5 of 7
5
1 stop summary of global warming “skeptic” arguments at Skeptical Science.com
Posted: 01 July 2010 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
Analytic - 01 July 2010 06:54 AM

By the way, the word “apocalypse” has been used many, many times in the lay press.

Just one example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece

True.  Looking at that article, it isn’t even consistent with itself.  Even if we were to assume that the initial flawed premise that sea levels wuold rise 2 meters in one century were true, this would NOT lead to apocolypse.  That’s just sensationalist bullshit, and is painfully obviously not part of the scientific literature.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

Okay, where in the scientific literature have you found the work ‘apocalypse’ used, by a scientist?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

CC,
Few laymen even bother to read all the ‘stuff’ published on man-made global temperature increases.

When looking at the volume of published papers out there I image there are few scientists who have read ALL of them.  Beside, I believe a layperson is limited to the abstracts and trying to comprehend the basic arguments being presented.  It’s presumptuous to expect an unschooled lay person to pretend to read the full content with any comprehension.  Which is why we depend on credible scientists to help with the interpretation. 

It is important to recognize ones limitations.

Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

Of the publications you so tediously listed, pick JUST your favorite and I will apply all my critical analytical skills to it as I would any supposedly reputable paper in a scientific journal.
Try to provide both your “favorite” and most recent.


Well, why not stick with post #47, before running off to something else.

——————————————————————-

Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

The linkage between atmospheric CO2 and the so-called “green-house” effect is yet another mistake widely distributed and uncritically accepted.

Exactly what is “mistaken” about it when thousands of “tedious” publications report on different aspects of its measurable reality?

Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

In a greenhouse, green plants would thrive on the CO2 within. IF it were elevated; but it isn’t. Green plants absorb CO2 and along with water, and fertilyzer, produce glucose to meet their own needs and grow profusely in a well-maintained greenhouse.  Ambient CO2 levels are always low since the ability of green plants to absorb and use it is so efficient.

And your point is?  Are you trying to say a gardener’s well controlled greenhouse is an apt analogy for how the intricacies of our atmosphere and biosphere functions?

As for the term “Greenhouse Gases,” that was coined because it imaged a simple concept in a way a more “accurate” term couldn’t have.  And as with all analogies it has its limitations.  (for example I hear tell, from experts, the Big Bang had nothing to do with a “Bang”)
—————————————————————-

Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

So why is CO2 considered a “greenhouse gas”? Green plants don’t emit it, and use it very efficiently to grow and prosper. Similarly, green ocean plants exist in vast concentrations; they also absorb CO2.  And fortuitously, these plants EMIT O2 (oxygen) on which almost all animals depend for life.

Oh yea, gotta love them ‘green ocean plants’ ~ too bad the levels of CO2 in our oceans are increasing and the lowering pH of the oceans is a recognized threat to their future well being.

Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

Animals including humans - now approaching 7 BILLION strong - emit CO2 and methane gases.

You should know from your science reading that industrial produced CO2 has a different “signature” and that this “chemical signature” has been recorded and verified.  The increasing CO2 is not fart based - it is fuel based.

Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

Is the atmosphere a “greenhouse” making excess CO2, or can increases be explained by animal-emitted CO2 and methane?

I don’t know of anyone who’s suggested that the atmosphere “produces” CO2.  I have seen suggestions that the human injection of CO2 - well above the natural background balance will continue doing its natural thing by absorbing and re-emitting heat as CO2 molecules are known to do.  Thus we do have global warming.

Since, I’m not a scientist and sometimes must reduce these mussings to a level I can fully comprehend - mind if I ask you about Earth’s greatest temperature proxy - that is our cryosphere.  Why is that melting everywhere?  Oh and if you want to reply “Oh no, in Antarctica it’s increasing”  might I ask you to look at the entire continent and to also discuss the meteorological conditions leading to those localized increases in snow fall?

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  260
Joined  2010-05-18

Sorry cholie!!

There’s nothing in your post # 47 on which I will dwell.

I asked for a recent publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal - and maybe I failed to add that I’m totally uninterested in reviews, speeches, books, etc. such publications are not reviewed at all by scientific peers.

And to add insult to injury, such publications cannot possibly be “up-to-date”. They are little more than outdated textbooks.

NO, I DID MENTION THAT!!

Ball is in your court!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05
Analytic - 01 July 2010 12:02 PM

There’s nothing in your post # 47 on which I will dwell.

I asked for a recent publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal - and maybe I failed to add that I’m totally uninterested in reviews, speeches, books, etc. such publications are not reviewed at all by scientific peers.

You cite a newspaper article while demanding us to have access to peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am not the least bit surprised you refuse to discuss post #47.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  260
Joined  2010-05-18

I mentioned that newspaper article ONLY to show that the word, “apocalypse”, or a synonym, has been used many times in connection with the “greenhouse effect” which will ultimate in the “end times”.

Since the mid-90s, the forebrain deprived have used such exaggerations. It is stereotypical of many proponents of AGW to inflame emotions by using such dire consequence scenarios.
—————————————————————————-
Some just seem to want to tie tincans to the tail of someone who doesn’t “group think” like the “thousands” of quasi scientists - and of course themselves.

Have at it. Fortunately I am not susceptible to those who want to proselytize me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05
Analytic - 01 July 2010 01:40 PM

Since the mid-90s, the forebrain deprived have used such exaggerations. It is stereotypical of many proponents of AGW to inflame emotions by using such dire consequence scenarios.

And it is typical of deniers of all stripes to set impossibly high standards of evidence in debates. You demand peer-reviewed publications knowing full well no one on this board has access to those publications. When we point you to publicly available synopses of peer-reviewed literature, often written by professional climatologists,you sneer and say “Not good enough.” Yet when you cite an easily refuted synopsis that supports your opinion you refuse to discuss it further.

You are intellectually dishonest.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  260
Joined  2010-05-18

How can a forebrain deprived person call anyone else “INTELLCTUALLY DISHONEST” with a straight face?

You want acceptance of a low-grade, hair-brained excuse of a “climate predictor” when NO MODEL can begin to forcast “climate”?

I tire of this sophomoric exercise.

As a moderator, I tire of posts that are only used for flaming.  This is ground for banning.  Please keep your posts on topic and temperate.

[ Edited: 01 July 2010 02:23 PM by Occam ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

Analytic, insults are suggestive of cognitive dissonance.

Analytic - 01 July 2010 01:40 PM

I mentioned that newspaper article ONLY to show that the word, “apocalypse”, or a synonym, has been used many times in connection with the “greenhouse effect” which will ultimate in the “end times”.

Not by climate scientists.

It is used by people who wrongly dramatize the effects as is done in that article you linked.

It is also used by people like yourself, who, as a means of dismissing the evidence, want to dramatize the nonscientific, outlandish conclusions some people have drawn.

In neither case is the usage useful in a reasoned argument.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

My how they do dance.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

How about simply considering basic principles.
Got any thoughtful commentary on post #63?

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Analytic - 01 July 2010 12:02 PM

Sorry cholie!!
There’s nothing in your post # 47 on which I will dwell.

Why not?  It is central to understanding a critical component of our dynamic climate.

Out dated?  Well come up with a more recent study supporting Gerlich’s supposition, I don’t think you can.

Also, can we please keep in mind we are seeking to learn about… and somewhat understand, our planet’s ageless climate.  Basic principles haven’t changed in the past few years.

A, it takes quite the hutzpah for a “climate science skeptic” to lament about using outdated studies.

Analytic - 25 June 2010 06:38 AM

TA,
At the site you linked, Gerlich wrote the following in a Physics Journal:

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.
In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

>>> For one, you are making a false assumption that the above factors are the only ones influencing Earth’s dynamics.  Earth is not a Black Body Radiation equation!  Above you’re talking about pure physical principles and equations… But, you forget to admit this stuff is the map and not the territory.  Our atmosphere is a dynamic multi layered and intermingling entity - yet you never speak to that physical reality.  Why?

To be quite frank, using the above supposition to presume to overturn a centuries worth of science seems disingenuous ~ if not dishonest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, there’s another side to the story…

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html
Title:    COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS”
Received 11 March 2010[/size]
Abstract:   
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error.

1)  Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process,

2)  and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere.

3)  They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.

4)  Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows,
they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night,
an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption.

5)  This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.


Ball is in your court cholie   smirk

[ Edited: 01 July 2010 05:42 PM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Analytic - 01 July 2010 01:40 PM

I mentioned that newspaper article ONLY to show that the word, “apocalypse”, or a synonym, has been used many times in connection with the “greenhouse effect” which will ultimate in the “end times”.

Can I point out this is an example of how you only want to attack
and show no interest in hearing or learning anything new.

Salt to injury, you also seem so easy to degrade and name call…
Why you gotta be like that?

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 05:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Analytic - 01 July 2010 12:02 PM

There’s nothing in your post # 47 on which I will dwell.

I asked for a recent publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal - and maybe I failed to add that I’m totally uninterested in reviews, speeches, books, etc. such publications are not reviewed at all by scientific peers.

Analytic - 01 July 2010 01:40 PM

Since the mid-90s, the forebrain deprived have used such exaggerations. It is stereotypical of many proponents of AGW to inflame emotions by using such dire consequence scenarios.


Ahh,
Someone is confused here:

International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
Condensed Matter Physics; Statistical Physics; Applied Physics
Forthcoming Articles | Current Issue | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | All Volumes (1987-2010)
Volume: 23, Issue: 3(2009) pp. 275-364   DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Abstract | Full Text (PDF, 1,714KB) | References
Title:    FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
Author(s):   
GERHARD GERLICH et al.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
   
HOME > JOURNALS BY SUBJECT > PHYSICS/MATERIALS SCIENCE > IJMPB
International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
Condensed Matter Physics; Statistical Physics; Applied Physics
Forthcoming Articles | Current Issue | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | All Volumes (1987-2010)
Volume: 24, Issue: 10(2010) pp. 1309-1332   DOI: 10.1142/S021797921005555X
Abstract | Full Text (PDF, 832KB) | References
Title:    COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS”
Author(s):   
JOSHUA B. HALPERN et al.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do you see when you look at #47
ps.  why the need for all the insults?

[ Edited: 02 July 2010 03:38 PM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2010 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26

Damn, Analytic’s getting all worked up.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 7
5