How Do You Build A Scientific Republican?

Brian_G wrote:

They think Republicans are made of [s]lugs and snails: And puppy-dogs' tails,.

Even the girls? Then what are democrats made out? Sugar and spice and everything nice?

Brian_G wrote:

They think Republicans are made of [s]lugs and snails: And puppy-dogs' tails,.

Bucks and Bibles.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
But that's not the AGW hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is that man's burning of fossil fuels has warmed the climate. I am not disputing the role of GHGs in our atmosphere.
And it doesn't change the fact that there are predictions of CO2 increase and the expected impact on temperarues. Those predictions have failed. CO2 has increased at rates that should have produced greater warming.
The fact that there is a la nina is of no consequence, there has been ENSO activity throughout the temperature record, it is naturally occurring.

And of course you knowingly are dishonest. The predictions have not failed. As I have stated before, it is all about heat. Temperature is simply a manifestation of the heat change. Of course the ocean is a great heat sink and ocean circulation can mask warming for a time but the outcome is what we see. Short term variation with long term effects. Nothing you said will alter the facts. The Earth is gaining heat and the ultimate outcome will be warmer temperatures.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
But that's not the AGW hypothesis.

AGW THEORY (not hypothesis) is that fossil fuel emissions have increased GHGs, primarily CO2. This rise is currently about 390 ppm from a prior state of 280 ppm. It further links the increase in GHGs to a global increase in average planetary temperature.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
The AGW hypothesis is that man's burning of fossil fuels has warmed the climate.

You seem to be trying to dispute that fossil fuel emissions contain CO2 in at least double the quantities retained in the atmosphere. That is truly clueless.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not disputing the role of GHGs in our atmosphere.

Another flipflop, depending on what argument you are losing.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
And it doesn't change the fact that there are predictions of CO2 increase and the expected impact on tempera rues. Those predictions have failed. CO2 has increased at rates that should have produced greater warming.

Current modeling, including the factors of temperature lag (the planet is a MASSIVE heat sink and does not warm to equilibrium in no time, and the second factor of the depth of the oceans being affected (deeper than originally expected from turnover studies) show a fairly good correlation if you add the other factors of solar insolation changes and aerosols (denialists always ignore factors that science point to as being necessary for the true model function).

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact that there is a la nina is of no consequence, there has been ENSO activity throughout the temperature record, it is naturally occurring.

Yes, it is. Climate oscillations like El-Nino can change distribution of temperature and have some effect on air temperature (due to more warm or cool water being exposed to the air water interface). But ENSO doesn't affect the thermal balance and climate studies have to filter out that and other decadal oscillations.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
And what would happen in you went all the way back to post one and counted. Would the ratio remain the same.
The point still remains that consensus has little to do with science and much to do with politics. Which is why you find such an useful tool. Since this has much to do with politics and social engineering and little to do with science unless it is political science.

i went back to where , just about, i came in. and, by the way, most of your links, few as they are, don't even prove your point. you said the scientific consensus has swung back and forth then post a link that references 2 or 3 newspaper articles a decade.
you don't use your brain.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
But that's not the AGW hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis is that man's burning of fossil fuels has warmed the climate. I am not disputing the role of GHGs in our atmosphere.
And it doesn't change the fact that there are predictions of CO2 increase and the expected impact on temperarues. Those predictions have failed. CO2 has increased at rates that should have produced greater warming.
The fact that there is a la nina is of no consequence, there has been ENSO activity throughout the temperature record, it is naturally occurring.

I disagree that the AGW hypothesis is that man's burning of fossil fuels has warmed the climate.

I think it is very clear that AGW is said to be CAUSED by Greenhouse Gases (primarily CO2) being increased in the atmosphere that has warmed the Earth.

The vehicle that allows Greenhouse Gases to supposedly warm the Earth is the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.

The IPCC AR4 Report clearly defines the Greenhouse Effect as Back Radiation from a cold atmosphere being absorbed by a warmer Earth surface, causing the Earth to warm.

The direct quotes from the IPCC AR4 REPORT are here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

This is further demonstrated in the IPCC AR4 Report by Trenberth's Earth Energy budget, that shows Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 from the cold atmosphere being absorbed by the much warmer Earth surface.

Here is Trenberths Earth Energy Budget Diagram that was included in the IPCC AR4 Report
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/imag...

There are no measurements that support the Greenhouse Effect and all measurements that have been done, conclusively show that Back Radiation from a Colder Atmosphere cannot heat-up a Warmer Earth.

This falsifies the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis and therefore there is no physical mechanism to allow AGW of the Earth to happen.

Do you disagree with the above and if so, why?

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Bucks and Bibles.

The what is the Democrats made of? Bucks and hype?

deferstoexperts wrote:

<quoted text>
i went back to where , just about, i came in. and, by the way, most of your links, few as they are, don't even prove your point. you said the scientific consensus has swung back and forth then post a link that references 2 or 3 newspaper articles a decade.
you don't use your brain.

Then you arrived late and missed much. What my links proved is that there are many using the claim of "scientific consensus" as proof even when they cannot prove that they have even a simple majority. Which means that at least half of all not the number who bothered to respond to a survey or was selected by what they wrote.

LessFactMoreHype, alias:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:

AGW THEORY (not hypothesis)

Can you prove it's a theory, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty or Mr Thermal Pollutant?
-
Judging Global Warming As A Scientific Theory
-
To understand the true nature of the climate change debate it is necessary to understand what a scientific theory is and how to judge a theory's validity.
-
An important point is that, in order to be testable, a theory must make predictions about how nature behaves. A theory that makes no predictions can not be tested and is therefore useless to science. So what is a scientific theory? Most simply put a theory is an explanation of how nature works.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Predictions are for astrologers

If you look at a physical laboratory model, increasing an atmosphere's CO2 from 280ppmv to 400ppmv has less than catastrophic and barely measurable effect. The IPCC's models hare too alarmist, CO2 is beneficial to the function of biosphere survival.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
And of course you knowingly are dishonest. The predictions have not failed. As I have stated before, it is all about heat. Temperature is simply a manifestation of the heat change. Of course the ocean is a great heat sink and ocean circulation can mask warming for a time but the outcome is what we see. Short term variation with long term effects. Nothing you said will alter the facts. The Earth is gaining heat and the ultimate outcome will be warmer temperatures.

I am not being dishonet at all. The predictions were very clear, if Co2 goes up by X then temps will go up by Y. It didn't happen.

Temperatures may just be a manifestation of heat change, but temps are what we measure. I understand the AGW proponents want to tell us there is additional heat in our system we can't find, but if we can't find it, it can't be measured.

If it can't be measured, it can't be used to prove an hypothesis.

Gord wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree that the AGW hypothesis is that man's burning of fossil fuels has warmed the climate.
I think it is very clear that AGW is said to be CAUSED by Greenhouse Gases (primarily CO2) being increased in the atmosphere that has warmed the Earth.
The vehicle that allows Greenhouse Gases to supposedly warm the Earth is the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.
The IPCC AR4 Report clearly defines the Greenhouse Effect as Back Radiation from a cold atmosphere being absorbed by a warmer Earth surface, causing the Earth to warm.
The direct quotes from the IPCC AR4 REPORT are here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
This is further demonstrated in the IPCC AR4 Report by Trenberth's Earth Energy budget, that shows Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 from the cold atmosphere being absorbed by the much warmer Earth surface.
Here is Trenberths Earth Energy Budget Diagram that was included in the IPCC AR4 Report
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/imag...
There are no measurements that support the Greenhouse Effect and all measurements that have been done, conclusively show that Back Radiation from a Colder Atmosphere cannot heat-up a Warmer Earth.
This falsifies the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis and therefore there is no physical mechanism to allow AGW of the Earth to happen.
Do you disagree with the above and if so, why?

I state the AGW hypothesis in terms of it's political ramifications. The AGWs are using an increase in atmospheric CO2 as a justification for taxing carbon. The carbon they want to tax is the result of fossil fuel use.

It is man's burning of fossil fuels that the AGWs believe is causing global warming therefore man can be taxed for this activity.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not being dishonet at all. The predictions were very clear, if Co2 goes up by X then temps will go up by Y. It didn't happen.
Temperatures may just be a manifestation of heat change, but temps are what we measure. I understand the AGW proponents want to tell us there is additional heat in our system we can't find, but if we can't find it, it can't be measured.
If it can't be measured, it can't be used to prove an hypothesis.

Show us those predictions.

Gord wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree that the AGW hypothesis is that man's burning of fossil fuels has warmed the climate.
I think it is very clear that AGW is said to be CAUSED by Greenhouse Gases (primarily CO2) being increased in the atmosphere that has warmed the Earth.
The vehicle that allows Greenhouse Gases to supposedly warm the Earth is the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.
The IPCC AR4 Report clearly defines the Greenhouse Effect as Back Radiation from a cold atmosphere being absorbed by a warmer Earth surface, causing the Earth to warm.
The direct quotes from the IPCC AR4 REPORT are here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
This is further demonstrated in the IPCC AR4 Report by Trenberth's Earth Energy budget, that shows Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 from the cold atmosphere being absorbed by the much warmer Earth surface.
Here is Trenberths Earth Energy Budget Diagram that was included in the IPCC AR4 Report
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/imag...
There are no measurements that support the Greenhouse Effect and all measurements that have been done, conclusively show that Back Radiation from a Colder Atmosphere cannot heat-up a Warmer Earth.
This falsifies the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis and therefore there is no physical mechanism to allow AGW of the Earth to happen.
Do you disagree with the above and if so, why?

I have an understanding of the greenhouse effect. I think the effect is on the atmosphere not the physical earth. The air above the 'dirt' warms, the dirt doesn't warm as a result of the greenhouse effect. The earth and the oceans warm as a result of solar radiation.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Show us those predictions.

Look at Hansen's predictions, the A, B, and C senarios and the IPCC predictions. Both have been posted and analyzed many times for you to see.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I have an understanding of the greenhouse effect. I think the effect is on the atmosphere not the physical earth. The air above the 'dirt' warms, the dirt doesn't warm as a result of the greenhouse effect. The earth and the oceans warm as a result of solar radiation.

Evidently, your understanding has room to improve. The continents (aside from Antarctica) are amplifying warming, which is why the Northern hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern.

Ever fry an egg on a hot sidewalk on a 100-degree day? Try it on water sometime.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2...

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Evidently, your understanding has room to improve. The continents (aside from Antarctica) are amplifying warming, which is why the Northern hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern.
Ever fry an egg on a hot sidewalk on a 100-degree day? Try it on water sometime.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2...

And what does your reference have to do with the greenhouse effect?

Most of us acknowledge that the oceans are our biggest climate makers. The oceans cover 70% of the earth and absorb radiant energy which causes thermal expansion and the release of sequestered CO2.

The paper cited explores the relationship of the temp changes of the oceans as opposed to the temp changes of the land masses. It's conclusion altho expressed with caution is that the oceans cause the land to warm up rather than the other way around.

Was anyone confused about this?

And yes the NH having more land shows more dramatic temp changes that the SH which has more ocean. Temperatures often follow weather and weather is impacted by the physical earth. Do you get more rain in the mountains that surround your area?

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Evidently, your understanding has room to improve. The continents (aside from Antarctica) are amplifying warming, which is why the Northern hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern.
Ever fry an egg on a hot sidewalk on a 100-degree day? Try it on water sometime.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2...

Sorry, but you cannot fry an egg on water. You could boil it or make egg drop soup. If you put it in a plastic zip lock bag and squeeze out the majority of the air and boil for fifteen minutes you can end up with an easy omelette.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you arrived late and missed much. What my links proved is that there are many using the claim of "scientific consensus" as proof even when they cannot prove that they have even a simple majority. Which means that at least half of all not the number who bothered to respond to a survey or was selected by what they wrote.

geese meet tina.
you can't prove something by NOT having evidence to that conclusion.
the surveys and papers are evidence to one point. you cannot assume what the non respondents believe. and a count of peer reviewed papers is just that, a quantitative result. and i've now gone back and looked at all the links you've posted. you'd get an "incomplete" at best

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at Hansen's predictions, the A, B, and C scenarios and the IPCC predictions. Both have been posted and analyzed many times for you to see.

Hansen's 1988 predictions are surprisingly close. His scenario C. is within the degree of accuracy of the actual temperature measurements! Not too bad being forecasted some 24 years ago! Since then a lot of new material has been added and the theory has been refined.

The hypothesis holds.