Climate science arrogance

And a Merchant of Doubt is at it again; posting misinformation and pushing the "Uncertainty Strategy" as outlined by Luntz.

 

Hardly misinformation, totally truth. You are too deep in your belief system to see the truth.

 

What is the percentage of C02 in the Atmosphere?

I got it from the IPCC AR5 report like I've stated on here multiple times. Also the years from 1940 to 1970 on graphs the warmers have added to this message board.

uh, you when you stated so.

 

About .04%. How much of Earth's atmosphere do you think contributes to the total greenhouse effect?

 

at what concentration?

from the online Encyclopedia Britannica

Radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide varies in an approximately logarithmic fashion with the concentration of that gas in the atmosphere. The logarithmic relationship occurs as the result of a saturation effect wherein it becomes increasingly difficult, as CO2 concentrations increase, for additional CO2 molecules to further influence the “infrared window”..."

Now since greenhouse gasses only comprise about two percent of the atmosphere and is only 3.62 percent of that 2% total , water vapor is about 95 percent of the green house gasses I would say offhand, not much. Looking at climate models vs observed temperatures tells anyone with a grain of common sense that the IPPC has Co2 way overvalued as greenhouse gas

But as I have stated many times before I don't pretend to be a physicist. My interests are fall more to the anthropological aspects of the many past changes in Earths climate and their impact on the civilizations of the time

 

1%......

So the problem between what you believe and I believe is that you believe an increase of C02 causes more warming. And to date, there isn't any proof of that theory. IPCC AR5 supports me here that it doesn't.

 

Both percentage and PPM are expressions of CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere (.04% = 400 PPM).

That would be true if water vapor and CO2 absorbed the same amount of heat, but they don't. While water vapor represents 95% of all greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide traps four times as much heat so it's contribution to the greenhouse effect is closer to 20%.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

Can you tell me how much global mean surface temperature has varied over the last 12,000 years that human civilization has existed?

 

While there is about 20 times as much water vapor as CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 traps about 4 times as much heat per mole than H2O, so it's contribution to the greenhouse effect is closer to 20%.

 

So what do you suppose the impact is from clouds?

 

the numbewrs I found say that there is closer to 45 times more water vapor than CO2 but even if your numbers are correct my first thought is

If yours are the numbers being used by the climate modelers that would bring up the question that if that is the case then why are the models consistently off 200 to 300 %

I will dig more into this later but just a cursory search indicates the 20% number is completely off which probably accounts for the models inaccuracy. The models are what all of the alarmism is based on anyway so if I were you I would find some new religion

 

About .04%, or roughly 200 million times more than the lethal dose of botulinum toxin. Of course, since you think that things that small have no effect, you can prove it by taking what you consider to be a useless dose and let us all know the results. If you're still alive.

And on what page of IPCC AR5 do they say that rising temperatures have not followed the 40% rise in CO2? Because I sure didn't see it.

And how is it that you read IPCC AR5 and failed to see why that happened? Because they say so rather clearly in section 8.5.2, both in the text and in graphs:

"there is high confidence that the offset from aerosol forcing to WMGHG forcing during [1980-2000] was much smaller than over the 1950–1980 period."

I've never said that. Musta been somebody else.

 

you would think that if some cult leader predictions of the end of the world failed to come true 20 times most of his followers would start to get the notion the guy was a quack. Looks like with the exception of the K street lobbyist shills the AGW believers who are not getting a paycheck might be getting a clue also

Showtime’s “Years of Living Dangerously” aired Sun, Apr 20, at 10:00 PM and didn’t even make the top 100 cable TV shows this week and was beaten in its time slot by a re-run episode of the animated cartoon Bob’s Burgers. Ouch! According to the producer, this docudrama got the “big budget” treatment to the tune of $20 million. Looks like nobody cares.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

of course with hypocrite billionaires buying political favors like green energy hypocrite Tom Steyer . If you want a chuckle do a search using Farralon coal as a search term. Green energy? just follow the money

 

Difficult to say which is why so much research is focused on the subject, but analysis of satellite data indicates it's most likely a positive feedback. While clouds increase albedo during the day, reducing the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface, it also holds that same heat in at night. There is also new research indicating that increasing temperatures reduces the formation of clouds, reducing any potential negative feedback.

 

I would take your arguments more seriously if you at least made an attempt to support them.

 

My "belief" system (I call it a frame of reference) is science based as opposed to faith based. A frame of reference based on science acknowledges that there is some uncertainty in the conclusions we draw from observations and evidence. As a matter of fact, the scientific method can only be successful if we accept that uncertainty, So in science there can be no "absolute proof" because once a concept or idea is "proven", that concept, from the definition of "proof", cannot be changed.
A frame of reference based on faith, ie religion, allows for no uncertainty. "God did it", with no uncertainty is the final argument a Christian will make when discussing how the universe came to be or how life developed. "God declared it" is the final argument when discussing morality.
Now with your frequent posts demanding certainty and "absolute proof" when it comes to AGW, it seems to me that the deniers are the religious and those accepting AGW are the scientifically minded.

 

right, based on what? The cloud research hasn't even gotten fully engaged, and now predictions are out. You all are silly.

Edit: one thing, why is it that is possible when the warmists are saying the increase in Antarctic snow accumulation is due to the warming. Wouldn't that mean more precipitation which would mean more clouds? Talk out both sides of the mouth much?

 

Did you notice the links I included to papers by Dessler (2010) and Sherwood et. al. (2014) that I included in my post?

Did you know that the colder air is, the less moisture it can hold and you typically see more snowfall when temperatures are closer to freezing? With average annual temperatures in Antarctica well below freezing, it actually has to warm up to produce significant snowfall. The reduction in cloud cover due to global warming discussed in Sherwood et. al. (2014) concerns the tropics, where temperatures are already well above freezing.

 

I don't think even the silliest of the AGW people here would argue that clouds generate heat. Less thermal energy making it to earth means less thermal energy to retain. Also bear in mind when clouds give off their heat the thermal radiation goes in all directions not just toward Earth

 

perhaps it is you who should read them. Again, what clouds do to the forcing is still not known, both admit it, but pushes the reader to models and estimates concerning future warming. No observed rationale. Just this is what we believe so this therefore is.

Nope, unknown. Let's learn before we speak. Silly

 

The belief system is the belief in the climate models, which are useful but flawed. All of this alarmism does not come from proof but from climate models.

 

\

but 99 % of the models concur that the satellite and instrument observations are incorrect ...chuckle

 

Since water vapor releases energy when it condenses into clouds, one would have to be ignorant to think that clouds don't generate heat. Just compare the temperature drop at night on cloudless and cloudy days.

 

Now that is funny!!!!

 

oh come on you're grasping for straws at this point. If the heat doesn't make it to the surface, then how can it radiat back to the cloud for the cloud to absorb the heat that isn't there. And why is it cooler where a cloud is at when the sun is out?

 

Thinking that global warming is based solely on climate models exhibits a profound misunderstanding of science in general. Climate models cannot be created unless there is some understanding of the physical processes involved, and they are constantly being updated as our understanding of these processes changes. While climate models are and never will be perfect, they represent our best understanding of the subject at any given time. If you don't trust the computer models scientists produce, I strongly suggest you stay away from airplanes.