Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Marvin the Martian on 19 Feb 2010 14:29 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:17:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/18/10 10:38 AM, Bill Ward wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:28:10 +0000, Cwatters 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. >>> >>> Explain how that applies to Venus. Venus has a lot of CO2, and not >>> much water vapour, yet the greenhouse effect has raised it to 600K. >> >> Venus has a lot more atmosphere than Earth, so the surface pressure is >> much higher. The lapse rate from the radiating layer down to the >> surface causes the high surface temperatures. As the altitude >> decreases, the temperature increases because of adiabatic compression. > > Cite References Please. Don't be stupid. Lazy and ignorant is not an argument, and it not only fails to impress, it exposes you as a troll. If you really wanted to know, you could have picked up a CRC Handbook of Chemistry and physics, or even just googled. Earth and Venus in Wikipedia and gotten the answer. But you're not motivated to find the truth. You're motivated to defend your wrong position and are just seeking ways of wasting the time of the intelligent people who debunk your blather, just to be annoying. That's the problem with you folks: you think you're being annoying little sociopaths is a virtue.
From: Marvin the Martian on 19 Feb 2010 14:31 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:30:14 +0000, Cwatters wrote: > "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message > news:icKdnWNeoqhILeHWnZ2dnUVZ_h-mnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > I, and Jones, said there was no warming. Specifically, there has been > > no >> warming since 1995. > > No he said their hadn't been statistically significant warming since > 1995. There is a difference. No there isn't. And yes, I've read your idiot argument that "no statistically significant" really means "significant", and it's the drivel of a gibbering idiot who doesn't understand statistics.
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Feb 2010 18:24 On 2/19/10 1:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > Don't be stupid. Lazy and ignorant is not an argument, and it not only > fails to impress, it exposes you as a troll. > > If you really wanted to know, you could have picked up a CRC Handbook of > Chemistry and physics, or even just googled. Earth and Venus in Wikipedia > and gotten the answer. > > But you're not motivated to find the truth. You're motivated to defend > your wrong position and are just seeking ways of wasting the time of the > intelligent people who debunk your blather, just to be annoying. That's > the problem with you folks: you think you're being annoying little > sociopaths is a virtue. NATURE: Setting the climate record straight A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second working group discusses recent criticisms http://cl.exct.net/?qs=926acdd1e8d6491ea2e8fb55d81badb5354e09a09f6cce5b381c56c97d6a7584 The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year assessments or being the source of information and being able to respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.
From: Marvin the Martian on 19 Feb 2010 19:56 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:24:17 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/19/10 1:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >> Don't be stupid. Lazy and ignorant is not an argument, and it not only >> fails to impress, it exposes you as a troll. >> >> If you really wanted to know, you could have picked up a CRC Handbook >> of >> Chemistry and physics, or even just googled. Earth and Venus in >> Wikipedia and gotten the answer. >> >> But you're not motivated to find the truth. You're motivated to defend >> your wrong position and are just seeking ways of wasting the time of >> the intelligent people who debunk your blather, just to be annoying. >> That's the problem with you folks: you think you're being annoying >> little sociopaths is a virtue. > > NATURE: Setting the climate record straight > > A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second working group discusses > recent criticisms > > http://cl.exct.net/? qs=926acdd1e8d6491ea2e8fb55d81badb5354e09a09f6cce5b381c56c97d6a7584 > > > The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's > preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide > whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year > assessments or being the source of information and being able to > respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries. Is this a "free association moment" for you, Wormley? The issue was comparison between Venus and Earth and using that to PROVE that ... what? AGW is caused by CO2? I pointed out how absurd that is, as Venus (and even my planet, the now frozen rock Mars) has much more CO2 than Earth. In rebuttal, you get off the subject of the science with an idiot political story in an idiot's rag about how the IPCC co-chair completely exonerate himself and the IPCC from the fact that they were caught telling bald faced lies about glaciers melting (your favorite "proof" of man made global warming, I note) and how the Netherlands is half underwater or some other silly lie. They used fictional data, they perverted the Peer review process into something that it isn't and used it as a propaganda machine, they were caught running it as a scam and personally getting rich from it. Which is disgusting, but has nothing at all to do with the comparison of the greenhouse effects of CO2 of other planets to earth. You don't even SEE that, do you? You just have a list of URLs that you seem to pick at random and post.
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Feb 2010 22:15
On 2/19/10 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:24:17 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: >> NATURE: Setting the climate record straight >> >> A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second working group discusses >> recent criticisms >> >> http://cl.exct.net/? > qs=926acdd1e8d6491ea2e8fb55d81badb5354e09a09f6cce5b381c56c97d6a7584 >> >> >> The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's >> preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide >> whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year >> assessments or being the source of information and being able to >> respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries. > > Is this a "free association moment" for you, Wormley? The issue was > comparison between Venus and Earth and using that to PROVE that ... what? > AGW is caused by CO2? I pointed out how absurd that is, as Venus (and > even my planet, the now frozen rock Mars) has much more CO2 than Earth. > It doesn't much matter what the thread title is, Marvin--You are attempting to disparage the science of climatology without scientific justification. This behavior of the "teapot types" was discussed this afternoon on NPR's Talk of The Nation Science Friday. Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of climatologist around the world, representing tens of thousands man- years studying the changes is weather over long periods of time. Long before there was an IPCC. Furthermore, the great quantity of research data spanning many decades is rather overwhelming--The earth is warming at rates not accounted for by natural causes. We humans continue to pour copious quantities of CO2 into the environment and it is driving climate change. Most every thread you have comment in (usually you just attack posters, organizations and data sources without scientific scrutiny) is easily rebutted by the issues referred to in this document: http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf There are not enough sensors on other planets to explain what is happening right here right now. Look at the observables, Marvin! |