Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
dickymint said:
durbster said:
C.A.R. said:
durbster said:
"No conclusive evidence"
Apart from all the evidence.
If you have conclusive evidence of the link between the temperature and CO2 levels I suggest you speak up - because it would probably be ground-breaking stuff! Apart from all the evidence.
I'll wait...
The greenhouse effect was first figured out in 1824:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
By this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
And yes, I'm sure it was ground-breaking... 200 years ago.
PS. here we go again :yawn:
That's a superb post from durbster. Good job we haven't seen it before.
Genuinely (!) "thinking" that an irradiated test tube with carbon dioxide in it represents the planet's atmosphere and can provide evidence of manmade warming - that's hilarious in the extreme for its naivety and associated lack of understanding.
In the lab carbon monoxide absorbs IR in a test tube, why is CO not a devil gas? Immediately we see that it's neccessary to go beyond the test tube situation, but some warmists are still in it after 200 years.
Also manmade global warming is about an enhanced greenhouse effect, not 'the' greenhouse effect, and is evidenced only by two variables namely energy or temperature and the junkscience theory says we should look in the lower troposphere. Not in a test tube.
When looking at energy or temperature data in the lower troposphere there's no visible causal human signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. So, no evidence.
Just faith and computer model gigo (same thing in essence).
We need more of this to show the level that believers operate at.
turbobloke said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
C.A.R. said:
durbster said:
"No conclusive evidence"
Apart from all the evidence.
If you have conclusive evidence of the link between the temperature and CO2 levels I suggest you speak up - because it would probably be ground-breaking stuff! Apart from all the evidence.
I'll wait...
The greenhouse effect was first figured out in 1824:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
By this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
And yes, I'm sure it was ground-breaking... 200 years ago.
PS. here we go again :yawn:
That's a superb post from durbster. Good job we haven't seen it before.
Genuinely (!) "thinking" that an irradiated test tube with carbon dioxide in it represents the planet's atmosphere and can provide evidence of manmade warming - that's hilarious in the extreme for its naivety and associated lack of understanding.
In the lab carbon monoxide absorbs IR in a test tube, why is CO not a devil gas? Immediately we see that it's neccessary to go beyond the test tube situation, but some warmists are still in it after 200 years.
Also manmade global warming is about an enhanced greenhouse effect, not 'the' greenhouse effect, and is evidenced only by two variables namely energy or temperature and the junkscience theory says we should look in the lower troposphere. Not in a test tube.
When looking at energy or temperature data in the lower troposphere there's no visible causal human signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. So, no evidence.
Just faith and computer model gigo (same thing in essence).
We need more of this to show the level that believers operate at.
Don't worry Durbs you're not supposed to get it, you've only been around here for the 'strawberry season'
turbobloke said:
That's a superb post from durbster. Good job we haven't seen it before.
Genuinely (!) "thinking" that an irradiated test tube with carbon dioxide in it represents the planet's atmosphere and can provide evidence of manmade warming - that's hilarious in the extreme for its naivety and associated lack of understanding.
In the lab carbon monoxide absorbs IR in a test tube, why is CO not a devil gas? Immediately we see that it's neccessary to go beyond the test tube situation, but some warmists are still in it after 200 years.
Also manmade global warming is about an enhanced greenhouse effect, not 'the' greenhouse effect, and is evidenced only by two variables namely energy or temperature and the junkscience theory says we should look in the lower troposphere. Not in a test tube.
When looking at energy or temperature data in the lower troposphere there's no visible causal human signal from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. So, no evidence.
Just faith and computer model gigo (same thing in essence).
We need more of this to show the level that believers operate at.
I'll wait... "
Which is what he's given. The application to climate chemistry wasn't part of the question. Although granted, context...
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
No link here:-
You keep posting this, yet when asked have never been able to explain what it means, where it's from or what relevance it has to AGW.PS. The is no AGW, so it doesn't have to have any relevance.
Honestly, you score so many own goals in this thread that I often wonder which side of the argument you are on.
NWTony said:
In fairness the Durbster the nested quote stated "If you have conclusive evidence of the link between the temperature and CO2 levels I suggest you speak up - because it would probably be ground-breaking stuff!
I'll wait... "
Which is what he's given. The application to climate chemistry wasn't part of the question. Although granted, context...
Indeed, ta. I'll wait... "
Which is what he's given. The application to climate chemistry wasn't part of the question. Although granted, context...
NWTony said:
In fairness the Durbster the nested quote stated "If you have conclusive evidence of the link between the temperature and CO2 levels I suggest you speak up - because it would probably be ground-breaking stuff!
I'll wait... "
Which is what he's given. The application to climate chemistry wasn't part of the question. Although granted, context...
I don't think anyone has doubted that CO2 absorbs IR (mainly around the 15 micron wavelength - smaller absorption around the 2.7 and 4.3 bands - note IR stretches across a 100 micron range ) via dipole moment changes in dry air. WTF this has to do the atmosphere of a water planet is a totally different question.I'll wait... "
Which is what he's given. The application to climate chemistry wasn't part of the question. Although granted, context...
robinessex said:
Durbster, there are only 2 traces on the graph CO2 and temperature. Is shows no correlation between the two. Hence CO2 and temperature ARE NOT RELATED. Got it ? My 11 yr old granddaughter did in about 10 seconds!
None so blind as those that don’t want to see.
On those relatively few occasions where carbon dioxide changes and temperature changes do correlate at whatever level, the temperature change occurs first at all timescales.
Monnin et al
Petit et al
Fischer et al
Jouzel et al
Humlum et al
That's precisely the wrong order for causality to operate with carbon dioxide as a climate driver.
Al Gore forgot to mention the above when waving his arms about over the glacial-interglacial plots in his propaganda shows - the temperature shifts occurred first every time.
Carbon dioxide doesn't cause temperature changes and equally there's no evidence that there's any enhancement of an existing warming trend as that would also imply some causality from tax gas to temperature at the time of the enhancement and none exists in the data.
All there is amounts to weasely worded speculation and gigo. The data do matter.
durbster said:
I am the oracle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlnwhcO5NC0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlnwhcO5NC0
Temperature adjustments.
I'd risk a little bet you won't sit through this...
And a bit of entertainment for the rest of us ----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM&t=...
I'd be interested to know what any of the AGW proponents made of this - it appeared on my twitter feed today and I nearly had a brain infarction.
Quick quote to whet your appetites: 'Climate Progress Dashboard forecasts global warming of more than 4°C. Climate change will be a defining driver of the global economy, society and financial markets over the coming years, decades and beyond. Schroders has developed a Climate Change Dashboard to measure progress towards a decarbonised world.'
http://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/cli...
Difficult to know where even to start with that lot
Quick quote to whet your appetites: 'Climate Progress Dashboard forecasts global warming of more than 4°C. Climate change will be a defining driver of the global economy, society and financial markets over the coming years, decades and beyond. Schroders has developed a Climate Change Dashboard to measure progress towards a decarbonised world.'
http://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/cli...
Difficult to know where even to start with that lot
Edited by DibblyDobbler on Tuesday 18th July 13:50
durbster said:
You keep posting this, yet when asked have never been able to explain what it means, where it's from or what relevance it has to AGW.
Temperature - C.R.Scotese
CO2 - R.A.Berner 2001
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl...
http://www.scotese.com/scotesepubs.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/G...
The chart shows temperature and CO2 levels going back to prehistoric times. It shows that CO2 levels were vastly higher at various points in the last - and that the global temperature seems to have little correlation with CO2 concentration (i.e. there have been times when CO2 was high - but temperatures low, and vice versa). It shows that both global temperature and global CO2 levels are around the lowest they have ever been.
It also shows that the earth spends significant periods of it's time in a 'greenhouse' state - and looking at the data - it could be argued that it's the normal state for it to be in. Currently global temperatures are well below the historic average and as such the earth is actually in an icehouse state - which is not the normal state for the earth to be in.
Icehouse states in the past have been relatively brief, compared to the extended periods of greenhouse state - why do we expect the one we are in now to be any different? Why do we feel we can and should try and keep the earth in an icehouse state - when all the past evidence according to this chart suggests it will naturally want to shift back to a greenhouse state?
DibblyDobbler said:
I'd be interested to know what any of the AGW proponents made of this - it appeared on my twitter feed today and I nearly had a brain infarction.
Quite quote to whet your appetites: 'Climate Progress Dashboard forecasts global warming of more than 4°C. Climate change will be a defining driver of the global economy, society and financial markets over the coming years, decades and beyond. Schroders has developed a Climate Change Dashboard to measure progress towards a decarbonised world.'
http://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/cli...
Difficult to know where even to start with that lot
I started here.....Quite quote to whet your appetites: 'Climate Progress Dashboard forecasts global warming of more than 4°C. Climate change will be a defining driver of the global economy, society and financial markets over the coming years, decades and beyond. Schroders has developed a Climate Change Dashboard to measure progress towards a decarbonised world.'
http://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/cli...
Difficult to know where even to start with that lot
"The climate change challenge: a 30-second guide"
Then laughed my tits off
Might watch the video tonight if there's nothing better on Dave
dickymint said:
I started here.....
"The climate change challenge: a 30-second guide"
Then laughed my tits off
Might watch the video tonight if there's nothing better on Dave
That guide is something else. Shame there was no mention of the other devil gas CO, it's a trace gas in the atmosphere like CO2 and fits into a test tube very well."The climate change challenge: a 30-second guide"
Then laughed my tits off
Might watch the video tonight if there's nothing better on Dave
Can't say I'm tempted to check out the vid, if you do take a look and it's funnier than Gore's quackumentary then please let us know
turbobloke said:
dickymint said:
I started here.....
"The climate change challenge: a 30-second guide"
Then laughed my tits off
Might watch the video tonight if there's nothing better on Dave
That guide is something else. Shame there was no mention of the other devil gas CO, it's a trace gas in the atmosphere like CO2 and fits into a test tube very well."The climate change challenge: a 30-second guide"
Then laughed my tits off
Might watch the video tonight if there's nothing better on Dave
Can't say I'm tempted to check out the vid, if you do take a look and it's funnier than Gore's quackumentary then please let us know
turbobloke said:
dickymint said:
I started here.....
"The climate change challenge: a 30-second guide"
Then laughed my tits off
Might watch the video tonight if there's nothing better on Dave
That guide is something else. Shame there was no mention of the other devil gas CO, it's a trace gas in the atmosphere like CO2 and fits into a test tube very well."The climate change challenge: a 30-second guide"
Then laughed my tits off
Might watch the video tonight if there's nothing better on Dave
Can't say I'm tempted to check out the vid, if you do take a look and it's funnier than Gore's quackumentary then please let us know
Jinx said:
I don't think anyone has doubted that CO2 absorbs IR
You're kidding right? People here disagree with every single aspect of AGW because they absolutely no sense of objectivity. It's like watching Trump supporters - seeing just how far some people are prepared to detach themselves from reality for the sake of their ideology is what provides a lot of the entertainment. 
Jinx said:
WTF this has to do the atmosphere of a water planet is a totally different question.
Righto.1. Why isn't the greenhouse effect happening?
2. Is it just a massive coincidence that the planet happens to be warming at almost the exact rate expected given the relative concentration of CO2 over the last century?
3. If it's not CO2, then what is the mechanism currently warming the planet?
robinessex said:
Durbster, there are only 2 traces on the graph CO2 and temperature. Is shows no correlation between the two. Hence CO2 and temperature ARE NOT RELATED. Got it ? My 11 yr old granddaughter did in about 10 seconds!
None so blind as those that don’t want to see.
Wow! With amazing arguments like that, you must be right!None so blind as those that don’t want to see.
To recap, I give you the NASA website with comprehensive documented evidence and detailed explanations about AGW. You dismiss it outright because of the absurd reason that (if I understood you correctly because it's difficult to think that a grown up said it) the language is not assertive enough.
Then you do a two second search on Google images, find a picture with no links or references that you couldn't answer even basic questions about, and then are furious that I don't blindly accept it as if it was drawn by the Gods, even though it claims to tell us the temperature from before mammals evolved
.Moonhawk said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
No link here:-
You keep posting this, yet when asked have never been able to explain what it means, where it's from or what relevance it has to AGW.Anyway, well done everyone, you've successfully answered the questions robinessex couldn't as ever. Teamwork.
Edited by durbster on Tuesday 18th July 21:50
durbster said:
People here disagree with every single aspect of AGW because they absolutely no sense of objectivity. It's like watching Trump supporters - seeing just how far some people are prepared to detach themselves from reality for the sake of their ideology is what provides a lot of the entertainment.
Saved for posterity. The irony is strong in this one...Did you watch the video I linked for you, durbs?
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
People here disagree with every single aspect of AGW because they absolutely no sense of objectivity. It's like watching Trump supporters - seeing just how far some people are prepared to detach themselves from reality for the sake of their ideology is what provides a lot of the entertainment.
Saved for posterity. The irony is strong in this one...Did you watch the video I linked for you, durbs?
durbster said:
Jinx said:
I don't think anyone has doubted that CO2 absorbs IR
You're kidding right? People here disagree with every single aspect of AGW because they absolutely no sense of objectivity. It's like watching Trump supporters - seeing just how far some people are prepared to detach themselves from reality for the sake of their ideology is what provides a lot of the entertainment. Jinx said:
WTF this has to do the atmosphere of a water planet is a totally different question.
Righto.1. Why isn't the greenhouse effect happening?
2. Is it just a massive coincidence that the planet happens to be warming at almost the exact rate expected given the relative concentration of CO2 over the last century?
3. If it's not CO2, then what is the mechanism currently warming the planet?
robinessex said:
Durbster, there are only 2 traces on the graph CO2 and temperature. Is shows no correlation between the two. Hence CO2 and temperature ARE NOT RELATED. Got it ? My 11 yr old granddaughter did in about 10 seconds!
None so blind as those that don’t want to see.
Wow! With amazing arguments like that, you must be right!None so blind as those that don’t want to see.
To recap, I give you the NASA website with comprehensive documented evidence and detailed explanations about AGW. You dismiss it outright because of the absurd reason that (if I understood you correctly because it's difficult to think that a grown up said it) the language is not assertive enough.
Then you do a two second search on Google images, find a picture with no links or references that you couldn't answer even basic questions about, and then are furious that I don't blindly accept it as if it was drawn by the Gods, even though it claims to tell us the temperature from before mammals evolved
.Moonhawk said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
No link here:-
You keep posting this, yet when asked have never been able to explain what it means, where it's from or what relevance it has to AGW.Anyway, well done everyone, you've successfully answered the questions robinessex couldn't as ever. Teamwork.
Edited by durbster on Tuesday 18th July 21:50
and as far as this goes...... I don't think anyone has doubted that CO2 absorbs IR
actually some on here actually understand the science!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff