Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel

You totally missed the point, or you moved the goalpost.

The original post I responded to made the claim that that one graph said it all, basically. I merely pointed out (read the sub-thread again) that conclusions could not be made from that one graph.

Leave the strawmen in the cornfield.

Previously you were talking about science, and now you restrict to minutia about the graph in isolation.

Never, not once, have I claimed that co2 produced by man is being "magically sequestered". Any assertion of such is disingenuous at the very least and ignorant as hell at the worst.

Let's get back to the facts at hand.

Previously you intimated that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere (as in now, today in the Earth system, not hypothetical) was not a result of human activity but the result of oceans getting warmer from some other cause and emitting CO2. You said that it was a matter of simple physics.

Q: Do you stand by that or not?

Then I posted evidence showing increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere simultaneous with increased carbon in the ocean. You answered that the graph "alone" does not mean there is a causality. The causality comes from the nature of chemistry when there are different partial pressures.

So back to the original physical question.

What is your position on the original physical question: Is the ocean, today, net emitting, or net absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere?

Is the human emission (which you apparently deny is being sequestered in large measure from your last message) significantly increasing net atmospheric CO2, or not?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."
en.wikipedia.org...

Radiative forcing is simply the change in temperature.

No it isn't. The link explains it clearly.

Calling every temperature change "radiative forcing" is like calling sugar "metabolic incendiaries".

Calling temperature change "radiative forcing" is like calling obesity food. It's related, but not the same.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: rnaa

HA! You insist on ignoring the fact i want to end the Koch Bro's as well as the Soro's oligarch's control of the information and some of you on this thread just keep plodding along like it is I who wants it. READ this point one more time. COAL AND OIL ARE BAD we rape the land and pollute for it. CO2 is insignifcant compared to Uranium and Mercury to our survival and the health of the bios.

Mercury and other localized pollutants from coal burning are certainly quite harmful. Science has proven so. Science also shows, that over long term, the CO2 will also harm, and in much wider and larger and broader areas.

I see no significant global danger from Uranium, unless it's used in global thermonuclear war.

Quit insisting that i am helping the enemy's of this planet who destroy her. All while, you help the biggest scam that mankind knows according the the European papers. It makes you look bad and who has it really helped when you do this?

It's not a scam.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: rnaa

I am going to ask a simple question:

Why are current measurements of atmospheric co2 levels being sourced at an active volcano? I can understand using the geology of the area to measure/extrapolate co2 level changes over the last 20k years or so, but why the current measurements coming from there?

Because it is high altitude and far away from industrial sources and therefore experiences and measures well-mixed part of the atmosphere.

The effects from local volcanism are well known and accounted for.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The results are calibrated against other measurements in different global locations and they agree well.

NOAA’s Earth Science Research Laboratory program also measures CO2 in weekly flask samples taken at over 60 remote locations around the world. The Mauna Loa Observatory baseline CO2 concentrations agree very well with flask measurements taken at a similar latitude around the world, which confirms that the volcanic CO2 does not affect our final results.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mc_squared

True enough, but 50 million years ago would NOT have seen the difference in solar radiance you and others are trying to push. You are just repeating the mantra because...that's what you do.

Show me some research, data collected, or ANYTHING that would suggest that 50 million years ago solar radiance was below what it is today by...say, more than 1-2% maximum. 50 million years compared to the life cycle of the sun is nothing. Try again.

BB and McFly I am back to support you and your obvious commons sense. I finally read the whole thread. It seems the logic of it all escapes Mc and Phage when the rubber hits the road. I have a ways to go to finish reading this thread but I wanted to let you know i am here now to vet their knowledge as Peter has done so well, and you..

Kudos

originally posted by: amazing
Serious question.

What do you call it when you focus on one small detail that may or may not be in error, instead of focusing on the bigger picture? I see that a lot in these debates, as well as other conspiracy theories etc.

What are the benefits and pitfalls of this tactic? If we focus too much on Mann for one example. Does that help with the debate or get us to truth or does that derail us and waste our time?

After Mann is vetted, which Phage and MC think we are wrong in our position and hesitated not to vet the Dr Gray's in this fray, we can take Mann's erroneous conclusions off the table and get things sorted out. As long as we see lies being perpetrated as the truth we are at a fork in the road. BUT good question star for you.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: grey580

Back on topic, here is another fine exemple of a "well" maintained temperature station.

Yosemite

I have been saying this is the problem for quite some time but Mc and Phage refuse to accept this fact. Shame on you guys for not considering this properly. My point on other threads has been that I could be ARRESTED if i tried that at my sites i collect data.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: grey580

Here is a nice FLIR imaging of the surrounding of a station:

Link

Another

Another

I am sending these to my meteorologist today. See if he can agree with Mc now.....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Entreri06

Thank you for that post.

Let us not forget about the observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We have had a 40%+ rise of CO2 concentrations in the last half century.....

40% of what? 200 parts per million? 300 parts per million? CO2 is 400 parts per million now, that less than half of one percent of the total, less than half of one percent heats up the other 99.600 % of atmosphere?

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Ex_MislTech

originally posted by: Entreri06

You couldn't get 97% of the worlds scientific community to lie..... It's a math issue really. Co2 holds more heat then O2 or nitrogen. So more CO2= more heat. Every year has gotten hotter then the last. It's insane to think adding elements to our planets "system" won't have an effect.

It's crazy to think all the worlds science communities are in a vast conspiracy to pass a carbon tax in America...

Now saying that a carbon tax won't help and will be squandered and stolen is 100% fair probubally 100% accurate!!!

But that doesn't change the math.... Nor does it change the massive conspiracy it would take to fool 97% of the worlds scientists.

We Americans always think we are so special. Aka all the worlds media outlets are in a massive conspiracy to discredit American conservatism and Fox News... It's laughable.

The 97% of scientists bit is a lie itself.

No it isn't. I was personally at a lecture with one of the authors of that study. He said that his team not only checked all the abstracts, but then confirmed their interpretation (positive or negative) directly with the authors themselves. It's difficult for me to imagine the 3%.

And how would this hoax work? It would have to start well before 1965.

www.dailyclimate.org...

Roger Revelle. Was he, one of the greatest oceanographers in history, a complete scamming lying fearmonger for some future banker to come long after he was dead?

But here we get a chance to see some of those 97% are not being properly counted. Here we have some from within the Cadre of the IPCC.

www.youtube.com...

(moderator please help, the url is short i paste it in, as is the one above)

search.tb.ask.com... a4df7876f2fe57f5ab37e&n=780cec29&ptb=84D677AC-142B-4AA9-8DD7-A4BB7F93A826&si=566&pg=GGmain&pn=1&ss=sub&st=tab&tpr=tabsbsug&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEh ldEXeFLhKf6LK7tKA8fhQSPElw%2BXlCF4ETEN4oU8Il52VTLwWrr3a1Ia5zZvBzkfwvZLKuGK7JBbcEGlBjoWbeRrqOo7cX0iN%2B9kW%2ByCc4chH3Dmo584pcWWubGOvSxoW0WQ%3D%3D&ord=8 &

a reply to: Justoneman

BB and McFly I am back to support you and your obvious commons sense. I finally read the whole thread. It seems the logic of it all escapes Mc and Phage when the rubber hits the road. I have a ways to go to finish reading this thread but I wanted to let you know i am here now to vet their knowledge as Peter has done so well, and you..

Well, good luck then! I consider it quite impossible to convince them of the slightiest flaw within their reasoning. In fact I found some of them being completely incapable of "shaded" thinking. It's all black or white!

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Justoneman

BB and McFly I am back to support you and your obvious commons sense. I finally read the whole thread. It seems the logic of it all escapes Mc and Phage when the rubber hits the road. I have a ways to go to finish reading this thread but I wanted to let you know i am here now to vet their knowledge as Peter has done so well, and you..

Well, good luck then! I consider it quite impossible to convince them of the slightiest flaw within their reasoning. In fact I found some of them being completely incapable of "shaded" thinking. It's all black or white!

Everything about the subject sure isn't black and white, but there are some things which are.

Remember that the Berkeley Earth project? They really did the work to re-test and check all of the raw temperature records and do their own normalization & cleaning & analysis. They started in as skeptics, and came out with results which completely confirmed the scientific consensus quantitatively.

And what about the ocean heating? I post this over and over and over and no "skeptic" addresses it.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

Will you somehow blame the whales for warming up all the underwater instruments?

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Justoneman

BB and McFly I am back to support you and your obvious commons sense. I finally read the whole thread. It seems the logic of it all escapes Mc and Phage when the rubber hits the road. I have a ways to go to finish reading this thread but I wanted to let you know i am here now to vet their knowledge as Peter has done so well, and you..

Well, good luck then! I consider it quite impossible to convince them of the slightiest flaw within their reasoning. In fact I found some of them being completely incapable of "shaded" thinking. It's all black or white!

Everything about the subject sure isn't black and white, but there are some things which are.

Remember that the Berkeley Earth project? They really did the work to re-test and check all of the raw temperature records and do their own normalization & cleaning & analysis. They started in as skeptics, and came out with results which completely confirmed the scientific consensus quantitatively.

And what about the ocean heating? I post this over and over and over and no "skeptic" addresses it.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

Will you somehow blame the whales for warming up all the underwater instruments?

originally posted by: pikestaff

40% of what? 200 parts per million? 300 parts per million? CO2 is 400 parts per million now, that less than half of one percent of the total, less than half of one percent heats up the other 99.600 % of atmosphere?

YES!

(but really it's heating up the land and ocean first because the other gases are mostly transparent to infrared and then that heat is retransmitted back to the atmosphere)

Of course what matters is total forcing and obviously the Sun's primary input is dominant at 1366 W/m^2, but climate can be quite significantly sensitive to small net additions to that. Total forcing change which started/stopped ice ages is on the order of 0.1% I think.

What proportion of carbon monoxide molecules in your total body mass do you need to have a problem?

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Justoneman

BB and McFly I am back to support you and your obvious commons sense. I finally read the whole thread. It seems the logic of it all escapes Mc and Phage when the rubber hits the road. I have a ways to go to finish reading this thread but I wanted to let you know i am here now to vet their knowledge as Peter has done so well, and you..

Well, good luck then! I consider it quite impossible to convince them of the slightiest flaw within their reasoning. In fact I found some of them being completely incapable of "shaded" thinking. It's all black or white!

Everything about the subject sure isn't black and white, but there are some things which are.

Remember that the Berkeley Earth project? They really did the work to re-test and check all of the raw temperature records and do their own normalization & cleaning & analysis. They started in as skeptics, and came out with results which completely confirmed the scientific consensus quantitatively.

Anecdotal. Explain by what mechanism only the 5% of human introduced CO2, 20ppm, is going to heat up the entire world by 10 degrees Celsius.

The AGW rhetoric is all political abuse of science. Science proves or disproves by reproducible experiment , not by models alone.

Correlation is not causation. Correlation can show churches as the leading cause of crime, as in, areas with a high crime rate are also areas of high population, therefore having a lot of churches.

And what about the ocean heating? I post this over and over and over and no "skeptic" addresses it.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

Will you somehow blame the whales for warming up all the underwater instruments?

The world has recently left a cold period, The Little Ice Age. Since the world is no longer in a cold period, it stands to reason that the temperature is higher now. The ocean is part of the world, so the ocean should be warming as well.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: pikestaff

40% of what? 200 parts per million? 300 parts per million? CO2 is 400 parts per million now, that less than half of one percent of the total, less than half of one percent heats up the other 99.600 % of atmosphere?

YES!

(but really it's heating up the land and ocean first because the other gases are mostly transparent to infrared and then that heat is retransmitted back to the atmosphere)

CO2 converts the absorbed IR radiation into kinetic energy which is spread by collisions to all adjacent molecules, atoms, ions, particles and surfaces. The accumulations of heat will increase the action of all feedback mechanisms, most of which are negative feedback mechanisms. Negative feedback mechanisms vs heat include, but are not limited to,

Increased evaporation of liquids, such as water
Expanded volume of the atmosphere, into the cooler Stratosphere
Convection of warmer molecules to higher altitudes, into the cooler Stratosphere
Increased biological growth in all phyla of life

There is a predominance of negative feedback mechanisms, both known and unknown, because the climate stays the same more than it varies.

Of course what matters is total forcing and obviously the Sun's primary input is dominant at 1366 W/m^2, but climate can be quite significantly sensitive to small net additions to that. Total forcing change which started/stopped ice ages is on the order of 0.1% I think.

Science doesn't know what started or stopped the glaciations. Science only knows some data that correlates with the glaciations. We are still in the Ice Age by the way, we are in an interglacial period, the Holocene

The Holocene /ˈhɒlɵsiːn/ is a geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (at 11,700 calendar years BP)[2] and continues to the present. The Holocene is part of the Quaternary period. Its name comes from the Greek words ὅλος (holos, whole or entire) and καινός (kainos, new), meaning "entirely recent".[3] It has been identified with

the current warm period,

known as MIS 1, and can be considered an interglacial in the current ice age based on that evidence.
en.wikipedia.org...

the current warm period.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

CO2 converts the absorbed IR radiation into kinetic energy which is spread by collisions to all adjacent molecules

It's called quenching if I'm not mistaken.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Justoneman

BB and McFly I am back to support you and your obvious commons sense. I finally read the whole thread. It seems the logic of it all escapes Mc and Phage when the rubber hits the road. I have a ways to go to finish reading this thread but I wanted to let you know i am here now to vet their knowledge as Peter has done so well, and you..

Well, good luck then! I consider it quite impossible to convince them of the slightiest flaw within their reasoning. In fact I found some of them being completely incapable of "shaded" thinking. It's all black or white!

Everything about the subject sure isn't black and white, but there are some things which are.

Remember that the Berkeley Earth project? They really did the work to re-test and check all of the raw temperature records and do their own normalization & cleaning & analysis. They started in as skeptics, and came out with results which completely confirmed the scientific consensus quantitatively.

Anecdotal. Explain by what mechanism only the 5% of human introduced CO2, 20ppm, is going to heat up the entire world by 10 degrees Celsius.

20 ppm is not going to heat the world by 10C.

The human introduced CO2 is more like 120 ppm now, rising like a rocket, and will probably go to 250 ppm.

The AGW rhetoric is all political abuse of science. Science proves or disproves by reproducible experiment , not by models alone.

The experiments about radiative transfer and measurements in the atmosphere have been reproduced and continued and improved many times.

The observations and theory have been going on since 1965.

Correlation is not causation. Correlation can show churches as the leading cause of crime, as in, areas with a high crime rate are also areas of high population, therefore having a lot of churches.

This is obviously true why the effort starting from the earliest days has always been about mechanistic physical causation, which is now profoundly and deeply understood and verified with observations.

And what about the ocean heating? I post this over and over and over and no "skeptic" addresses it.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

Will you somehow blame the whales for warming up all the underwater instruments?

The world has recently left a cold period, The Little Ice Age. Since the world is no longer in a cold period, it stands to reason that the temperature is higher now. The ocean is part of the world, so the ocean should be warming as well.

I notice the passive voice. What's the mechanism, and physical observations to back up the idea of non-human influence? Why did it seem to start in 1970?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: pikestaff

40% of what? 200 parts per million? 300 parts per million? CO2 is 400 parts per million now, that less than half of one percent of the total, less than half of one percent heats up the other 99.600 % of atmosphere?

YES!

(but really it's heating up the land and ocean first because the other gases are mostly transparent to infrared and then that heat is retransmitted back to the atmosphere)

CO2 converts the absorbed IR radiation into kinetic energy which is spread by collisions to all adjacent molecules, atoms, ions, particles and surfaces. The accumulations of heat will increase the action of all feedback mechanisms, most of which are negative feedback mechanisms.

Observation is contrary to this. The stratosphere, where the most important CO2 emissivity lives is in fact cooling.

The actual experimentally verified mechanism [can be done in a lab] is not what you say above. It is re-radiation in isotropic direction of incoming infrared which was in one direction (in this case coming up from the ground). This was figured out literally decades ago.

The upper atmosphere scatters & shines more in infrared than it would without greenhouse gases, raising the equilibrium temperature of the surface.

Negative feedback mechanisms vs heat include, but are not limited to,
Increased evaporation of liquids, such as water

If the heating occurs at ocean surface level, yes, that is global warming the normal way, but the feedbacks are probably net positive, not negative.

Expanded volume of the atmosphere, into the cooler Stratosphere
Convection of warmer molecules to higher altitudes, into the cooler Stratosphere

Observations are contrary to that one.

Increased biological growth in all phyla of life

Hard to say that would be globally beneficial to humans. Most agriculture is limited by H20, not CO2 and changes in climate will seriously disrupt the infrastructure and land use patterns. Also, many important crops require a certain cool night-time temperature to thrive and global warming raises night-time temperatures especially more than day.

GW will be good for Canada and Russia.

There is a predominance of negative feedback mechanisms, both known and unknown, because the climate stays the same more than it varies.

When CO2 is the same.

Of course what matters is total forcing and obviously the Sun's primary input is dominant at 1366 W/m^2, but climate can be quite significantly sensitive to small net additions to that. Total forcing change which started/stopped ice ages is on the order of 0.1% I think.

Science doesn't know what started or stopped the glaciations. Science only knows some data that correlates with the glaciations. We are still in the Ice Age by the way, we are in an interglacial period, the Holocene

And?