Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Igor on 17 Feb 2010 18:38 On Feb 17, 12:22 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the > science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, > those details being: > > 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. There'd better be warming. Else it would be too cold for life. And who is Jones? > 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. Both do. But CO2 doesn't cycle into and out of the atmosphere as quickly. Hence the potential problem. > 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. We certainly put some of it into the atmosphere. What do you think is a by product of so many chemical reactions? > 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. It's still an open question. Apparently one that's too complicated for your silly litte brain. > 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. So much for silly sophomoric statements.
From: Marvin the Martian on 17 Feb 2010 21:45 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:32:14 -0600, Baron wrote: > "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message > news:zemdnfpQkPlRuOHWnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the >> science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, >> those details being: >> >> 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. 2) CO2 doesn't >> cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. 3) We didn't put the CO2 >> into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. 4) AGW science isn't >> science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. 5) If there was warming, >> it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. >> >> Gawd, Humans are a gullible species. I can't believe you fell for AGW. > > They elected Obama, inexperienced extreme leftist socialist. Yep, at > least 53% of the voters in USA are stupid morons. I don't want to get into politics, but Obama promised them all kinds of money in the form of "tax credits" for people who don't pay taxes, telling "Joe the Plumber" that he was going to redistribute the wealth. So far, only bankers, Car Executives, the UAW, Goldman Sachs, and AIG have gotten anything, and they're getting trillions of dollars; what amounts to almost 7 k$ from each man, woman and child in the US. All the 50% of the folks who were going to get tax credits and don't pay taxes got is a promise to be taxed into poverty with the "Carbon Credits" until coal states "go bankrupt" and electricity is too expensive to use. Instead of getting someone else's hard earned bucks, the average Obama voter can look forward to paying through the nose for gasoline and heating oil, being unemployed, and freezing to death while being told that Global Warming will kill us all.
From: Sam Wormley on 17 Feb 2010 22:14 On 2/17/10 8:45 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > I don't want to get into politics, but Obama promised them all kinds of > money in the form of "tax credits" for people who don't pay taxes, > telling "Joe the Plumber" that he was going to redistribute the wealth. > > So far, only bankers, Car Executives, the UAW, Goldman Sachs, and AIG > have gotten anything, and they're getting trillions of dollars You are uninformed on the tax cut issues.
From: Marvin the Martian on 17 Feb 2010 22:15 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:38:01 -0800, Igor wrote: > On Feb 17, 12:22 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the >> science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, >> those details being: >> >> 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. > > There'd better be warming. Else it would be too cold for life. And who > is Jones? I, and Jones, said there was no warming. Specifically, there has been no warming since 1995. Not that there is a AGW hypothesis to test other than "it will get warmer as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase", but what we've observed is that as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased, the mean global temperature either didn't change, or decreased. In real science this would me that the hypothesis would be rejected. You seem to have confused "warming" as in a global increase in temperature, with the greenhouse effect. I didn't say there was no greenhouse effect, as is highlighted in problem 2. >> 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > > Both do. But CO2 doesn't cycle into and out of the atmosphere as > quickly. Hence the potential problem. Again, water vapor contributes the vast bulk of the greenhouse effect. Some 30 Kelvins. You're NOT going to get rid of the water vapor, due to earth's oceans. The way the AGW propagandist count it, they do CO2 first, and then water vapor. No... that's deceptive as the water vapor is going to be there no matter what. The effects of CO2 are like wearing lightly tinted Ray-Bans under your welding goggles. Yes, it may absorb 3 dB, but it's 3 dB of next to nothing. Hence the calculated 0.03 Kelvins of warming attributed to the increased level of CO2. As for the "cycling" red herring, CO2 exists in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans, and ocean CO2 concentration is fixed by temperature. This "cycling" argument is also based on the false premise that the only sequestered source of carbon (by isotope ratio) is fossil fuels, ignoring that carbonate rocks in the sea are a VAST source of sequestered carbon. We couldn't possibly have put that much old carbon into the ocean/atmosphere system! We produce about 5.5 GtC per year into a system of 40,000 GtC. >> 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. > > We certainly put some of it into the atmosphere. What do you think is a > by product of so many chemical reactions? No, we didn't put squat, as not even a trivial amount (okay, first order trivial). That's simple chemistry. The amount of CO2 in the ocean is determined by temperature alone. That's undergrad chem 101 stuff. The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in the oceans is also fixed by temperature. If we add CO2 to the atmosphere, 95% of it is absorbed into the oceans. If this increases the CO2 equilibrium of the oceans above the equilibrium constant, it precipitates out as carbonate rock. In other words, if the amount of CO2 in the air is A, and the amount of CO2 in the ocean is O, then we note from chemistry: A/B = a constant. O = a constant. So, adding more to A means that the additional amount is removed by the equilibrium process. >> 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. > > It's still an open question. Apparently one that's too complicated for > your silly litte brain. Ad hominem noted. However, given Climategate (the CRU e-mails and other documents) and now Climategate II it appears that irrational gibber is all that anyone could offer in defense of the association that AGW is bullshit and leftist propaganda. >> 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. > > So much for silly sophomoric statements. Again you offer Ad hominem gibberish. Given that history has shown that the medieval warm period was a period of good health and prosperity, the claims of disaster due to similar warming are overstated. No paper on the coming disaster has explained why the MWP was not bad for humans, while a new warming period means megadeath.
From: Benj on 18 Feb 2010 00:57
On Feb 17, 4:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/17/10 11:22 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > > 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. > > 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > > 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. > > Three strikes and yer out! Marvin! > > There is lots of evidence that the earth is warming at an > accelerating rate. You bet, Marvin! I just saw all the proof I need on PBS. Extinction of whales, extinction of polar bears, in general hoards and hoards of poor suffering polar animals begging mankind for more ICE. It was very heart-rendering and sad I tell ya! The nightly news and newspapers abound with statements proving global warming. What more scientific proof do ya need? > CO2 is a well know greenhouse gas, it is the major driver > of this warming trend and we add to its increase by burning > fossil fuels, making cement and concrete and by reducing > CO2 sinks. Hitler says if you repeat a big lie often enough the people will believe it. The bigger the lie the more they will believe it. The Fuhrer points out that ordinary people are familiar with minor "white" lies. They can see governments doing that, but somehow they just can't imagine a government telling a huge lie so large that it defies all credibility and yet they believe it hook, line and sinker! > Climate Change Factsheet > > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Fac... Here's your proof, bunky. It's a "fact sheet" from a AGW promotion organization. Worm posts this link over and over as it it were some kind of proof of something. <snip remaining bullshit> Note the proper use of propaganda techniques here. Worm starts with a true statement (CO2 IS a "greenhouse gas") and then immediately veers off into the big lie (that Earth atmosphere CO2 can have anything more than a miniscule effect on climate). "Sam Wormley" (if that is in fact a real person and I strongly suspect it is not) clearly has lined up at the money trough with Algore. |