The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

1. I see a lot references to CO2 and very few references to temp. My claim made zero references to CO2 so I don't know why you brought it up. My argument is strickly based on temp. Since GW is about the temp, lets start there.

What would you like to know about the temperature? That it has increased massively? It has. If you want to say that it's not due to the massive increases in CO2, you can't, as it's been shown by laser absorption spectroscopy that CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation extraordinarily efficiently.

2. There have been max extinctions way before we came along and countless species which have gone extinct since humans were around but before the burning of fossil fuel. It happens. The warming of the Earth can have positive AND negative effects. When all you do is spew the negative, you come across as a doomsdayer and the doomsday scenerio as put forth forth by the GW alarmist has ZERO credibility.

I don't think anyone is worried about the positive effects, but the negative ones.

3. We control it? Its a chaotic system. Please show where we controlled it. We don't control the climate and we can't control the climate. This claim stinks of pure arrogance.

But we have controlled the climate, without even being aware of it. Mankind has generated billions of tons of CO2, which is proven, and CO2 absorbs high amounts of infra-red energy, which is also proven.

So we can, we did, and now we need to do so again.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

1- Dave's an idiot. CO2 effects are log, not linear. Even his beloved IPCC agrees to this.

Although I haven't addressed this point at all in the past so I'm not sure to what you're referring, CO2 has a log relationship, and you're right. Unfortunately any damage occurs long before the chart flattens out.

2- yup. References to mass extinctions are again idiotic when all they do is enforce the correct view that these happened without our influence, and in fact had little to do with any global warming.

Well it's difficult to say that with certainty -- although most arguments for the extinction of dinosaurs involve some form of climate change.

3- it stinks of pure dogma. Dave's views: temps are increasing long term and CO2 caused it. None of this is proven. One lie depends on the other.

Actually it is proven. You can even do the experiments yourself. CO2 molecules by their very nature absorb IR, then re-emit it in a random direction. I even posted the chart of energy absorption of CO2 showing that it absorbs IR in two separate ways due to its bonds. Would you like the graph again?

Solar radiation controls the earth's temp through increased water vapor. Water vapor is dependent on temps, and has 95% of the heating effects on us. The IPCC and most others ignore this. End of story.

Unfortunately that's not the end of the story as water vapor levels can also contribute to warming.

But dumbass Dave replied to me that it couldn't be cuz we're at a solar minimum, which has an 11 yr cycle. An 11 yr cycle is insignificant if you're trying to disprove the solar influence on long term temp changes. It's garbage. Meanwhile, Dave's beloved NASA has been measuring solar radiation since the mid 70's, and they say it's been going up.

Show us.

Now watch, Dave will ask for links, proving that he doesn't even know what the evidence he's arguing against.

I can't see if your point has merit unless you link, yes.

 

[FeenixRizin]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Although I haven't addressed this point at all in the past so I'm not sure to what you're referring, CO2 has a log relationship, and you're right. Unfortunately any damage occurs long before the chart flattens out.



Well it's difficult to say that with certainty -- although most arguments for the extinction of dinosaurs involve some form of climate change.



Actually it is proven. You can even do the experiments yourself. CO2 molecules by their very nature absorb IR, then re-emit it in a random direction. I even posted the chart of energy absorption of CO2 showing that it absorbs IR in two separate ways due to its bonds. Would you like the graph again?



Unfortunately that's not the end of the story as water vapor levels can also contribute to warming.



Show us.



I can't see if your point has merit unless you link, yes.

Ok, I'm bored, and quite irritated by this line of argument.


Let's say that CO2 absorbs IR , where would the effects of this be most seen?


Answer: The Atmosphere.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd5feb97_1.htm



I typically avoid bashing people's religion, but this shit is out of hand. I challenge you to find recent data for this .... I'm bored, but not that bored

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from FeenixRizin:

Ok, I'm bored, and quite irritated by this line of argument.

Let's say that CO2 absorbs IR , where would the effects of this be most seen?

Answer: The Atmosphere.

Your graph is out of date, from almost ten years ago, from the NASA archive and even then it has a massive red splotch on the right side of it (which means much warmer). It's worth noting on your small graph that 1998 was an el-nino year.

Worse yet, your graph is from the TIROS satellite -- I addressed this just a few posts back. If you'd like to see why the satellite measures were already found to be inaccurate, just read this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

Here's the real, long term graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

I typically avoid bashing people's religion, but this shit is out of hand. I challenge you to find recent data for this .... I'm bored, but not that bored

Now that you've seen the whole graph, rather than the old archive graph, what does it look like to you?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This guy just doesn't quit. That graph is straight out of nutcase Hansen's discredited report. The temp data are erroneous. I showed this about 30 pages back. It is part and parcel of hansen's erroneous claim about the last ten years being warmest on record. Basically anything connected to hansen's NASA goddard operation is useless. His models have been found to be faulty and his data erroneous.

Arguing with dave is pointless, as he is just here on assignment from who knows where to spread disinformation. He did the same thing during the election, then disappeared for a while, probably until he landed another internship or maybe a paying job in your federal government.

Say dave, is it true that a lot of the campaign volunteers are pissed off about getting screwed out of jobs in favor of journos and children of big contributors? I know quite a few Obamatons who feel betrayed. Of course, they still get the shivers up the leg when they are allowed close to him.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



1-Unfortunately any damage occurs long before the chart flattens out.

2-Well it's difficult to say that with certainty -- although most arguments for the extinction of dinosaurs involve some form of climate change.

3-Actually it is proven.

4-Unfortunately that's not the end of the story as water vapor levels can also contribute to warming.

5-Show us.

1- what damage? Another .8C warming? That's less than the error range Dave. Do you know the significance of that?

2- IOW, you don't know why you threw that out there in the first place....

3- yes, CO2 increases the retention of long wave radiation. That's not in dispute. But it's insignificant compared to the effects of water vapor and clouds. And OUR changes in total CO2 is insignificant to the total CO2 levels. Our contribution is estimated at next to nothing.

4- now you're agreeing with me that wv is THE significant cause of GW? And that you admit that to answer that the solar cycle to be at a minimum "right now" is foolish cuz we're talking longer term?

5- so then you admit that you have no idea what the main objections to MMGW is? This is the crux of our disagreement, and you admit here that you have no idea why we say what we say. I know what the believers in MMGW say, why aren't you at least a little bit familiar with the position that someone who disagrees with you has to say? The lack of skepticism on your part is staggering....

Google is your friend, Dave. Do some research and make your own decisions before you humiliate yourself any further by preaching what you've read on the DNC website.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



Now that you've seen the whole graph, rather than the old archive graph, what does it look like to you?

I'll tell you what it looks like to me:

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned that there was a cooling period between 1940-80, and you disputed it.

Now this graph shows that clear as day.

Your credibility just got destroyed....... by you.

This ability to disregard this fact when it goes against your religious beliefs is what is known as cognitive dissonance.

You're a useful idiot, Dave.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This guy just doesn't quit. That graph is straight out of nutcase Hansen's discredited report. The temp data are erroneous. I showed this about 30 pages back. It is part and parcel of hansen's erroneous claim about the last ten years being warmest on record. Basically anything connected to hansen's NASA goddard operation is useless. His models have been found to be faulty and his data erroneous.

That's very awkward given that Feenix just quoted NASA.

Feenix, would you like to address AAA's contention that NASA doesn't understand science?

Arguing with dave is pointless, as he is just here on assignment from who knows where to spread disinformation. He did the same thing during the election, then disappeared for a while, probably until he landed another internship or maybe a paying job in your federal government.

I have a few days to kill and this is a pretty straightforward concept that can be explained to anyone.

This is more of an observational experiment about trading, to be honest. I'm not a subscriber to the "efficient market" school of thought.and so I'm wondering about trading styles. It's kind of an experiment to see how far out traders can get.

Say dave, is it true that a lot of the campaign volunteers are pissed off about getting screwed out of jobs in favor of journos and children of big contributors? I know quite a few Obamatons who feel betrayed. Of course, they still get the shivers up the leg when they are allowed close to him.

I've never been an Obama volunteer. Actually, and we've had this conversation before, I'm a fiscal conservative and social moderate which is why I won't be voting for the Republican party any time soon.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

I'll tell you what it looks like to me:

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned that there was a cooling period between 1940-80, and you disputed it.

As you can see the graph is centered on "zero" temperature anomaly. Temperature anomalies close to zero are not cool, they are normal, therefore you were wrong.

Now this graph shows that clear as day.

Not really, you'd have to misunderstand the graph. There are a few years in there which had a lower than zero temperature anomaly, but not the range between 1940 and 1980.

Your credibility just got destroyed....... by you.

This ability to disregard this fact when it goes against your religious beliefs is what is known as cognitive dissonance.

You're a useful idiot, Dave.

The entire range from 1940 -1947 has a positive temperature anomaly (ie, above average temperatures) along with a cluster of years around 1960.

It's not measuring the absolute temperature, but how much higher above normal the temperature is, thus only the part of the graph below zero would indicate a cooler year (and yes, some years are cooler and some are hotter, just not a forty year stretch of cooler years as you claimed.)

Further, cherry picking a small range from a graph and trying to pretend that it reflects a trend (such as pretending that the Earth got cooler from 1940-1980) does not help your case.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



Not really, you'd have to misunderstand the graph.

You've never traded a stock in your entire life, have you Dave?