Climate Change (nee Global Warming) Strkes Again!! (page 10)

beksbks

Here’s a map showing the 877 snowfall records set last week

877? Records? So, unusual? ??

BurnTheShips

I'd like to revisit the arguments from my previous post, that go unanswered:

(1) the missing thermal signiture of CO2 in the tropical atmosphere which the IPCC model requires (in order to trigger a water vapor feedback loop), an inconvenient truth that they continue to kick under the rug. Keep in mind, everyone sorta has to admit that CO2 by itself doesn’t do much. Even at current concentrations, it’s a teensy weensy bit of the atmosphere (.00038) that soaks up only a teensy weensy bit of the sun’s long-wave radiation at a particular high altitude in the tropics (the tropics account for about 80% of the Earth’s energy budget). Moreover, we have long since passed CO2 concentrations which are more than sufficient to flag down 99% of that wavelength. So, a hypothetical “feedback loop” is necessary in order to make CO2 scary.

(2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing thatCO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect.

(3) the recent demonstration by German physicists, published in International Journal of Modern Physics, that the IPCC model violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodymics (i.e., their predictions are impossible) and that the atmosphere does not faintly resemble a greenhouse. (Because, there’s no frickin’ glass wall around the planet to make it a closed system.) In other words, ignore Al Gore when he smugly asserts that the “greenhouse effect” has been proven in the lab. He is referring to glass enclosures, not an atmosphere open to space.

(4) both surface station data and new satellite data (which is not subject to distortion from the “urban heat island effect” or rigging by undisclosed computer models used by AGW alarmists) indicate that the warming trend had stopped by 2002 while CO2 continued to increase substantially — which the IPCC model does not permit. Whoa, it’s really getting noisy, huh?

(5) recent publication, in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, of evidence that the actual cause of modern global warming is CFCs interacting with cosmic radiation. Unfortunately for the politicians, bureaucrats and grant pimps, CFCs are a problem that has already been fixed, and the ozone holes over the poles are repairing themselves.

How can the AGW alarmists maintain their religion in the face of such science?

The IPCC model has been falsified. Past IPCC predictions do not jibe with reality.

BTS

villabolo

Burns, I'm working on a couple of your arguments but let me say that, as a general principle, it takes 10 minutes of time to respond to 30 seconds of falsehoods, half truths etc.. You are adopting the Machiavellian/Sun Tzu tactic of always putting us on the defensive. Let me remind you though that when we tell you the same thing, namely that you have not anwered a particular point, you will respond with "I will anwer as I see fit".

So right now I interrupt my response to you by responding to something else that you wrote. A typo you said?! You should have picked it up immediately if some basic facts of CO2 where drilled deep inside your brains.

Your point #4. That antiquated argument about Heat Island Effect. Yes I could understand how Cities, the black roofs on many homes, etc. can distort the observations and even heat up the Permafrost in Siberia as well as cause ice shelves as big as Rhode Island to separate from Antarctica and take a cruise towards Australia.

Your point #5. From what I know the history of CFC for idiots is this. Once upon a time CFC's upon being released would interact with the Ozone layer and effectively destroy it. They would concentrate around the pole and, as they accumulated, expand outwards in the direction of populated areas slowly but surely. Then, miracles of miracles, that problem was mostly solved by having the world (except uncooperative China) agree to stop producing that particular type of CFCs. They were replaced by other chemicals also called CFCs that did not interact with Ozone.

However that current generation of 'harmless to Ozone CFCs' has several thousand times the heat retaining abilities of CO2 (how ironic, they are used as refrigerants). Not to worry. At least worry too much. The gross amount of these chemicals is not sufficient to be responsible for what is going on in the climate as opposed to the much weaker but more abundant (than CFCs) CO2.

NOW LET ME GO FOR THE KILL. Did you not say, in point #5, that a peer reviewed journal implicated CFCs as the "actual cause of modern global warming"? And yet you state in point #4 that "the warming trend had stopped by 2002"? Why did the CFCs not continue warming us up since 2002? Did they disappear all of a sudden leaving the cosmic radiation they were interacting with cold and lonely?

villabolo

Burns The Observant:

"(4) both surface station data and new satellite data (which is not subject to distortion from the “urban island effect” or rigging by undisclosed computer models used by AGW alarmists) indicate that the warming trend had stopped by 2002 while CO2 continued to increase substantially — which the IPCC model does not permit. Whoa, it’s really getting noisy, huh?"

40,000 Europeans died in 2003 from a record breaking heatwave.

Arctic ice cap shrinks and thins dramatically up to 2007. A brief respite due to temporary coolness in the past year allows it to grow a small amount, but not according to you who wants to believe that the Arctic ice cap is going to recover based on one or two years out of 30 that we have satellite evidence for.

Thawing out Permafrost exhaling CO2 and Methane throughout Siberia and portions of Alaska and Canada up to this present day.

Etc., ad nauseum.

villabolo

BurntShips makes a point out of a non issue:

"(3) . . . the atmosphere does not faintly resemble a greenhouse. (Because, there’s no frickin’ glass wall around the planet to make it a closed system.) In other words, ignore Al Gore when he smugly asserts that the “greenhouse effect”"

Burns, any serious person educated in the subject knows that "Green House effect" is a simplistic analogy. Yawn.

villabolo

VM44

There was a news article several months ago that reported a scientist found that the BASIC EQUATION(S) used to model the global warming effect was wrong (or was based on a wrong assumption)!

Was there any followup on this report?

Or was it ignored?

This could be significant.

besty

Lets make it easy BTS:

Answer the question from the other threads you have hit the exits from:

Are you writing off the whole climate science field as a scam?

besty

I'd like to revisit the arguments from my previous post, that go unanswered:

I'd like you to rewrite the arguments in your own words

besty

There was a news article several months ago that reported a scientist found that the BASIC EQUATION(S) used to model the global warming effect was wrong (or was based on a wrong assumption)!

Link please.

VM44

Link please.

That is what I was hoping someone could provide! Especially if there were any updates to the story.

Climate Change (nee Global Warming) Strkes Again!!

Share this