15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:41 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Please, Jim. No straw men. I did not say magnetic inversions caused global warming.

On Arctic warming. This goes faster than other warnings, because of a change in albedo as snow and ice melts.


Lance your straw man not mine. What, in a discussion about the radiative spectrum and climate change, would make you think we were talking about magnetic inversions. Again I call BS and you are just dancing around trying to avoid revealing just how little you understand.

We'll deal with your simplistic notions about the Arctic late. Lets stick with temperature inversions and the radiation spectrum. Or admit ignorance.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:45 am

Jim

You are the one who suggested that I thought magnetic inversions caused global warming. That is a straw man. You asked me about inversions but did not specify which type. I simply asked for clarification. Do not blame me for your straw man.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:02 am

All I am seeing Lance is an admission of ignorance regards temperature inversions and the radiation spectrum
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:30 am

Temperature inversions are irrelevant to this discussion, and therefore a red herring. We have them in several places here in NZ on a fairly frequent basis and they are local. They are not a part of the global warming story, so not really part of this discussion .

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:10 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Temperature inversions are irrelevant to this discussion, and therefore a red herring. We have them in several places here in NZ on a fairly frequent basis and they are local. They are not a part of the global warming story, so not really part of this discussion .


ROTFLMAO Another ridiculous attempt to side-step your lack of knowledge. Clearly you can only parrot climate alarmism with out being able to critically examine the science. That's anti-science!

Your analogies are sillier than Bobbo's. So I bet you also get hot days locally in New Zealand as well. By your side-stepping logic those warmer temperatures can't be part of the "global warming" story either. ROTFLMAO

But understanding the the radiative dynamics that cause temperature inversions and how the earth responds to the radiation spectrum is the very crux of understanding if current global warming is due to the hypothesized radiation imbalance from rising CO2.

I suggest next time you make your bold claims you better know your schist, because such transparent inadequacy is not very flattering. You are only pushing your political agenda forward. You are not contributing to the scientific analyses needed to test climate change hypotheses.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:40 am

Jim

You really need to watch those straw man statements. I have not suggested that individual hot days are relevant. However, temperature inversions are not a part of the global warming story, since they are local and influenced by local geography. The absorption spectrum of greenhouse gases, though, are definitely relevant. They provide a clear explanation for why extra greenhouse gases cause warming.

None of which is required for my argument, though. The simple fact is that a thousand idiots do not make one genius, and a thousand global warming deniers like yourself do not create the understanding of one single fully trained climate scientist. And of all the thousands of clImate scientist who exist, almost none deny AGW.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:57 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim

You really need to watch those straw man statements. I have not suggested that individual hot days are relevant. However, temperature inversions are not a part of the global warming story, since they are local and influenced by local geography. The absorption spectrum of greenhouse gases, though, are definitely relevant. They provide a clear explanation for why extra greenhouse gases cause warming.

None of which is required for my argument, though. The simple fact is that a thousand idiots do not make one genius, and a thousand global warming deniers like yourself do not create the understanding of one single fully trained climate scientist. And of all the thousands of clImate scientist who exist, almost none deny AGW.



ROTFLMAO
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:21 am

Jim Steele wrote:But understanding the the radiative dynamics that cause temperature inversions and how the earth responds to the radiation spectrum is the very crux of understanding if current global warming is due to the hypothesized radiation imbalance from rising CO2.

Another in the long list of JS variously directly agreeing that co2 is a green house gas and then arguing later as here that it doesn't cause any warming.

The flip flop is so constant, its a background white noise.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Another in the long list of JS variously directly agreeing that co2 is a green house gas and then arguing later as here that it doesn't cause any warming.

The flip flop is so constant, its a background white noise.


There has never been a flip flop. The arguments have been always consistent. Again Bobbo must quote exactly where I "flip flop". Otherwise he is just fabricating another bogus narrative revealing what a despicable liar he is.

Bobbo's persistent psychobabble simply reveals he is totally unable to understand the details o climate science and the crucial aspect of determining climate sensitivity. Its a extremely foolish to think just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore 20th century global warming is not natural. Still that meme has possessed the minds of ill-informed sheeple.

If Bobbo had even a clue about the science and understood the details the radiative transfer of energy between earth and space, then he too could very quickly describe the radiative dynamics that are involved in temperature inversions and why those radiative dynamics reveal the earth's climate has a very low sensitivity to increasing CO2. Scientiic consensus has been slowly lowering their estimates of climate sensitivity.

But neither Bobbo or Lance are capable of discussing the scientific details energy transfer, so they choose hilarious psycho babble bleating as if it out weighed the science, or cut and paste from an alarmist propaganda website fittingly run by a psychologist. ROTFLMAO


So again to keep this scientific, we need to discuss the radiative dynamics apparent in temperature inversions, the very same radiation dynamics that affect global temperatures.

To quote Thomas Sowell

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Your flip flop was in quotes. I expected you to quibble, not go hysterically blind.

You can label the co2 sensitivity whatever you want but its going to have devastating impacts. ...... which you can call minor I suppose.

New report seen yesterday that we are going to hit 3Degrees C by end of century....ie, the stall in increasing co2 is no longer operative, we are on the rise again................"but no big deal" says the expert of one.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:07 pm

The basic science is clear. Radiation from the sun strikes the Earth and warms it. The Earth then emits infra red into space which cools it. Reducing the amount of infra red emitted will reduce the cooling, making the world warm up. Greenhouse gases absorb the infra red being emitted, stopping that energy escaping. More greenhouse gases mean more warming.

The intricacies and details beyond that simple model are beyond all of us, including Jim, who is probably more ignorant than Bobbo and I. That is why we accept the views of the genuine experts, which is nearly every fully qualified climate scientist ever hatched. As I said, the authority of a thousand global warming deniers is not worth the reasoning of a single true expert. And there are thousands of true experts who all agree on their conclusions.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:50 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The intricacies and details beyond that simple model are beyond all of us, including Jim, who is probably more ignorant than Bobbo and I. That is why we accept the views of the genuine experts, which is nearly every fully qualified climate scientist ever hatched. As I said, the authority of a thousand global warming deniers is not worth the reasoning of a single true expert. And there are thousands of true experts who all agree on their conclusions.


Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:02 pm

Obviously Bobbo and Lance are clueless about radiation inversions and continue to indulge in psychobabble. So I let me provide some basic science for them.

Radiation inversions happen when the ground cools faster than the air (plus the winds are light so that there is no turbulence that mixes the warmer air above with the cooler air below). Radiation inversions are more common in the winter and polar regions because less insolation means less heat is stored in the land surface, so the ground can cool more quickly than in the summer.

So here's a question that leads us to the understanding regards the degree of climate sensitivity to CO2 and the dynamics of infrared radiation that should be the most basic level of understanding for anyone claiming to understand the greenhouse effect.

Why does the land cool faster than the air above ?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:01 pm

Jim

This is a red herring. It has nothing to do with global warming. Nor is it a test of our scientific knowledge, since it is totally easy to answer any such question by looking it up on line. So you are engaged in a pointless exercise. I suggest you stop it, and get back to the core of the discussion.

The basic science of global warming is clear cut and I have posted it. The fact that emissions of infra red from Earth are constantly measured by satellite, and perfectly match that which global warming theory predicts is sufficient empirical evidence. Denying global warming is about as smart as denying biological evolution.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:03 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:This is a red herring. It has nothing to do with global warming. Nor is it a test of our scientific knowledge, since it is totally easy to answer any such question by looking it up on line. So you are engaged in a pointless exercise. I suggest you stop it, and get back to the core of the discussion.

The basic science of global warming is clear cut and I have posted it. The fact that emissions of infra red from Earth are constantly measured by satellite, and perfectly match that which global warming theory predicts is sufficient empirical evidence. Denying global warming is about as smart as denying biological evolution.


Lance the only thing that perfectly matches is your evasive tap-dancing to avoid the science. Very transparent. If its so easy to look up, then post your answer, and we can engage in a meaningful debate But perhaps you realize that posting the answer undermines the basis for your snarky beliefs. So you insist on dodging the science details to cling to the simpleton's version of climate change.

And like Bobbo you continue to create bogus narratives. Provide the quote and link that says I have ever denied that the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. Otherwise you likewise show yourself to be a deceiving liar!

My debate has always been about how sensitive the earth is to CO2 and how much warming is due to natural variability. And there are many climate experts who agree with my position.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:06 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim

This is a red herring. It has nothing to do with global warming.



Damn this reply shows just how devoid of science you are. The question, "why does the land cool quicker than the air" is 100% about how greenhouse gases control the earth's flow of energy. Only one so ignorant of the science could even conceive of calling that question a red herring
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:15 pm

The whole issue of temperature inversions is a red herring, since they are local phenomena. Now I have a basic understanding of these inversions, and I could easily check on line and write a detailed dissertation for you. But what the frack would be the point ?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The whole issue of temperature inversions is a red herring, since they are local phenomena. Now I have a basic understanding of these inversions, and I could easily check on line and write a detailed dissertation for you. But what the frack would be the point ?



Dang Lance

you sure are putting a lot of effort to justifying your inability to answer basic greenhouse gas dynamics. Seems like your assertions that you know "exactly" what the climate scientists are claiming is just more phony BS.

The point Is I am trying to have a scientific discussion on how greenhouse gases affect temperatures. You are trying to avoid any scientific debate because you apparently just don't have a clear understanding as evidenced by your very own word that "you could go on line and find out" . I don't think you can even do that.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:22 am

If you have any good science to support your case, then post it, and get away from irrelevancies.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:59 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you have any good science to support your case, then post it, and get away from irrelevancies.



Jim Steele wrote:Radiation inversions happen when the ground cools faster than the air (plus the winds are light so that there is no turbulence that mixes the warmer air above with the cooler air below). Radiation inversions are more common in the winter and polar regions because less insolation means less heat is stored in the land surface, so the ground can cool more quickly than in the summer.


Lance are you saying this quote is not good science? ROTFLMO Well then your dearth of climate science is worse than I thought.

Jim Steele wrote: So here's a question that leads us to the understanding regards the degree of climate sensitivity to CO2 and the dynamics of infrared radiation that should be the most basic level of understanding for anyone claiming to understand the greenhouse effect.

Why does the land cool faster than the air above ?


That shouldn't be that hard for some one as brilliant a you.

So here's another question: When You and Bobbo are faced with the obvious reality that you really don't understand the most basics of infrared heat wave dynamics, instead of just being honest and admit it, why do you choose to engage in meaningless blather and duck the questions. You only look more foolish. To call basic climate physics that is illustrated in inversions as just "local" , is one of the most stupid replies I have ever heard and one of the lamest attempts to avoid discussing the science.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:12 am

Why does the ground cool ? Because it is emitting infra red. That is a duh realisation. After all the reduced emission of infra red beyond the atmosphere due to absorption of energy by greenhouse gases is the whole reason we get global warming.

But you missed another mechanism for inversion, which is very, very common. It also happens when warm air from over a warmer ocean moves over the cooler land.

And as I said, all this is completely irrelevant anyway. Temperature inversions are local. Global warming is (DUH!) global.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Why does the ground cool ? Because it is emitting infra red. That is a duh realisation. After all the reduced emission of infra red beyond the atmosphere due to absorption of energy by greenhouse gases is the whole reason we get global warming.


Dang Lance you can't even read, but then give a stupid snarky answer. Please try again. The question was

Why does the land cool faster than the air above?

Lance Kennedy wrote:But you missed another mechanism for inversion, which is very, very common. It also happens when warm air from over a warmer ocean moves over the cooler land.


You seem a tad desperate there Lance, trying to pretend you know something. We are not talking about advection inversions. Remember, as the question was first posed, I asked about how the radiative spectrum caused inversions. But you try to answer by pointing to advection inversions that tell us nothing about how infrared radiates back to space. ROTFLMAO. You arent very good at getting answers from google, or maybe just clueless. [/quote]

Lance Kennedy wrote:And as I said, all this is completely irrelevant anyway. Temperature inversions are local. Global warming is (DUH!) global.


AS I said: to call universal basic climate physics illustrated in radiation inversions as just "local" and thus irrelevant, is one of the most stupid replies I have ever heard, and one of the lamest attempts to avoid discussing the science. I feel sorry for you. Trying to dodge the real questions with such blunders make you look like a a total phony Lance. The only way to regain any face, is to engage in a meaningful discussion about the question actually asked.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:09 am

"Why does the land cool faster than the air above?" ///// Obviously: its farther away from the sun!. As Jim would crow: a scientific fact you can't deny.

Ha, ha..........the volume of the White Noise is getting deafening. Flip Flop, Flip Flop.

Lance.....in case you have been lucky enough not to notice this subforum for two years........Jimbo has constantly harped on co2 sensitivity. This way he can agree co2 is a green house gas but with that same breath deny that it has any effect. Listen:...........................hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.........

"Its all natural variation!" //// OK: what natural variable explains it? ========>Dead Silence.

Watch.

Hey Jimbo: what natural variation(s) account for the temp rise over the last 100 years? Source?? Link???????????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:21 am

Lance: thanks.......but I really have no special expertise in science or climate science. I'm just a reader of the dumbed down popular articles on topic. ........but ........ I do claim some expertise in the English Language.......and perhaps less in Logic. Two subjects that experts in narrow fields sometimes lose sight of in their ditherings.

At first blush, Jimbo does come off as having a background in climate science or some closely related field and to his credit, I have never noticed him falsify a source in its presentation..........but he does fail to fairly state the import of the source which is why he is reticent to provide links. The links when finally revealed often contain cautions and limits to what Jimbo offers as absolutes. Ha, ha.............THERE is a concept: absolutes. Jimbo talks with certainty. compare that to good science. The IPCC positions are all stated withing the context of estimated certainty and ranges of possibilities.

Take co2 sensitivity. Jimbo will not give it a measure, but is CERTAIN it has no meaningful effect due to natural variations that he can give a long list of, but not give any measurements, % of effects, predictions, etc.

Bad Science..........."if" its even science at all. Its the words of science, not the basis of science.

Sadly, the worth of Jimbo's contribution is limited to spotting what argumentative fallacy he has chosen to use. Worthwhile........in that respect.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10755
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby xouper » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:25 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:More greenhouse gases mean more warming.


That is factually incorrect.

H2O is also a greenhouse gas and yet if more H2O is added to the atmosphere, the climate does not get warmer.

In fact, as the atmosphere gets warmer, the amount of H2O increases, which then you would expect a runaway greenhouse effect, if all you were taking into account is that H2O is a greenhouse gas. But that's not how the climate operates. Clearly there are other feedbacks that mitigate the greenhouse effect.

So it is simply not true that adding more greenhouse gas means the climate gets warmer.

Lance and bobbo are conflating two separate questions here.

1. How much greenhouse effect does a particular gas have, as demonstrated in a laboratory?

2. How much effect on the climate does that gas have, i.e. what is the climate sensitivity number?

Those two things are not synonymous and that is the error Lance and bobbo keep making.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:28 am

Ha, ha..........X with his guns blazing. Picks the one gas that you "can't add" to the atmosphere because the carrying capacity is in equilibrium and more water vapor simply means more rain.

Way to go X man. Care to fall on your face again?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:46 am

Just a note re water vapor. It was why i didn't buy into AGW when first reviewed. Found out it was the largest/strongest green house gas but not even included in the models. The reasoning was that while it is a GHG keeping the heat in, it is also highly reflective and stops the suns rays from entering the atmosphere: a wash. So....after lots of hoo haw.....the models included water vapor and I take it, the water vapor still cancels itself out.

so yeah X.....add more water vapor and the earth does not warm up. Thanks for your contribution.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Why does the land cool faster than the air above?" ///// Obviously: its farther away from the sun!.


Well if there were ever any doubt that Bobbo is completely clueless, this ridiculous answer confirms it.

Absolutely wrong. Not even a partial truth. Bobbo you have absolutely no understanding of how energy radiates to and from the earth.

Go home and read some science bobbo . You are embarrassing yourself. Your personal attacks can not hide your lack of scientific understanding

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:04 am

Jim Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Why does the land cool faster than the air above?" ///// Obviously: its farther away from the sun!.


Well if there were ever any doubt that Bobbo is completely clueless, this ridiculous answer confirms it.

Absolutely wrong. Not even a partial truth. Bobbo you have absolutely no understanding of how energy radiates to and from the earth.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?

Hmmmm....unlike some, when challenged, I actually give the issue a rethink. It does occur to me that my answer is wrong at night. Who'd a thunk it? I wonder if the Earth's tilt has anything to do with it.?? Seems to play into all sorts of weather/climate issues. or maybe, its the migration of Monarch Butterflies. All that flapping.

Flapping. You know what I mean Jimbo????? I would have thought so before that last entry of yours. YOU CAN'T BE..... that dead pan? Nope....not going to countenance that level of sophistication. More a Xouper level of self awareness.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The links when finally revealed often contain cautions and limits to what Jimbo offers as absolutes. .


The despicable liar creates another false narrative. I have never talked in absolutes regards climate sensitivity. Once again bobbo, quote EXACTLY where I have done so, and provide the links you NEVER provide. Otherwise you show yourself to be a shameless ugly liar once again!

I link to papers to show the EVIDENCE. In some papers we will both accept that evidence but disagree on the interpretation of that evidence. I always show why I disagree. Bobbo is so clueless about science he cannot tell the difference between evidence and interpretation. Bobbo thinks interpretations he agrees with are facts. So bobbo indulges in his fabricated narratives slandering those with whom he disagrees because he can not comprehend the science that challenges his paranoia. To alleviate his intellectual angs,t he pushes bizarre conspiracy theories that I am hiding info and presenting a nefarious deception.

Again the scientific question at hand is ...

Why does the land cool more rapidly than the air above it?

This is not a hard question for anyone who understands the basics climate science, unless they are just pretending to understand!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:19 am

Jimbo, I must admit you know yourself better than I do.

True or False: you do not believe co2 is driving the current warming of Earth?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:24 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Why does the land cool faster than the air above?" ///// Obviously: its farther away from the sun!.


Dang Bobbo. You are like a Geiger counter. The closer we get to revealing just how little you know, the faster the nonsensical blather


Lets provide a little science for you.

The air in the troposphere is heated primarily by conduction when the air contact the warmed land. So the land and surface air, although farther away from the sun, actually warms faster.

As air rises closer to the sun, it cools. This is due to less pressure and the rate of cooling is measured by lapse rate. (No links to lapse rate Bobbo, but it is not hidden info. Look it up and do your own homework. )

In the stratosphere, the air warms as it gets closer to the sun because the oxygen and ozone in the upper layers of the stratosphere absorb the UV light. There as we descend towards the earth the air is cooler because greater less and less UV penetrates the further from the sun we go.

But the question was never what layers are cooler or warmer. the scientific question at hand is ...

Why does the land cool more rapidly than the air above it?

Its a rate of cooling question due to radiative dynamics resulting in an inversion with cooler air near the surface and warmer air above.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Jimbo, I must admit you know yourself better than I do.


Meaning Boobo you were just making crap up again.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:True or False: you do not believe co2 is driving the current warming of Earth?


It is often said one sure sign of a phony person is they avoid answering a question by asking a different question to divert the discussion

The scientific question at hand is ...

Why does the land cool more rapidly than the air above it?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:52 am

Why does a solid cool more quickly than a gas ?

The solid is a black body that radiates. The gas is not.

During the day, the radiation from the sun heats the land. Some of that heat enters the air by convection processes. At night, the land is no longer being heated and, as a black body, radiates infra red and cools. The atmosphere lags behind the cooling process because it does not radiate.

There is nothing esoteric here. Nor is there anything relevant. Jim is busy creating red herrings.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:59 am

Hey Lance.

............................observe the type of simian who does not answer direct questions.

Mind the gap.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10245
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:31 am

Bobbo

I am reluctant to answer meaningless questions. This one is pure red herring.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:53 am

............or is it?

If you don't know EXACTLY what I'm saying: post back, and I will.

Note: you don't have to agree, although you should. Just that you know what I'm saying......fairly directly already.

aka: Just Look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The solid is a black body that radiates. The gas is not.

During the day, the radiation from the sun heats the land. Some of that heat enters the air by convection processes. At night, the land is no longer being heated and, as a black body, radiates infra red and cools. The atmosphere lags behind the cooling process because it does not radiate.


Well Lance finally you are on the right path. However you only reveal a partial understanding. Indeed the land radiates heat like a black body. Air molecules however can radiate heat back to space as well, but not like a black body. So why does that make a difference?

To help our scientific education, let me add the graph below as a clue, and to which we all can refer to in the discussion.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11135
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:12 am

Seems to me, the land radiates E into the atmosphere and the temp is measured at that boundary, while the atmosphere just radiates "mostly" back and forth within itself with the temp being taken at some elevation rather than with its boundary with space? but I'm back to my daytime/nighttime analysis.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:35 am

Land and air can both absorb and radiate heat during the day and the night. They both cool when the rate of outgoing radiation exceeds the rate of incoming.

So here's another question to move the discussion down the road. We still havent answered the original question of why the land cools more quickly than the land.So lets look at just how the land cools at night.

If the greenhouse gases are trapping heat, why can the land cool so quickly as soon as the sun goes down?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest