I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Is there, or is there not,a theory of global warming?

Yes,

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

Stop playing the idiot and showing all what an inept you are at simple Google searches. Deal with it.

Mind you, just like evolution it has been modified a little as Plass was found to have issues, but the confirmations and modifications have turned it into one of basic theories. An honest skeptic should debunk and convince scientists that the debunked is supported by facts.

None of that is happening in your case, you only have your stupid words posting for a shrinking audience.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

That’s dodging, evading and trying to muddy the waters.

If you don’t actually know, just say “I don’t know”. If you can’t link to single page on skepticalscience.com (which it is obvious you can’t), just admit it. There is no page on skepticalscience that explains what they mean by “AGW theory”, or “theory of global warming”.

You know this is true.

100% lie as shown before and others can check my previous posts to other organizations and scientists.

I thank you for demonstrating all other posters what a stinky liar you are.

[FXMastermind]

Now you are trying to say that the The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change is what you mean when you say “AGW”?

Is that what you are saying.

(hint- it’s a yes or no question)

[FXMastermind]

For the lazy, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf he clearly states that when CO2 is too low, the climate will always cycle between glacier periods and inter-glacial periods.

With CO2 being the only factor that controls the planet’s climate.

[YogSothoth]

I wonder how much some of you people are being paid by the oil companies, or if you’re all just doing this out of goodwill/ignorance?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Now you are trying to say that the The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change is what you mean when you say “AGW”?

Is that what you are saying.

(hint- it’s a yes or no question)

Read the previous posts for reading comprehension, It is mayor component of it, maybe the biggest one, so be honest and debunk it. Because so far, you still are a stinky liar.

[FXMastermind]

Like it has been said, you just won’t answer.

Priceless.

[septimus]

@GIGObuster

Yes,

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

Thanks for yet another interesting paper, GIGObuster. It offers an explanation for something that had puzzled me: oscillation between glaciation and interglacials during the Pleistocene. Apparently as ocean water freezes it loses its CO2 to the atmosphere, thus providing a negative feedback.

Hijacking is always allowed in BBQ Pit threads, right? There is an important question I’ve not seen addressed:

I think global heating will be thwarted mid-century by man’s own deliberate efforts, probably cautious injection of aerosols into the atmosphere, though detonating nuclear warheads might be a more dramatic option. This might restore net solar heat input to 19th-century levels but daylight spectrum will shift to some extent from blue/ultraviolet to red/infrared. Are there any papers discussing this shift and what effect it will have?

[Ludovic]

Didn’t The Fixx have a song addressing that?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Like it has been said, you just won’t answer.

Priceless.

I’m saying you certifiable idiot that to start the ball rolling we will use that theory so yes yes yes to your question.

As it is one of the most important ones, it is the most logical starting point, so that is the one we will consider now, the fact that you are not even willing to start the debunking of it speaks volumes about your puffery on this subject, in reality you do not have a clue were to begin to debunk that theory.

[FXMastermind]

The simplistic Plass hypothesis was put aside a very long time ago. That you don’t seem to know this is astounding. I thought you were the go to guy for all things warming.

You really don’t know what the current state of climate research actually is.

Fascinating.

[GIGObuster]

@septimus

Thanks for yet another interesting paper, GIGObuster. It offers an explanation for something that had puzzled me: oscillation between glaciation and interglacials during the Pleistocene. Apparently as ocean water freezes it loses its CO2 to the atmosphere, thus providing a negative feedback.

Hijacking is always allowed in BBQ Pit threads, right? There is an important question I’ve not seen addressed:

I think global heating will be thwarted mid-century by man’s own deliberate efforts, probably cautious injection of aerosols into the atmosphere, though detonating nuclear warheads might be a more dramatic option. This might restore net solar heat input to 19th-century levels but daylight spectrum will shift to some extent from blue/ultraviolet to red/infrared. Are there any papers discussing this shift and what effect it will have?

The problem with only dealing with the issue with Geoengineering is that it leaves the other evil twin of AGW roaming around: Ocean acidification.

I guess we could also get Geoengineering going there too but we are now increasing whatever costs estimates some optimists had with that idea when it only covers the temperature issue.

If there are people that propose what you say, the first thing is that it is their job to explain properly what effects are likely when using their solution, then it will be confirmed by other experts.

That are disparaged by the deniers, but then by then they will be as ignored as creationists.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

The simplistic Plass hypothesis was put aside a very long time ago. That you don’t seem to know this is astounding. I thought you were the go to guy for all things warming.

You really don’t know what the current state of climate research actually is.

Fascinating.

Actually I was expecting that, that you would fell for the stupid move of claiming that. I just knew that you would ignore that it was modified (like natural selection) and the modification are the ones that remains and are used.

RealClimate: The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass

Moving now to the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere, Plass made a very good estimate as to how much human emissions of CO2 were increasing. His estimate was (again, in modern units) that then-current emissions were 1.5 GtC based on earlier estimates from Callendar, which actually was an underestimate. Our current best estimate for the anthropogenic emissions in 1956 is about 2.2 GtC. Given the increasing nature of the emissions, Plass then estimated that concentrations would rise about 30% by the end of the 20th Century. This however needs an estimate of how much of the emissions would be absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. Here, Plass has another impressive insight that the ocean chemistry would prevent quick uptake of the human CO2, a concept that wasn’t fully worked out until Revelle and Suess’s paper in 1957 (though possibly he may have been aware of some informal communications earlier). Plass actually assumed that none of the CO2 would be taken up in the short term. So his 30% growth estimate (the actual rise was 36%) was derived from an underestimate in emissions (and emissions growth) combined with an overestimate of the ‘airborne fraction’ (which is roughly 40% of total emissions).

Finally, his estimate of temperature rise of about 1ºC by the end of century follows from the two previous numbers, along with two further assumptions – that the climate is always close to equilibrium with the forcings and that of course, there aren’t any other factors changing. The first assumption affected by the substantial lag in the system because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, and of course, there are many more factors driving climate change over the 20th C. Plass can of course be forgiven for not knowing about the greenhouse impact of rises in CH4, N2O and CFCs (not realised until 1974), or the role of aerosol emissions (1970s), and indeed, he was fortunate that the net effect of all non-CO2 drivers is close to zero (though with significant uncertainties).

So Plass was correct about all of the big issues, but lucky that, in his quantitative estimates, the errors went both ways and end up pretty much cancelling out.

The key insights of Plass are still being used today, those are the ones you have to deal with.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

Actually I was expecting that, that you would fell for the stupid move of claiming that.

Priceless.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Priceless.

Indeed, and you remain a certified stinky liar.

[FXMastermind]

Just for the record, I completely support using wind and solar, rather than coal and oil, to supply our extravagant energy desires. And affordable practical electric cars, using solar panels to charge them, would be fucking awesome.

[GIGObuster]

BTW your weird point on why not to deal with the theory of Plass is just avoiding the issue.

This is like telling others that the theory of continental drift by Wegener was dumped because Wegener was wrong on his proposed mechanism of the drift. That is true, but because Wegener was correct on the main idea he still gets the credit.

This is even less so with Plass, his mistakes are more related to the technology not being available to make better experiments or data collecting and some calculations, but he, more than Wegener gets credit.

Resolution in Plass’ favour of the big questions came with further independent efforts as computers got fast enough to do the more complicated feedback problem, better observations, better spectral data and better paleo-climate information (particularly from the ice cores). In some sense, resolution of their technical differences would have been moot because that wasn’t the real issue. Of course, that would have been difficult to see at the time.

So, to summarize, Plass did have some key insights and in many respects was well ahead of his time. But he was also lucky.

So, “your turn” is still there, in this case the contrarians have to deal with items like the reported and confirmed absorption wavelengths of CO2 in the atmosphere.

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 -...

The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

[brazil84]

@FXMastermind

The simplistic Plass hypothesis was put aside a very long time ago. That you don’t seem to know this is astounding. I thought you were the go to guy for all things warming.

Lol, as far as I can tell, all he does is scan for keywords, search warmist web sites like RealClimate, and spew back whatever he finds. You can see this because he sometimes completely misses the point and yet is apparently unaware of it. It seems he has little or no actual understanding of the actual scientific and philosophical issues involved in the global warming debate, which is probably why he sometimes completely ignores even simple questions about his position. If he cannot find the exact question and answer on a warmist site, he’s completely at a loss.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

BTW your weird point on why not to deal with the theory of Plass is just avoiding the issue.

You are just a continual source of laughs.

Now you are trying to turn the tables.

Priceless.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

What EXACTLY is the theory that according to you, 95% of the scientific community supports?

And what does that theory say about water vapor feedback?

Nope, but I have a feeling you won’t be able to answer a few simple questions.

I told you he would never answer.