Climate Change!

[Greatcloud]

LOL. Thanks Greatcloud, that was hilarious! It's good to have a laugh once in a while. There should be a climate change humor section.

Now here's a few pointers:

1. The concept that CO2 absorbs in the IR region of the spectrum is pretty much settled science since about the 1850's. You want to prove it to yourself? Go talk to a chemistry teacher at a local community college. Have them show you an FTIR (an IR spectrometer) and have them run a "background" scan for you. This is what it will look like:

See that deep, deep valley around 2350 wavenumbers there? That's due to CO2. IT ABSORBS IR RADIATION.

2. Your wonderful video there also would have me believe that there's no difference in "greenhouse gas functionality" between a closed bottle with standing water in it and a bottle of "dry air". Well, interestingly enough, H2O is an even stronger greenhouse gas!

Look at that picture I just posted up there. See those valleys around 1600 wavenumbers? That's largley due to water.

Do you know why these molecules absorb IR?

3. Because they have the right kind of bonds and molecular motions to be uniquely capable of absorbing IR. It's pretty basic physics and you can, if you so care to, learn more about it HERE

Remember: when a vidiot using plastic bottles and a heat lamp suggests that he is able to overturn 150 years of pretty solid science that has been proven time and again using a number of techniques, you might want to ask what they are really saying. How much of standard science has to be destroyed in order to account for the video maker's hypothesis?

Just about all of it.

Or, gosh, who knows, it could be that:

1. The video maker didn't really know what he was measuring (no one debates that CO2 can't re-emit IR and heat)

2. The video maker found results that do not match up with 150 years of actual science while running an experiment using plastic bottles, stick on thermometers and a heat lamp. Could he have made some foundational errors? Or is it more likely that 150 years of science are simply wrong?

The point of the expierament was not that CO2 can't re-emit heat it was that CO2 does not hold heat very well, as is proclaimed by the theory.

 

[Greatcloud]

Satellite readings of temps. in the lower troposphere show no warming since readings began there 23 years ago. Only land based stations show warming and are often contaminated by urban heat island effect. They are also subject to human error. These stations also do not cover the entire globe.

Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2 « An Honest Climate Debate

For RickG or Rambot.

I would like to debate this issue with somebody.

 

[rambot]

I would like to debate this issue with somebody.

It's kinda hard to take an article like this too seriously when the article on the front page of the source website basically says "If you take away all the warming and the cooling there hasn't been much of a warming trend".

 

[thaumaturgy]

.....

 

[thaumaturgy]

The point of the expierament was not that CO2 can't re-emit heat it was that CO2 does not hold heat very well, as is proclaimed by the theory.

Note that at 8'10" the video maker clearly states that he believes that this proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Now the fact that the watervapor apparently didn't do more than dry air is another indication that something was wrong.

When you are doing science this is the kind of thing you look for. Is something not right about the "blanks"?

So what could have been going on here?

Well, CO2 does absorb IR. This is known. It is non-controversial and has been so for about 150 years. Even the FTIR background scan I showed you proved this point.

Now, the re-radiation of that heat is another matter, but the greenhouse effect doesn't mean that CO2 can't re-radiate the heat. It does however act to absorb and re-radiate it in all directions, including downward. This keeps heat near the surface, but ultimately the IR radiation is emitted away into space.

It just has to go to higher and higher levels in the atmosphere in order to do that.

The "greenhouse effect" is hardly controversial at all.

In order for this yahoo to have made this statement he would have to explain where the energy that the CO2 absorbs goes.

Another thing to keep in mind is:

1. He's using plastic bottles
2. Hitting them with a few seconds of IR from a heater
3. Then watching stick on thermometers (hardly the most accurate system available) as they drop.

I can see something that bothers me right off the bat:

A. The CO2 bottle is near the side of the heater, could it be getting irradiated somewhat less?

B. Presumably the plastic bottle is getting the bulk of the heat and I wonder if the temperature being measure is actually the bottle temperature. Or possibly just the HEATED AIR TEMPERATURE ALL AROUND THE BOTTLES. Which is more likely?

C. Why would there be no difference between dry air and moist air? That's quite disturbing.

It is a nice picture, but there are too many unanswered questions. Too crudely done.

He tells us he's done this numerous times. But then in order to disprove 150 years of science done by actual scientists all over the planet he will have to explain why his findings are so OUT OF LINE WITH HOW WE KNOW CO2 MOLECULES TO BEHAVE.

OR even H2O molecules for that matter.

 

[RickG]

<staff edit>

<staff edit>

And still I will not retract my statement that your list does not contain 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm". A number of the say nothing about AGW and even more are not even "peer reviewed."

Simply drop the "peer reviewed" claim, remove the ones from the list that do not support the against AGW claim and I'll have no issue with the list.

 

[Greatcloud]

Satellite readings of temps. in the lower troposphere show no warming since readings began there 23 years ago. Only land based stations show warming and are often contaminated by urban heat island effect. They are also subject to human error. These stations also do not cover the entire globe.

Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2 « An Honest Climate Debate

For RickG or Rambot.

What do you think of this data with satellite readings of the lower troposphere ?

 

[CabVet]

What do you think of this data with satellite readings of the lower troposphere ?

How many answers do you want for that question? Or are you just repeating it to try to find somebody that agrees with you?

 

[rambot]

What do you think of this data with satellite readings of the lower troposphere ?

What do you think about the thousands upon thousands of studies provided thus far that contradict that?

 

[RickG]

What do you think of this data with satellite readings of the lower troposphere ?

The problem is not the data, it is what it is representing, the lower troposphere. You might as well try forwarding the stratosphere is cooling argument as well. The place of concern is the surface. Land and ocean surface temperatures. And if you really want to discuss what is heating the most, its the Oceans.

BTW, speaking of the oceans, are you familiar with thermal inertia?

 

[Cromulent]

The point of the expierament was not that CO2 can't re-emit heat it was that CO2 does not hold heat very well, as is proclaimed by the theory.

If you can say this, you clearly don't understand the theory.

It says nothing about the specific heat capacity of CO2.

 

[CabVet]

<staff edit>

Hmmm... Soooo strong! I give up! You win! Great post #10, welcome to CF!

 

[Poptech]

<staff edit>

Prove me wrong,

1. Link to any comment of mine on Skeptical Science that I posted that still exists.

2. Name the counted paper on the list that was not peer-reviewed and provide evidence it was not peer-reviewed.

3. Name the counted paper on the list that does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Surely you can do it none of the other jokers can.

 

[Poptech]

Anyway back to the ultimate failure championships,

1. Link to any comment of mine on Skeptical Science that I posted that still exists.

2. Name the counted paper on the list that was not peer-reviewed and provide evidence it was not peer-reviewed.

3. Name the counted paper on the list that does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Who will fail first?

 

[CabVet]

Anyway back to the ultimate failure championships,

1. Link to any comment of mine on Skeptical Science that I posted that still exists.

2. Name the counted paper on the list that was not peer-reviewed and provide evidence it was not peer-reviewed.

3. Name the counted paper on the list that does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Who will fail first?

While I have neither patience nor expertise required to rebuke your points, I would like to say that a two of the very first papers in your list violate your rule #2 above:

Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

These papers were submitted but not published, so they did not go through peer review and should not be in the list. Again, I did not go over the list in detail, but I am sure some here will.

 

[CabVet]

More not published papers:

- Response to "Comment on &#8216;Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'" by Foster et al. (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

- Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
- David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

- On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications (PDF)
(Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2010)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

 

[Poptech]

While I have neither patience nor expertise required to rebuke your points, I would like to say that a two of the very first papers in your list violate your rule #2 above:

Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

These papers were submitted but not published, so they did not go through peer review and should not be in the list. Again, I did not go over the list in detail, but I am sure some here will.

<staff edit>

Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers. There are many more listings than just the over 900 counted papers,

Unreal.

 

[RickG]

<staff edit>

Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers. There are many more listings than just the over 900 counted papers,

Unreal.

[FONT=&quot]Oh no! , CabVet is much more literate than I am. But while I'm here, let me just mention a few of the papers on your list.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003) Nir J. Shaviv

Ice Age Epochs and the Sun&#8217;s Path Through the Galaxy (The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 626, Issue 2, pp. 844-848, June 2005) D. R. Gies, J. W. Helsel[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Neither of those has anything to do with the current climate change, much less AGW/ACC Alarm. But they are peer reviewed. Cudo's for that.

And this one doesn't even mention Earth's climate.

[FONT=&quot] Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996) H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri [/FONT]

Oh! one other thing. How is it that the CATO Journal and the magazine Waste Management qualify as a peer review source? Really, I used to receive Waste Management at one of my previous positions. It is not a peer review journal.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

<staff edit>

So, do you accept AGW?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

<staff edit>

I'll take that as a provisional "yes."

To what extent has man contributed to GW?