global warming

[AppyPappy]

Too bad you aren’t anti-troll

[Tainan]

Wifey says its a very old 'traditional' song being , in her words, "corrupted by weird people who can't dance."

Yeah, the language is Cantonese. She also thinks the song is from a special dialect area in Mainland.
My first thinking was the people are Viet. She thinks so also. So maybe its from one of the regions close to Viet Nam. Or it might be a Vietnamese video. Al ot of Vietnamese speak Chinese/Cantonese.

[Paradox]

I’ve never heard anyone make these arguments, regardless of political tilt.

I've heard #1 used here on FR all the time, but I take it as sort of a snarky joke. There is very good scientific data that indicates that the whole GW phenomena has been grossly overstated. Criminally really, because so many of these people profit from the hysteria.

[LibLieSlayer]

You are full of crap. globull warming is a scam... your eco-religion has no god. I predict a very short life span for your presence on FR..

LLS

[Jim Noble]

Did you forget to take the FR IQ test?

Your trial membership is about to expire.

[GreenAccord]

Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2011 1:14:28 AM by minervx_is_a_mental_midget

i'm anti-minervx, and anti- capital letters, but the best way conservatives can persuade people to this, is to make better arguments and put commas at random places in a sentence.

conservatives need to do a better job arguing against global warming. they usually wear pointy white hats because that's how i like to lump them all into a single category based on my own mis-perceptions.

1. it is cold or snowing in one region of the world that is normally hot. some areas get colder, but global warming is about the overall change, even if the human-based measurements of overall change have been shwon to be juiced by placement of the measuring devices.

2. co2 is a necessity for human life. yes, but that doesnt mean much, nor do apostrophes. venus has a lot of co2 for that matter. venus also has a lot of matter for that co2.

3. temperatures were far higher than this century hundreds of thousands of years ago. true, but there is one difference: the industrial revolution. a global population of 5 million could survive global warming, but a global population of 9 billion cannot. therefore, i volunteer to combat global warming by being one of the 8 billion, 995 million of the population who can't survive global warming by offing myself.

4. i post using a cell phone i bought in 2004 so i have to triple tap the keys to write out messages so capital letters are just too hard

5. i posted this during mr. foster's 9th grade life sciences class because our current study unit is on mans affect on the earth. i know its man's fault because theirs pictures of white people in SUVs in my textbook.

All typos and errors made above were purely intentional.

[raygun]

That's right. Its never incumbent on the party denying truth to prove the negative. It incumbent upon the party making the assertion of truth. The other party can argue flaws in either premise or errors in reasoning. The former primarily because that which is valid might not be sound. It can only be valid if the conclusion can not be false if the premise is true. However, it is insufficient for a scientific conclusion to merely be valid in order to derive a scientific principle; such must be a sound conclusion, i.e., the premises are indeed actually true. Furthermore, a conclusion can only be valid if the conlusion necessarily follows.

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR.¹ Wood's accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. Wood constructed two identical small contratptions a gardener would refer to as a "coldframe". He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation, become warmer, and transfer heat to the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce IR radiation. IR radiation would be either absorbed, i.e. blocked, or reflected back into the coldframe, by the glass. One coldframe was covered with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass was opaque to IR and the rock salt was transparent to it. During the first run of the experiment the rock salt covered coldframe heated faster but not the glass covered one.

He then placed a pane of glass on top of the rock salt pane. The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two.

Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. Most likely both sheets didn't have the same coefficient of thermal conductivity.

What the experiment conclusively demonstrated was that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature, than CO₂ in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures. The air within the coldframes was trapped by the sheets covering them. A parcel of air that is hotter than the air surrounding it will rise because it becomes less dense. The converse, colder air falls to the ground, because it is denser than its surroundings. Atmospheric CO₂ is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's coldframes.

The blackened cardboard in Wood's coldframes was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. On the other hand, water, covering 70% of earth's surface, is a very poor radiator of IR. It is, however, fairly opaque to IR radiation (absorbs virtually all IR radiation w/in 3m). Water releases heat primarily through evaporation (rather than radiation), and to a lesser degree conduction.

The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO₂ is a widely dispersed gas comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO₂ would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence. Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than that which interacts with CO₂. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO₂ doesn't reflect IR.

At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO₂ and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength.² Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR with 6 degrees of freedom. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules are transparent to IR radiation. Glass continuously reflects IR. It is worth mentioning that all objects emit IR radiation. This is known as blackbody radiation. The higher the temperature of an object, the higher the frequency of IR radiation emitted by any arbitrary body.

Global Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Estimates for the Base Period 1901 to 2000³

Land Surface Mean Temp.	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D	Annual
1901 to 2000 (°C)	2.8	3.2	5.0	8.1	11.1	13.3	14.3	13.8	12.0	9.3	5.9	3.7	8.5
1901 to 2000 (°F)	37.0	37.8	40.8	46.5	52.0	55.9	57.8	56.9	53.6	48.7	42.6	38.7	47.3
Sea Surface Mean Temp.	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D	Annual
1901 to 2000 (°C)	15.8	15.9	15.9	16.0	16.3	16.4	16.4	16.4	16.2	15.9	15.8	15.7	16.1
1901 to 2000 (°F)	60.5	60.6	60.7	60.9	61.3	61.5	61.5	61.4	61.1	60.6	60.4	60.4	60.9
Combined Mean Surface Temp.	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D	Annual
1901 to 2000 (°C)	12.0	12.1	12.7	13.7	14.8	15.5	15.8	15.6	15.0	14.0	12.9	12.2	13.9
1901 to 2000 (°F)	53.6	53.9	54.9	56.7	58.6	59.9	60.4	60.1	59.0	57.1	55.2	54.0	57.0

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that almost everybody will not be able to discern what is peculiar about that table. So I'm just going to have to cut to the chase and just tell you all that land temps are significantly cooler than sea temps. Evaluate that with respect to the below chart (from the above source):

The above cited source states that "The global monthly surface temperature averages in the table below can be added to a given month's anomaly (departure from the 1901 to 2000 base period average) to obtain an absolute estimate of surface temperature for that month."

Its probably just me, but that is a most and extremely fascinating statement (at least to me it is). Because no matter which temperature scale I worked with, or which time period, the sea temp is always higher than the land temps. I found that to be quite perplexing, until I smoked some doobs, drink a couple case and did some shots of Bushmill's and it suddenly jumped out at me and said: "Boo!"

It is stated that the statistics are based upon explicitely "observed" values. According to my military meteorology training I percieve "sea temp" being something completely different than station temp; the former being actually the temp of the water, while the later being some feet above whatever surface one is above while making the observation. So I applied my patented "research technique" and went to the source cited in the above cited source (WARNING: source is a 1.08MB PDF file):

The primary SST data used for this study are the ICOADS SST observations release 2, with updates through 1997 (Slutz et al. 1985: Woodruff et al. 1998). The individual observations are screened using a quality control test, and those that pass are averaged to monthly and 2° spatial superobservations. Screening is done by comparing individual anomalies to a spatial– temporal local analysis of anomalies. Values close to the local analysis value are retained [see Smith and Reynolds (2003, 2004) for details about the qualitycontrol methods]. Superobservations are defined as the average of all input data over a given grid box for a given month. For SSTs prior to 1942, the bias corrections of Smith and Reynolds (2002) are applied to correct for changes in measurement techniques.

Before 1942 most SST measurements were from ships that used buckets to bring samples of seawater onto the deck, where temperature measurements were made. Afterward it became more common to measure the temperature of the engine-intake seawater. Adjustments to the pre-1942 SSTs were developed by Folland and Parker (1995), and by Smith and Reynolds (2002). However, further analysis of the ICOADS release 2 SST by C. K. Folland (2003, personal communication) indicates that for 1939–41, the release 2 data are biased warm relative to the data used by Folland and Parker (1995). The release 2 data contain additional data, from different sources and with different bias characteristics compared to the Folland and Parker (1995) SST data.

Just based on my training from almost 1/4 century ago, I'm in the ballpark, or at least soccer stadium, with regards to the "truth" of what the statistics are based upon. No meteorologist sticks a thermometer into the soil to take a reading; none, nowhere and at no time (unless their utter and complete morons fit to be instantly discredited and summarily executed without appeal).

Many parts of the globe are inaccessible and therefore have no data. The temperature anomaly time series presented here were calculated in a way that did not require knowing the actual mean temperature of the Earth in these inaccessible areas such as mountain tops and remote parts of the Sahara Desert where there are no regularly reporting weather stations. Using the collected data available, the whole Earth long-term mean temperatures were calculated by interpolating over uninhabited deserts, inaccessible Antarctic mountains, etc. in a manner that takes into account factors such as the decrease in temperature with elevation. By adding the long-term monthly mean temperature for the Earth to each anomaly value, one can create a time series that approximates the temperature of the Earth and how it has been changing through time.

The point is that the land temps are measured at some point above the surface, probably about 2' or so. SO the land temps are actually AIR temps. Now we all know the ground can get pretty warm. SO what's the point? The point is that the air is cooler than the land (or sea). And the CO₂ is in the air.

It is absolute buffonery to believe that atomospheric CO₂ - having a wet-adiabatic lapse rate of 3.5 ^o F. / 1000' and dry adiabatic lapse rate of 5.5^o F. / 1000' - could have any heating affect whatsoever on surface temperatures of ANYTHING. Doesn't matter which rate you use (average it for all I care), air at 1000' is at least 3.5^o F. cooler than the surface. People that believe something 3.5 F^o warmer can be heated by a cooler something with thermally emitted blackbody IR probably cook their Thanxgiving turkeys by radiating them with ice-cubes. Me things they are the turkey's.

So, what's the point? Everything's getting warmer, and the sea is warmer than the air temps measured over the land, right? Remember when I said that water is opaque to IR radation (absorbing it w/in 3m)? If you don't believe that ice-cube radiation can heat up your hot coffee, where do you think the radiation is coming from to do the deed? Gee, what the heck could there possibly be hot enough to heat up water when its irradiated long enough?

Must be that dang dry-ice temp CO₂, what else could it possibly be?

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists.

======================================

1) Philosophical Magazine, 1909, vol 17; p319-320
2) Philosophical Magazine, 1913, Series 6, Volume 26, 1913; p. 1-25
3) Globabl Surface Temperature Anomolies: National Climatic Data Center - 6 February 2006

[rbudd]

I find you can’t “argue” (discuss) the issue with most true believers. My strategy is to ask them a couple of questions like:
“Do you know who John Christy is?”
“Are you familiar with Steve McIntyre’s work?”
“Do you know who Roy Spencer is?”
Their answer is usually NO to all three so I say, “Well it doesn’t make any sense to discuss it with you.” (the take away) Then I suggest that if they were open to discussing the issue (of course they’re ALL “open minded”) I suggest the one video they should watch is “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

To pique their interest to watch the video, I point out that in the video it’s alleged Margaret Thatcher used the global warming (CO2 emissions issues) to promote nuclear power and quash the coal mining union. They’re all receptive to the idea that a conservative politician subverted science for political reasons.

I find it fruitless to try to persuade people about the issue. I think if you can plant a seed of doubt, it might start them to questioning and they will learn. What works with young people is to say, “I was there for the FIRST earth day and they were concerned about global COOLING.”

I think the global warming issue is over with the general population. It’s the media+corps+govt driving it. In the past month, I’ve heard two of my liberal friends call Al Gore an a__hole (when I suggest that ethanol is not as “green” as they told us). Last week at a table of 10 liberals someone made the statement that global warming scientists lied about their data (probably a reference to CRU emails). Nobody else at the table guffawed or smacked him down him like they would have a year or two ago.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Don't forget . . .

1. The lost data (the cardinal sin that should’ve sunk this crap from the outset) from computer modeling (read: theory) using limited and distorted data points. Further, the scientists involved conspired to hide these facts. Beyond that egregious screw-up, the fact that no other scientific body sought to independently verify these data as facts is (or should be) more alarming than 50 degree C summer temps.
2. The bulk of so-called global warming occurred before the era of modern levels of fossil fuel consumption. In other words, the rate of increase was higher during lower periods of consumption and the rate has been declining despite exponential increases in consumption.
3. Past global warming periods (think: Greenland) emphasize for bogus idea of static climate.
4. The Oregon Petition debunks this crap and has about 20,000 signatories that hold degrees in the sciences (not sociology) - meaning, science is NOT in consensus.
5. The very theory of anthropomorphic origins of global warming has varied in the mother hypothesis from a)global cooling and the new ice age; b)global warming and the death of earth and now, to c)global climate change (unspecified outcomes). What has remained constant is who the culprit is - meaning, who do we blame and what do we prescribe to avoid the looming disaster de jour.

There are more, but these will usually shut down the rabid idiot shrieking about our evil cars killing the earth.

[Semper Mark]

"3. temperatures were far higher than this century hundreds of thousands of years ago. true, but there is one difference: the industrial revolution. a global population of 5 million could survive global warming, but a global population of 9 billion cannot."

"Bless his little heart..."

[The Great RJ]

My argument is to look at the geological record. About 20,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered under massive glaciers..obviously the result of massive global cooling. Yet these massive glaciers melted in a wave of massive global warming greater than anything imagined by Al Gore. Neither of these massive climate changes could possibly be caused by CO2 or human activities. So what caused and ended not one but three historic ice ages?

[Jim Noble]

My argument is to look at the geological record

For those "warmers" who are still pretending to do science, this is the biggest problem.

AGW could not have arisen in the absence of massive scientific illiteracy.

There is no flow from null hypothesis to iterative hypothesis testing to tentative conclusion to response to criticism to final theory.

The flow is in exactly the opposite direction.

That's not science, that's racketeering.

[Jim Noble]

My argument is to look at the geological record

For those "warmers" who are still pretending to do science, this is the biggest problem.

AGW could not have arisen in the absence of massive scientific illiteracy.

There is no flow from null hypothesis to iterative hypothesis testing to tentative conclusion to response to criticism to final theory.

The flow is in exactly the opposite direction.

That's not science, that's racketeering.

[R. Scott]

Question that nobody has ever asked Algore:

Include: What ended our other many ice ages? Was it evil power plants and SUVs?
I believe that Global Warming is possible. Earth’s climate is constantly changing from frozen to tropical, but is it man made? See above.

[TheOldLady]

Do you seriously think it’s a good idea to post a vanity like this on a Conservative forum?

You’re saying that Conservatives are unable to articulate rebuttals to the deceitful anthropogenic global warming propaganda. You may notice that FReepers have shot that opinion down in the replies to your very poorly written post.

At the same time, you present no arguments against it yourself. Does that mean that you have no opinions or facts to rebut AGW theory?

Why post this at all?

[raygun]

My argument is simpler than that. I usually get looks like deer caught in the headlights. Then I get told - after a very loud tsk - "I'm soooo stupid. I don't even want to talk to you anymore. You're soooooo stupid." And they walk away like I'm the bad guy.

Its really simple. The incident radiation is at a center wavelength of about 550nm which corresponds to a black body peak at 5500^o K (Kelvin). The radiation from the earth back is at a blackbody temperature of 300^o K. The ratio of the energy at 5500K incoming to 300K incoming is very large (as can be calculated from the blackbody distribution curve) so for the global warming issue, the 300k absorption is important.

Increasing CO2 absolutely increases warming. Do the math. The amount of heat returned to the earth is a linear function of the greenhouse gases. The total is related to the amount of each times its efficiency. The nonlinear part is the black body radiation of an object radiating energy as the fourth power of the temperature so an increase in gases and hence energy will only imcrease the temperature as the fourth root of the energy. And if you really want to have fun, integrate the whole gamut using discrete layers at 1000' intervals @ 3.5F^o/1000' to the tropopause (and 5.5F^o/1000' beyond) to about 150k'.

The inescapable conclusion after integrating the isotropic - 6 degrees of freedom - radiation: CO₂ increases the Earth's surface temp; its just that the effect is woefully negligible and man is having no discernible effect on the temperature. Unless I'm totally wacked out wrong, 0.1^o is fairly negligble. That incidentally is the calculated affect of CO₂ from the calculated blackbody temp of the Earth w/out atmosphere.

When one examines the IPCC official website, the relative effects of the different gases are listed: water vapor accounts for 98.5% and CH₄ being the next gas - 4 times more effective than CO₂ - but it is natural and comes from natural sources like farming, Bambi farts and Betsy-the- brown-eyed-cow's decaying cow-patties (none of which can be used as an attack on the industrialized countries). Alarmists must therefor concentrate on evil man-made CO₂; natural CO₂ is not evil (its natural). Only artificial CO₂ is evil.

If one considers the entire global CO₂ output, and imagines that amount to be a yardstick one mile long. Man's contribution to that barely hits the 5/8" mark. But them 5/8" are SO evil, the whole stinkin' planet is going to become one huge charco-broiled s'more!!!! Unless we quit with the CO₂ spewing.

The whole issue is one of the liberal guilt at everything and they want to destroy the industrialized countries. The whole issue would be laughable if it were not for the fact that the governments have accepted it as gospel. I do not understand why reason is lost on everyone.

[RobRoy]

Sadly, towards the end of the list I was copying article titles that had hyperlinks behind them. They don’t carry over with cut and paste. However, if you search on those phrases in quotes, you will find them in FR.

Also, that list is from a draft email that I never send. I was going to, but it’s just a placeholder now.

Oh, and I started this thread a while back. It’s VERY long, but notice that the sane GW’s drop off the thread eventually, leaving only the nutcases on the other side to do their standard ad-hominem:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2493406-Global-Warming-finally-takes-a-stake-to-the-heart-Part-II

[Arrowhead1952]

I will tell you this, if you don’t come back and address some of the replies, you will be very warm from the ZOT the mods administer.

[paulycy]

n00b concerned for our AGW arguments. But not concerned enough to stay around and answer questions. Or punctuate it's post.

[dfwgator]