atmosphere at a 383 ppm vs. 3% of water in the atmosphere. Under this condition, 70% x 4.4% is 3.1%. Even lower than Yoni's 3.5%.

Yoni...

Where does this number come from. It may have merit.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 04:26 PM

I don't know how accurate this is, but I calculated using the IPCC numbers for CO2 and CH4, and Manny's claim of 1C for an increase of H2O by 13.2%. Since this was more than double the downforcing of the greenhouse effect, I then scaled the sum of the three to 95% of the greenhouse effect, and have these values for doubling of:

H2O: 7.8 C
CO2: 0.8 C
CH4: 0.15 C

Forcing at 2004 levels:

H2O: 231.1
CO2: 14.5
CH4: 0.46

Change in forcing 1750 to 2004:

H2O: not calculated
CO2: 0.76
CH4: 0.1

Of course, cannot scale all like this. I just think it's interesting.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 04:29 PM

I followed it fine.

Forcing and feedback are, at best, imprecise because of the infinite possible influences in an atmosphere as large as Earth's and for which there are a multitude of other influences terrestrial, atmospheric, and celestial.

In one place I looked, the scientist explained the whole think pretty well (by the way, before you bash him, his site agrees with you) by saying, the mixture of greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere is like a pile of of laundry laying on the floor. You can't possibly know how much of the floor is covered by underwear (CO2) and how much is covered by fitted sheets (water vapor) until you start removing them from the pile and measuring their size. But, then, you change the pile and other things fall into the hole you've created...

What? Are you saying we can't possibly know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? Thats utter nonsense

It went on but, it made sense to me. It also underscores the complexity of the issue and the inadequacy of any model to accurately reflect the behavior of our atmosphere with any degree of certainty.

At worst, calculating the forcing and feedback properties of the various elements involved is just another way for the left to play their carnival road show huckster routine in a way they know they can make too complicated for the average person to understand or even care about.

:lol

Oh, I'm sorry that you're not able to keep up with it (yet this has not somehow prevented you from deciding its not true) but that doesn't meant there aren't plenty of people across the world who ARE. Remind me again what the majority of them think on the subject?

Bottom line, you can't accurately model the behavior of the atmosphere and you can't accurately measure what's going on in every cubic foot of it, at any given time, and so, you make guesses about why the climate is doing what it is doing, plug those guesses into your models, and -- when you arrive at a conclusion you like -- pronounce the science settled and present the models conclusions and start demanding humanity institute draconian measures to change the outcome.

This is more utter nonsense. No one is trying to model the global atmosphere (or even on the regional level) down to the cubic foot. Thats a beautiful strawman you set up there.

The idea that we can't model the atmosphere is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Weather forecast is 99% now handled by computer models and is more accurate than it has ever been in the past. Weather forecast is FAR more chaotic than climate forecasting because it is done at very high resolutions.

You can keep on saying that we can't model the atmosphere but it won't make it anywhere near true. We've been modeling the atmosphere for decades and what slows us down now is not our understanding or a large number of variables (you also misuse the word infinite quite a bit) but the amount of computing power we have available. The reason computer modeling of the atmosphere has gotten better in recent years has far more to do with faster computers than it does with any new understanding of the way the atmosphere works.

I've witnessed this same self-serving phenomenon, first hand, with the EPA's MOBIL model (now called MOVES, I believe -- I've been out of the business awhile). The MOBIL model was designed for governments to plug all the variables of their Air Quality programs and see to what extent they were reducing their contribution to pollution and to determine which programs needed to be added, reduced, enhanced, etc... Once they found the right variables and achieved the most bang for their buck, in terms of an overall program that would improve air quality in their area, region, state, etc..., they would present the plan to the EPA who would approve it and then give them a time table for implementing.

In the time I was involved, the MOBIL model was changed 8 times and they finally threw it out and developed the MOVES model.

NOT ONCE, have any of the models accurately predicted either the reality of pollution or the effects of programs on it. But, they keep trying.

I don't care if you witnessed (allegedly) a model that didn't work. I know you've witnessed models that do work on a daily basis. Saying HEY THIS MODEL DOESN'T WORK SO ALL MODELS ARE JUNK is the kind of absolute horse shit you love to toss around. Its so incredibly devoid of logic.

Manny, how much do we need to reduce our CO2 output in order to have a significant impact on the global climate change. Then, when you answer that, how do we get the Chinese and Indians to play along?

I don't know. I'm not a policy wonk and have no desire to be a policy work. My interests lie in the interaction of the atmosphere, cryosphere, and hydropshere and not in what politicans want to do.