Driver to drive?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:28:46 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/22/12 8:17 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Your argument is a big fail. First of all, it IS blocked


The atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide
band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon
dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval
*about one micron wide* on either side of the center of the carbon
dioxide band. *However, the argument neglects* the hundreds of spectral
lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete
absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon
dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only
partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth
is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.

Marvin cannot learn this because he doesn't want it to be true!

Nature does not care what Marvin wants!

Yes, yes, yes. The magical 'we can block more energy than 100% by using
finer bands', but thermal recoil refutes that idea. You can only claim
fine bands at cryogenic temperatures.

This one is like your "hot air doesn't rise" paper.

That's another argument you cut and pasted from and failed to respond to
the rebuttal.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 23 Dec, 07:49, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

that's OK;
no-one else in these fora is literate enough to bother
to see that there is no such a thing as "global" warming,
other than via passage through the lithosphere, anymore than
there are "holes" in the ozonosphere
(they are simply phenomena).

You've already told us that you are a 12-year-old. Don't bother
reminding us again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:13:24 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 23 Dec, 13:17, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:34:42 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know
enough about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the
greenhouse effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I
believe you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like
"denialist"?

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are
going to resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush
trying to equate holocaust denial for denying *that*?

Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is
indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for
some of the warmth of the earth, doubling it won't have much effect,
due to the fact that the CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer
space.

It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount
of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun, the
temperatures all the way down to the surface have to warm up to keep
the temperature at the emitting altitude a bit warmer than it used to
be.

Then state the hypothesis in equation form with all the relevant
variables of your choice and show how it predicts and accurately
describes the current state.

It's been done. IIRR you can download the suite of software that lets
you run it on your computer. You've got to register, and it takes about
ten days before they'll get around to recognising your registration and
letting you download the software (which is why I never bothered).

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

From the website;
"HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular
absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters
that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the
transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

Do you even read what you post? This isn't a climate model. What it does
is predicts "the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere".

Do you understand why that isn't producing a temperature and a climate
model? I'm asking because posting this indicates you don't know what
you're talking about.

People have been doing it for a while now.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/
casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650017692_1965017692.pdf

Same problem as before, that's not a climate model that predicts AGW.
It's about atmospheric transmission of electromagnetic radiation. IT
doesn't say "Set the variable of d[CO2]/dt = 5 gigatons of carbon and the
equation says that the dT = +1 Kelvin of mean earth temperature".

It is pretty clear you don't understand what a climate model is. You need
to state something of the form:

f([CO2_g],x1,x2,...,xN)= T_global

Your argument is a big fail. First of all, it IS blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

The only band that contributes to the greenhouse effect is the 14-20
micrometer band, and it IS saturated.

At ground level. Which means that the IR radiation is still moving up
the atmosphere, but in small steps, and the energy is being
redistributed across the spectrum as the atmosphere gets cooler as you
go up, until you get to the effective radiating altitude.

Yeah, and hot air rises. So as it is heated on the ground, it rises and
emits energy up higher due to cooling. So, that's a fail. We've been over
that one. You can't pretend that the hot air is stuck to the ground.
That's a lower division physics class fail.

<snip snide gibberish based on his belief that hot air doesn't rise>

You may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming due to a raise in the
sidebars,
but you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the
sun's spectral output to the earth.

The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy comes
in above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.

WTF?! Dude, the greenhouse effect is about blocking the IR bands in the
EARTH's black body curve, not the suns! Blocking incoming radiation in
the SUN's black body curve causes COOLING.

Right. But since most of the energy input from the sun comes in at
shorter wavelengths than CO2 absorbs, changes in CO2 level in the
atmosphere don't have much - if any effect - on the energy absorbed,
while the CO2 spectrum sits rather more centrally in the range of
wavelengths emitted.

CO2 absorbs at (aprox) 14-20, 3.2, 1.7, 2.8 and 1.2 micrometers.

the 3.2 and 1.7 micrometer bands don't have any energy to block, they're
longer than the Sun's IR curve and higher than the earth's black body
curve.

The 14-20 band is the band that contributes to the greenhouse effect. It
is already blocking 100%. This band is also partially blocked by H2O, so
the effect is attenuated by 50%.

But the 1.2 micrometer band is blocking the sun's energy from REACHING
the earth's surface. It is NOT saturated, so adding more CO2 will cause
this band to block that energy from reaching the surface of the earth.

You seem to have misconceptions about the "CO2 spectrum". Did you
understand the graph on the link I posted?

LOL! You don't even know how the greenhouse effect works!!

Wrong. The mis-perception is entirely yours, and it's a pretty comical
one.

That is just too damned funny!

And you are the butt of the joke.

Let's recap: You confused HITRAN for a climate model, you don't seem to
know what a climate model looks like, and you don't understand that there
is more than one band that CO2 absorbs radiation.

Your major argument is that you have a Ph.D. and you can insult people.

You're a fucking fail, dude.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 23 Dec, 02:20, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 23:21, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

snip

What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no
real argument by the tactics they constantly use.

That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to
be fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the
time.

Nice assertion. Anything to back it up in the way of evidence? Just
point out the fallacious nature of some arguments made.

"What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no real
argument by the tactics they constantly use."

The tactics have no logical connection to the reality of the
arguments.

Sure they do. It is Occams Razor; if there was a simple explanation,
you wouldn't need to use such things.

Sadly,there isn't a simple explanation, or at least not one that's
simple enough for you to grasp. Einstein did say that God was subtle,
though not malicious.

Most of the people who understand and accept the scientific
evidence

Understand and *accept*? Is this a religious issue?

No. It does take a certain amount of education, but no indoctrination.

for anthropogenic global warming are well aware that
the denialists and their gullible disciples couldn't care less about
the scientific evidence, and that educated minority get bored with
knocking down the same nonsensical propositions time and time again.

Find your nonsensical proposition and Ill knock it down for you, but
you'll get your deserved measure of derision in the process.

That is why they have lost and faded into irrelevance.

The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries
to make a lot more money.

See, there you go. Conspiracy theories.

Not theories. Facts. Sourcewatch collects it all into a neatly
organised website.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

The "evil carbon-funded denialist
machine". Except no one has ever found the funding -- it doesn't exist.

Numerous journalist have found Exxon-Mobil's contributions in their
published company accounts. There's plenty of other evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...

It's not the only book on the subject, but Oreskes and Conway have
documented it better than most.

So? Of course they spend money lobbying.

The interesting feature of the process is that they don't spend the
money directly but spread it around the people who generate the
denialist propaganda. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one of
them, which does have a history of lying about the health effects of
tobacco back in the 1990s.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

Everyone does. I'll tell you
that the PR budget of the Sierra Club and the UCS puts it to shame,
though. There is money everywhere.

But few of them are as secretive about it as Exxon-Mobile, have been
enjoined to stop that particular sort of lobbying, have promised to do
so, and have kept on doing it in spite of their promise.
The SourceWatch page is informative, though it may make unreasonable
demands on your very limited attention span.

Now if you want to talk funding which is incontroverible and self-
evident, how about the scientists who have ridden the "climate change"
gravy train for the past three decades.

Some gravy train. They get the same kind of university jobs as every
other academic, earn the same kind of money, and get shat on by the
denialism industry. Oreskes and Conway do mention the ways that the
denialism lobby has made itself unpleasant from time to time.

Having trouble getting funding?

Who is supposed to be having trouble getting funding? And what would
that have to do with point at issue? There is no climate change "gravy
train".

Love this cartoon:

? ? ? ?http://duxmail.com/latest.jpg

You would. You are too dim to realise that if greenhouse gases had no
effect, it's not only the climate scientists who'd be out of a job,
but every physicist as well - the laws of physics would have just
renegotiated themselves, and we'd be back to propriating the gods.

Perhaps you are subject to that one yourself. I can see the conundrum
of the climate scientist. It must be galling to have studied a long
time only to find out the train you have chosen to ride seems to have
run out of fuel.

Pity about your grasp of reality.

Yet you can't describe how.

Try to finish your sentences.

It may have done enough to guarantee a human population crash in a
generation or two - it's certainly done enough to make avoiding such
a crash a lot more difficult.

These apocalyptic end-of-the-world forecasts would be more chilling if
the GTA had been cooperating with the dire predictions of the past. So
far, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that apocalyptic end-of-the-
world forecasters are so far 0 for 100,000. Oh, 100,001 now that we
have hit Dec 22.

You are confused. Anthropogenic global warming doesn't involve the end
of the world, merely a progressive change in climatic conditions. If
you know so little that you can confuse it with the apocalyptic end-of-
the-world forecasts that you get from potty religious sects, you have
to be monumentally dim and ignorant.

So now you aren't claiming catastrophe? Then what do we have to
worry about? We adapt quite nicely to changing conditions. There
are positive aspects to warming, too.

Not catastrophe, just progressively increasing difficulties. One of
the adaptions we may have to make is giving up on agriculture - we've
spent the last ten thousand years selectively breeding our food crops
to do well in the more or less stable climate we've enjoyed for most
of this interglacial. Change the climate and they won't be well
adapted any more.

<snipped the usual twaddle>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:26:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

All you got to do is put the equation that makes the predictions in the
newsgroup. You can use all the variables you want besides CO2, but you
have to produce a hypothesis that shows that as CO2 rises, warming
rises,
and that hypothesis has to predict.

If you want to shut up the "denialist", then that's all you have to do,
is produce a falsifiable hypothesis that makes accurate predictions. It
is not up to denialist to prove you wrong, it is up to the AGW frauds
to prove they're right.

So, do it, smart ass.

Fact is, every single computer model ever made FAILED to predict the
recent non-warming trend of the last 16 years. All we heard from you
guys is a lot of "yeah but!" and "just wait!" Not only did those models
fail to predict the last 16 years, they always fail to agree with known
observation when you go far enough into the past - that's because
they're all curve fitting.

On the other hand, there's this guy named Svensmark who's simple
hypothesis agrees with the last 4 billion years of the climate record,
and DID predict the recent cooling. All you "scientist" do is pretend
you don't understand the theory, lie about the theory, and slander the
guy.

That's not how science is done, son. Go sue your school and try to get
all the money back. You were supposed to learn science, not fraud.


Sloman is a chemist. Nothing more.

I'm good with chemistry. It isn't "nothing more". Perhaps he can explain
what happens when the oceans get warmer wrt CO2. And what happens to the
ocean water that was in contact with the surface 800 years ago that
submerged into a deep ocean current when it resurfaces now.

His problem was making the argument "I have a Ph.D., ergo..." I'm sure
glad he told us that, because his argument was so damned weak, I'd never
have guessed it. Those who EARN their Ph.D.s don't have to make it
central to their argument, they just state the science.

 

[benj]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:27:44 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

So now you aren't claiming catastrophe? Then what do we have to worry
about? We adapt quite nicely to changing conditions. There are positive
aspects to warming, too.

Not catastrophe, just progressively increasing difficulties. One of the
adaptions we may have to make is giving up on agriculture - we've spent
the last ten thousand years selectively breeding our food crops to do
well in the more or less stable climate we've enjoyed for most of this
interglacial. Change the climate and they won't be well adapted any
more.

snipped the usual twaddle

The Twaddle is yours. A fraction of a degree climate change is what most
of us call "normal", but you alarmists call a "disaster". Of course your
fear in the marketplace isn't what HAS gone on, but rather the curves you
generate by taking a ruler and extending any up-tick you find off the
page.

Talk about plant catastrophe, Monsanto seems to have installed
mitochondria that make roundup in many important food plants (like oats)
so they'll be immune to the weed killer. Never mind what it might do to
US sucking in all that roundup! And they've so contaminated the fields
with their Frankenstein monstrosity that now you simply CANNOT find a
field free of contamination no matter how careful you try to control your
seeds. And the bonus? Well, then Monsanto will sue you for millions for
patent infringement because you are "using" their round-up genes that
THEY contaminated you with! Sweet.

Obviously they are cut from the same cloth as all the climate warmists.

Your ass in already in a sling and you are off chasing some false useless
theory that you hope to get rich off of. Shame on you.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 23 Dec, 10:20, eRepair <nob...@google.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 07:25, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com
wrote:
there are two main problems that the confirmerists & denierists refuse
to acknowledge: a)
the continuous rise of teh two largest ice sheets,
since the first intl. bipolar year ('57-9), and b)
the matching lack of a rise in sealevel, viz Morner.

It's not a problem. The top of the ice sheet is fresh snow, which
contains a lot of air. Local warming puts more water vapour in the air
over the oceans, which means more snow falling on the ice sheets.

The ice sheets become more voluminous, but not more massive - the
GRACE satellites are measuring the mass of the ice sheets, and they
are all shrinking. The consequent corresponding rise in sea level is
fairly small, and not inconsistent with what we are measuring.

Sea level rise probably won't become a problem until the ice starts
sliding off into the ocean rather faster than it's doing at the
moment. When the Laurentian ice sheet (over most of Canada) slid off
into the North Atlantic at the end of the last ice age, it did so in
big chunks, which apparently turned off the Gulf Stream twice. This is
one of the interesting possible consequences of further anthropogenic
global warming, but one which is not easy to model or predict.

How's Greenland doing? Is all that ice turning into a
gigantic bucket of fresh water that will suddenly break lose
and pour into the Atlantic swamping the thermo-haline flow?

Here's the most recent report that I know about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/26/greenland-ice-sheet-borrowed-time

250 billion tons of ice per year is a tolerably gigantic bucket of
fresh water, but if the Greenland ice sheet is kind enough to melt in
place, rather than sliding off into the ocean as large chunks, as the
Laurentian ice sheet did at the end of the most recent ice age, the
Gulf Stream is unlikely to be much affected. The Gulf Stream has
slowed down a bit in recent decades, but nothing to get excited about.

The more interesting question about this year's extensive surface
melting is what it's going at the interface between the bottom of the
ice-cap and the rock underneath, Liquid water acts as a lubricant, and
can speed up glacier flow.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:40:39 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 23 Dec, 10:20, eRepair <nob...@google.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 07:25, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com
wrote:
there are two main problems that the confirmerists & denierists
refuse to acknowledge: a)
the continuous rise of teh two largest ice sheets,
since the first intl. bipolar year ('57-9), and b)
the matching lack of a rise in sealevel, viz Morner.

It's not a problem. The top of the ice sheet is fresh snow, which
contains a lot of air. Local warming puts more water vapour in the
air over the oceans, which means more snow falling on the ice sheets.

The ice sheets become more voluminous, but not more massive - the
GRACE satellites are measuring the mass of the ice sheets, and they
are all shrinking. The consequent corresponding rise in sea level is
fairly small, and not inconsistent with what we are measuring.

Sea level rise probably won't become a problem until the ice starts
sliding off into the ocean rather faster than it's doing at the
moment. When the Laurentian ice sheet (over most of Canada) slid off
into the North Atlantic at the end of the last ice age, it did so in
big chunks, which apparently turned off the Gulf Stream twice. This
is one of the interesting possible consequences of further
anthropogenic global warming, but one which is not easy to model or
predict.

How's Greenland doing? Is all that ice turning into a gigantic bucket
of fresh water that will suddenly break lose and pour into the Atlantic
swamping the thermo-haline flow?

Here's the most recent report that I know about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/26/greenland-ice-sheet-
borrowed-time

250 billion tons of ice per year is a tolerably gigantic bucket of fresh
water, but if the Greenland ice sheet is kind enough to melt in place,
rather than sliding off into the ocean as large chunks, as the
Laurentian ice sheet did at the end of the most recent ice age, the Gulf
Stream is unlikely to be much affected. The Gulf Stream has slowed down
a bit in recent decades, but nothing to get excited about.

Gee, so at least you admit that it has melted before. You do agree that
it wasn't CO2 based AGW that caused it to melt before, right?

Can you show us the model that explains why it melted before? You know,
the whole
f([CO2_atm], x1,...,xN) = T_global
thing I asked for before.

IF you can't, then how do you know it isn't a natural melt now?

Now, OTOH, Svensmark explains his theory here:
<http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/
sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>

He relates climate to low cloud cover (fig 3) and low cloud cover to
cosmic rays (fig 5). He also explains much of the disinformation and
straw man arguments made by the AGW frauds.

So there it is. Svensmark offers us this:

f([cloud_cover]) = T_global
and
f(cosmic_rays(energy = x1 to x2)) = [cloud_cover]

That's called a "climate model".

So, given Svensmark, why do I need CO2? I don't. Why would I expect CO2
when it has totally saturated it's 14-20 micrometer band? I don't.

Apply Occum's razor.

The more interesting question about this year's extensive surface
melting is what it's going at the interface between the bottom of the
ice-cap and the rock underneath, Liquid water acts as a lubricant, and
can speed up glacier flow.

You're trying to scare people with uncertainty. That's called an
"emotional appeal", and it has nothing to do with science.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 23 Dec, 18:58, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 22 Dec, 07:26, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS ?Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
propaganda,

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is it
any wonder that global warming proponents have completely lost
the PR battle?

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.

If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...

It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.

You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel?

Religions have gospels. Science just has evidence, and not-yet-
falsified interpretations of that evidence. If you were sensitive to
the scientific content of the propositions that you seem to be
objecting to, you'd identify - and quantity - the variable that was
going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a doubling
of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm.

Your enthusiasm for typing out phrases that you clearly don't
understand puts you squarely in the "gospel-pushing" camp.

snipped more rubbish

- Show quoted text -

"you'd identify - and quantity - the variable that was
 going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a
doubling
 of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm"

You are completely wrong.   CO2 itself will give about 1 to 1.2C for a
doubling.  The additional warming comes from WV according to the IPCC,
which they suppose is a positive feedback.

Water vapour levels in the atmosphere are pretty much purely dependent
on the ocean surface temperatures. The extra warming that you get from
the extra CO2 in the atmosphere adds more H2O, which provides some
additional warming, and that's always figured into the sensitivity.
Water vapour levels equilibrate within a about three weeks, so it
makes sense to treat it as a dependent variable.

Given that rain is a massive negative feedback their stance is highly
suspect.

And why would you think that rain was a massive negative feedback?
Nobody who knows anything about the subject does.

So, please apraise yourself of the actual science, it is crucial
because if WV is not a positive feedback CO2 will be beneficial to the
planet.   That IS scientific fact.

I'm well aware that H20 vapour is a greenhouse gas, and have already
mentioned the fact in this thread. The fact that water vapour adds a
positive feedback is one of those little wrinkles that was needed to
get enough positive feedback to make the Milankovitch explanation of
the ice ages work. Your idea of a "scientific fact" doesn't have much
relationship to reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:20:41 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 01:25, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:21:38 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

snip

Mr. Langan has nailed it. As long as the federal government funds
studies on CO2 caused global warming, there will be people with degrees
who will be willing to take that money and produce a pack of lies.

As evidenced by the existence of the denialist propaganda machine.
You've got one thing wrong though - Mickey Langan hasn't nailed
anything, except perhaps any reputation he might have had for being able
think straight.

snipped more incoherent rubbish

Which is why these AGW frauds have gotten so far without even having a
hypothesis to test!

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, our burning significant amounts of fossil carbon for fuel is
putting more of that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, thus is making
the average surface temperature of the earth higher, and that if we
keep on doing it, it's going to make the surface temperatures even
higher.

It's a perfectly testable hypothesis, and has additional implications
that we can test against the geological record. So far the hypothesis
has passed all every test.

If you don't know enough to realise this, you really should do a bit
more reading.

Since the only AGW frauds around are actually the people working for the
denialist propaganda machine, you may in fact be right, but not in the
way you seem to have had in what passes for your mind.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

First of all, in science, the argument has to stand or fall on it's own.
Does the hypothesis predict or not.

In the case of AGW, half of the argument is that CO2 causes warming.
There appeared to be a strong correlation to CO2 and global temperature
from 1980 to 1996, but as you well know, correlation does not prove
causation. However, from 1996 to now, even the MET office admits that
there has been no statistically rise in temperature, but CO2 levels are
reported to have risen. That's a correlation of 0, zippo, nada, zilch.

Even the correlation proves causation fallacy fails here. You don't have
a correlation to base your fallacy on!

So, why would "scientist" claim something that, under the rules of
science, should be rejected?! Only then can we discuss motives. And Mr.
Langan nailed the motive perfectly - money.

You're trying to do it the other way around and ascribe a sinister motive
to those who are following the science and coming to the rational
conclusion.

As for the "burning significant amounts of CO2 puts more CO2 into the
atmosphere" claim - PROVE IT. That's the first part of the AGW claim, and
it needs to be proven.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 23 Dec, 16:36, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:15:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?

  Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?

Slowman's nylons.

   'Ugliest Queen ever!!!' ;-)

Mike Terrell's incontinence pads might give him an unfair advantage in
any such competition.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 01:25, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:21:38 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

<snip>

Mr. Langan has nailed it. As long as the federal government funds studies
on CO2 caused global warming, there will be people with degrees who will
be willing to take that money and produce a pack of lies.

As evidenced by the existence of the denialist propaganda machine.
You've got one thing wrong though - Mickey Langan hasn't nailed
anything, except perhaps any reputation he might have had for being
able think straight.

<snipped more incoherent rubbish>

Which is why these AGW frauds have gotten so far without even having a
hypothesis to test!

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, our burning significant amounts of fossil carbon for
fuel is putting more of that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, thus
is making the average surface temperature of the earth higher, and
that if we keep on doing it, it's going to make the surface
temperatures even higher.

It's a perfectly testable hypothesis, and has additional implications
that we can test against the geological record. So far the hypothesis
has passed all every test.

If you don't know enough to realise this, you really should do a bit
more reading.

Since the only AGW frauds around are actually the people working for
the denialist propaganda machine, you may in fact be right, but not in
the way you seem to have had in what passes for your mind.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:19:22 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 02:35, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:26:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

snip

   Sloman is a chemist.  Nothing more.

I'm good with chemistry. It isn't "nothing more". Perhaps he can
explain what happens when the oceans get warmer wrt CO2.

In principle, it comes out of solution. In practice, we are increasing
the CO2 levels in the atmosphere a lot faster than we are decreasing the
solubility of CO2 in sea-water (which is - in fact - a rather
complicated chemical equilibrium).

So, your official position as a Ph.D. chemist, is that you're going to
equivocate, wave hands, and say that somehow it is humans, and not the
oceans (which exchanges a hundred gigatons of carbon with the atmosphere
every year, according to the AGW frauds) which is the cause of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

And the ratio of [CO2_atmosphere]/[CO2_ocean], which can only change with
temperature is too complicated to discuss. I suppose that is because the
equilibrium constant between calcium carbonate rocks (where most of the
carbon is sequestered) and CO2 in the ocean, which to first order is
simply [CO2_ocean] since the amount of calcium ion is 20x the amount of
CO2, adds to the complexity.

That's pretty lame.

Now, in rebuttal, throw the isotope studies at me, and I'll explain why
they failed to properly define the system.

And what happens to the ocean water that was in contact with the
surface 800 years ago that submerged into a deep ocean current  when it
resurfaces now.

It picks up more CO2. About half the CO2 we are currently injecting into
the atmosphere ends up in the oceans,

Ah! The magic molecule theory - where man made CO2 knows to stay in the
atmosphere and natural CO2, which is being exchanged at 100 GtC/yr (about
20 times the 5 GtC/yr humans add) can easily reenter the oceans.

You sure you have a Ph.D?

His problem was making the argument "I have a Ph.D., ergo..." I'm sure
glad he told us that, because his argument was so damned weak, I'd
never have guessed it. Those who EARN their Ph.D.s don't have to make
it.

I made the point because I know more about the vibrational and
rotational modes of CO2 than most practicing electronic engineers. It's
not something you get taught in the average undergraduate electronics
course.

Yeah, but you can't do equilibrium problems like that other idiot chemist
Lloyd.

central to their argument, they just state the science.

As I did. You don't seem to be able to follow it.

Tell me more about your magic CO2 molecules that are marked as human
made, and thus only half of them enter the ocean again.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 01:19, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:08:11 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?

<snip>

Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the scientific
evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get the child-minded
to under-value it.

All you got to do is put the equation that makes the predictions in the
newsgroup. You can use all the variables you want besides CO2, but you
have to produce a hypothesis that shows that as CO2 rises, warming rises,
and that hypothesis has to predict.

Sure. Here it is

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

It's a little too complicated and voluminous to post here, but if you
ask Harvard nicely they'll let you download the whole package and you
can run it on your own computer. Have fun.

If you want to shut up the "denialist", then that's all you have to do,
is produce a falsifiable hypothesis that makes accurate predictions. It
is not up to denialist to prove you wrong, it is up to the AGW frauds to
prove they're right.

HITRAN embodies the hypothesis in enough detail to make sensible
predictions. If you think you can falsify it, go ahead and try. Keep
in mind that scientists love falsifying other scientist's hypotheses,
so all the easy options have long since been tried.

Fact is, every single computer model ever made FAILED to predict the
recent non-warming trend of the last 16 years.

When we've got more of the Argo buoy data we may be able to do better,
but 16 years is about 0.1K of global warming, and the short term noise
is a lot bigger than that.

All we heard from you guys
is a lot of "yeah but!" and "just wait!" Not only did those models fail
to predict the last 16 years, they always fail to agree with known
observation when you go far enough into the past - that's because they're
all curve fitting.

The ice age/interglacial modelling does rather better than that. I'm
afraid that you don't know what you are talking about.

On the other hand, there's this guy named Svensmark who's simple
hypothesis agrees with the last 4 billion years of the climate record,
and DID predict the recent cooling. All you "scientist" do is pretend you
don't understand the theory, lie about the theory, and slander the guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

presents a rather less flattering assessment.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Copenhagen_Climate_Challenge

puts him in the denialist camp.

That's not how science is done, son. Go sue your school and try to get
all the money back. You were supposed to learn science, not fraud.

Oh, I not only learned science, but also how to detect fraud. You
clearly can't tell shit from shinola.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/23/12 8:25 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

CO2 is like alchemy, where the alchemist is paid to turn lead into gold.

This is much better...

CO2 and its effect on climate
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 01:26, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

<snip>

   Sloman is a chemist.  Nothing more.

I certainly went through ten years of university education in
chemistry, and emerged with a Ph.D. On the other hand, I haven't
published in chemistry - my first publication in a peer-reviewed
journal was on photomultiplier linearity, and the only publication
I've got that's been cited enough to suggest that it might have been
useful was on using a Peltier junction to get +/-1mK temperature
control.

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-
based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK
in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor
sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)

None of the chemists I know would describe me as chemist. Mike Terrell
may know better than they do, but the odds are against it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:55:50 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 01:19, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:08:11 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?

snip

Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the
scientific evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get the
child-minded to under-value it.

All you got to do is put the equation that makes the predictions in the
newsgroup. You can use all the variables you want besides CO2, but you
have to produce a hypothesis that shows that as CO2 rises, warming
rises,
and that hypothesis has to predict.

Sure. Here it is

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

It's a little too complicated and voluminous to post here, but if you
ask Harvard nicely they'll let you download the whole package and you
can run it on your own computer. Have fun.

Again, you don't know the difference between a model of E&M radiation
transmission and a climate temperature model.

I pointed out this silly blunder of yours in a previous post.

If you want to shut up the "denialist", then that's all you have to do,
is produce a falsifiable hypothesis that makes accurate predictions. It
is not up to denialist to prove you wrong, it is up to the AGW frauds
to prove they're right.

HITRAN embodies the hypothesis in enough detail to make sensible
predictions. If you think you can falsify it, go ahead and try. Keep in
mind that scientists love falsifying other scientist's hypotheses, so
all the easy options have long since been tried.

HITRAN is still not a climate model. You don't seem to understand what a
climate model is.

Fact is, every single computer model ever made FAILED to predict the
recent non-warming trend of the last 16 years.

When we've got more of the Argo buoy data we may be able to do better,
but 16 years is about 0.1K of global warming, and the short term noise
is a lot bigger than that.

So, your argument is that you can't measure it because it is in the noise
level?

All we heard from you guys is a lot of "yeah but!" and "just wait!" Not
only did those models fail to predict the last 16 years, they always
fail to agree with known observation when you go far enough into the
past - that's because they're all curve fitting.

The ice age/interglacial modelling does rather better than that. I'm
afraid that you don't know what you are talking about.

What model is that? Go ahead and state that one too, unless you're
referring to Svensmark's theory...

On the other hand, there's this guy named Svensmark who's simple
hypothesis agrees with the last 4 billion years of the climate record,
and DID predict the recent cooling. All you "scientist" do is pretend
you don't understand the theory, lie about the theory, and slander the
guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

presents a rather less flattering assessment.

Point out where you find the personal smear. What in that have you
mistaken as a scientific argument.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Copenhagen_Climate_Challenge

Vapid slander with no science,

puts him in the denialist camp.

Like I said, all you AGW frauds can do is slander the man, you can't
properly address his theory and why it makes predictions.

I like how you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a "denialist". Is
that the kind of crap and personal smear that passes for science in
Australia?

That's not how science is done, son. Go sue your school and try to get
all the money back. You were supposed to learn science, not fraud.

Oh, I not only learned science, but also how to detect fraud. You
clearly can't tell shit from shinola.

Let's see... the CRU e-mails prove fraud and abuse of peer review. There,
you don't see fraud.

A hypothesis that fails to predict, and political policy of carbon taxes,
global government, and tyrannical carbon foot-print laws, and the science
isn't proven (even you can't provide the function of CO2 that predicts
global temperature) and you find no fraud there.

But someone comes up with a theory that closely relates cosmic rays to
global temperature, and you find fraud there.

No, you don't know how to detect fraud. No, that isn't a scientific
argument.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:04:43 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 01:26, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

snip

   Sloman is a chemist.  Nothing more.

I certainly went through ten years of university education in chemistry,
and emerged with a Ph.D. On the other hand, I haven't published in
chemistry - my first publication in a peer-reviewed journal was on
photomultiplier linearity, and the only publication I've got that's been
cited enough to suggest that it might have been useful was on using a
Peltier junction to get +/-1mK temperature control.

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-
based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in
the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor”
Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)

None of the chemists I know would describe me as chemist. Mike Terrell
may know better than they do, but the odds are against it.

You'd be better off not using your real name, because 1) it doesn't
matter, and 2) you're making a fool of yourself and someone's going to
google you and find all the dumb-ass flippant remarks you made. And you
ARE making them!

If you have a Ph.D., let it show in the quality of the science in your
posts. All you're proving is what I learned in grad school... Ph.D.s are
like sausage - quite tasty until you see how they're made, what they're
made of, and how much shit goes into them.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:26:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Sloman is a chemist. Nothing more.

I'm good with chemistry. It isn't "nothing more". Perhaps he can explain
what happens when the oceans get warmer wrt CO2. And what happens to the
ocean water that was in contact with the surface 800 years ago that
submerged into a deep ocean current when it resurfaces now.

He can only cut & aste the same drivel over & over. He's been doing
it for over a decade. He has no training in the field under discussion,
hence the "Nothing more" comment. He claims to be an engineer, but
never presents himself as one by using real data or any math.

His problem was making the argument "I have a Ph.D., ergo..." I'm sure
glad he told us that, because his argument was so damned weak, I'd never
have guessed it. Those who EARN their Ph.D.s don't have to make it
central to their argument, they just state the science.

He also belongs to the IEEE. Who cares? I knew U.S. Army grunts
that did, too because they ran diesel power plants for remote bases.
One took great joy in ripping up the month's IEEE mailing and tossing it
into the trash when it hit the post office.

His PHD is Chemistry, but he's a self proclaimed expert in every
field. He even reads minds and tells you that you aren't thinking what
you are. He's been desiging an oscillator for over a year, with no
results.

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/23/12 9:55 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

In the case of AGW, half of the argument is that CO2 causes warming.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/

CO2 and its effect on climate
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Confusion over the Basics
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/

Heat Transfer Basics
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/heat-transfer-basics-part-zero/

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's
energy balance
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html

The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm