Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

02-06-2007, 12:08 PM

Top posting to save time only.

You must have been #1 on your debating team with your ability to destroy
your opponent's argument with such cleverly constructed, well thought out
and researched rebuttals to attack his facts.

I can hear your acceptance speech now. . ."Well, DUH!?!"

>>>> Sequence is not proof of causality.
>
>>> Right logic, wrong words, "causality" in science only means
>>> the proper sequence, the cause must precede the effect.
>
>> Causality in physical sciences doesn't require sequence. e.g.
>> gravity of the Moon and Sun cause tides on Earth. The "events" are
>> simultaneous and appear concurrent to observers in the same frame.
>
>> Causality requires that things are linked by a physical
>> relationship, according to the laws of nature.
>
> Wrong.
>
>>> My reasoning on global warming is that it is very likely going on,
>>> but since there was ice a mile thick across all of Ohio and Indiana
>>> 18,000 years ago, there must be a general warming trend that hasn't
>>> stopped yet.
>
>> There have been at least 5 "coolings" since the last glacial ended,
>> approximately 10,000 years ago. These were between the Holocene
>> optim,a at about 5000 year before present (ybp), 3000 ybp, 2200 ybp
>> just prior to the Medieval Warm Period and then the "Little Ice
>> Age"; starting about 700 ybp and having its last plunge about 150 ybp.
>
>>> CO2 in the atmosphere must surely be increasing because man burns
>>> coal and oil, unless there is an unknown process where carbon is
>>> disassociated from the oxygen or combined with something else and
>>> it falls to Earth.
>
>> CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm. That's the main reason
>> why a rise in CO2 is observed to _follow_ temperature increases.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Such releases follow because the surface area being warmed is finite
>> and most of the CO2 is stored a long way down; needing to travel to
>> the surface via convection to re-establish the surface equilibrium
>> of dissolved CO2.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> That CO2 flux is about 50 times greater than that
>> from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity.
>
>>> But most climatologists say that water vapor has 20 times
>>> the shielding, absorbing, and reflecting effect as CO2.
>
>> There is no global "greenhouse". Real greenhouses work by preventing free
>> convection.
>
> Wrong. They work by reducing the radiation of long wavelength IR.
>
>> The "greenhouse gases" do no such thing.
>
> They do however stop the earth radiating as much, just like real
> greenhouses do.
>
>> They simply absorb part of the available radiation depending on the
>> molecular
>> arrangement; its resultant "tuning" to the wavelength of the radiation;
>
> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>
>> and warm themselves.
>
> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>
>> The molecules can't get a "second bite" of radiation already absorbed by
>> other molecules;
>
> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>
>> either of the same gas or others. The resulting
>> temperature increase is logarithmic; not linear.
>
> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>
>> Water is *the* major "greenhouse gas", responsible for the bulk of
>> the 30 degrees C or so of greenhouse that make this planet habitable
>> (in places) for humans.
>
>> The most important driver of climate is solar radiation. Sunspot
>> activity is a typical indicator of that and such activity has been
>> recorded for longer than temperatures; since the 1600's. Sunspot
>> activity was, until quite recently (<10 years) at a maximum similar
>> to that estimated (from C-14 presence) for the Medieval Warm Period.
>
>> Note also that sunspot activity also indicated how much cosmic
>> radiation impinges on our upper atmosphere; which has demonstrated
>> experimentally by researchers in the past year, increases the
>> likelihood of cloud formation. At high altitudes, such clouds
>> increase the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) and there is less
>> heat available to be transmitted to the lower atmosphere.
>
>> Albedo is also variable in the actual surface presented to the sun.
>> That, in combination with the variable orbit of the Earth around
>> the sun provide a significant challenge to predict how much sunlight
>> reaches the lower atmosphere were one to ignore the highly-variable
>> cloud cover and the variability of the sun itself.
>
>> Not only are there too many equations; there are too many *unknown*
>> equations to be able to produce a computer model with any credible
>> chance of providing predictions of climate. They try to do computational
>> fluid dynamics without knowledge of boundary conditions... and adjust
>> the fudge-factors until the output looks right.
>
>> Yet the IPCC is obsessed with computer models and CO2 to the costs
>> of thousands of millions of dollars every year; both directly and
>> indirectly.
>
>> If Kyoto really worked, it'd at best cool the "greenhouse" by one
>> thirtieth of a degree Celsius. The costs of implementing Kyoto far
>> outweigh the benefit of that one-thirtieth of a degree. Not that
>> it's actually possible to measure such a thing.
>
>> We are after all dealing with The Church of Climatology where the
>> high priests propagandize and collect their extorted moneys from
>> governments and officials, lest their ignorance and incompetence be
>> (more) exposed to the public that funds the Quixotic enterprise.
>
>

02-06-2007, 12:26 PM

PKB, child.

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Top posting to save time only.
>
> You must have been #1 on your debating team with your ability to
> destroy your opponent's argument with such cleverly constructed, well
> thought out and researched rebuttals to attack his facts.
>
> I can hear your acceptance speech now. . ."Well, DUH!?!"
>
>
>>>>> Sequence is not proof of causality.
>>
>>>> Right logic, wrong words, "causality" in science only means
>>>> the proper sequence, the cause must precede the effect.
>>
>>> Causality in physical sciences doesn't require sequence. e.g.
>>> gravity of the Moon and Sun cause tides on Earth. The "events" are
>>> simultaneous and appear concurrent to observers in the same frame.
>>
>>> Causality requires that things are linked by a physical
>>> relationship, according to the laws of nature.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>>> My reasoning on global warming is that it is very likely going on,
>>>> but since there was ice a mile thick across all of Ohio and Indiana
>>>> 18,000 years ago, there must be a general warming trend that hasn't
>>>> stopped yet.
>>
>>> There have been at least 5 "coolings" since the last glacial ended,
>>> approximately 10,000 years ago. These were between the Holocene
>>> optim,a at about 5000 year before present (ybp), 3000 ybp, 2200 ybp
>>> just prior to the Medieval Warm Period and then the "Little Ice
>>> Age"; starting about 700 ybp and having its last plunge about 150
>>> ybp.
>>
>>>> CO2 in the atmosphere must surely be increasing because man burns
>>>> coal and oil, unless there is an unknown process where carbon is
>>>> disassociated from the oxygen or combined with something else and
>>>> it falls to Earth.
>>
>>> CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm. That's the main reason
>>> why a rise in CO2 is observed to _follow_ temperature increases.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Such releases follow because the surface area being warmed is finite
>>> and most of the CO2 is stored a long way down; needing to travel to
>>> the surface via convection to re-establish the surface equilibrium
>>> of dissolved CO2.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> That CO2 flux is about 50 times greater than that
>>> from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity.
>>
>>>> But most climatologists say that water vapor has 20 times
>>>> the shielding, absorbing, and reflecting effect as CO2.
>>
>>> There is no global "greenhouse". Real greenhouses work by
>>> preventing free convection.
>>
>> Wrong. They work by reducing the radiation of long wavelength IR.
>>
>>> The "greenhouse gases" do no such thing.
>>
>> They do however stop the earth radiating as much, just like real
>> greenhouses do.
>>
>>> They simply absorb part of the available radiation depending on the
>>> molecular
>>> arrangement; its resultant "tuning" to the wavelength of the
>>> radiation;
>>
>> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>>
>>> and warm themselves.
>>
>> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>>
>>> The molecules can't get a "second bite" of radiation already
>>> absorbed by other molecules;
>>
>> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>>
>>> either of the same gas or others. The resulting
>>> temperature increase is logarithmic; not linear.
>>
>> Meaningless gobbledegook.
>>
>>> Water is *the* major "greenhouse gas", responsible for the bulk of
>>> the 30 degrees C or so of greenhouse that make this planet habitable
>>> (in places) for humans.
>>
>>> The most important driver of climate is solar radiation. Sunspot
>>> activity is a typical indicator of that and such activity has been
>>> recorded for longer than temperatures; since the 1600's. Sunspot
>>> activity was, until quite recently (<10 years) at a maximum similar
>>> to that estimated (from C-14 presence) for the Medieval Warm Period.
>>
>>> Note also that sunspot activity also indicated how much cosmic
>>> radiation impinges on our upper atmosphere; which has demonstrated
>>> experimentally by researchers in the past year, increases the
>>> likelihood of cloud formation. At high altitudes, such clouds
>>> increase the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) and there is less
>>> heat available to be transmitted to the lower atmosphere.
>>
>>> Albedo is also variable in the actual surface presented to the sun.
>>> That, in combination with the variable orbit of the Earth around
>>> the sun provide a significant challenge to predict how much sunlight
>>> reaches the lower atmosphere were one to ignore the highly-variable
>>> cloud cover and the variability of the sun itself.
>>
>>> Not only are there too many equations; there are too many *unknown*
>>> equations to be able to produce a computer model with any credible
>>> chance of providing predictions of climate. They try to do
>>> computational fluid dynamics without knowledge of boundary
>>> conditions... and adjust the fudge-factors until the output looks
>>> right.
>>
>>> Yet the IPCC is obsessed with computer models and CO2 to the costs
>>> of thousands of millions of dollars every year; both directly and
>>> indirectly.
>>
>>> If Kyoto really worked, it'd at best cool the "greenhouse" by one
>>> thirtieth of a degree Celsius. The costs of implementing Kyoto far
>>> outweigh the benefit of that one-thirtieth of a degree. Not that
>>> it's actually possible to measure such a thing.
>>
>>> We are after all dealing with The Church of Climatology where the
>>> high priests propagandize and collect their extorted moneys from
>>> governments and officials, lest their ignorance and incompetence be
>>> (more) exposed to the public that funds the Quixotic enterprise.