Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:13 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:44 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Stan and Dawlish
You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing,
to do with global warming.
Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the world
has warmed?
Of course not. No one is claiming that climate never changes. It's
the contribution of CO2 that's in question. You need to show a
credible mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the
presence of an excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.
So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.
You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an effect
but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years; implications that
temperature rises since the last ice age have something to do with
present GW; I have to give in with you Peter. CO2 has absolutely
nothing to do with global warming.
Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?
Lucrative grants?
Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

Only in "climate science".
So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last century
would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory by now, so
I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

You refuse to learn the background information to understand the
physics. That disqualifies your opinion.
b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

They are not independent.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat that
takes longer to disperse!

Irrelevant to CO2 heating the surface.

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true. CO2
has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of IR
radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

Anything that absorbs radiation must also emit radiation - Kirchoff's
law. That means GHG's are the only way the atmosphere can radiate and
cool, as I've already explained.
e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that condoms
have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both are
almost certainly untrue, as is this

Irrelevant and a bit goofy. Stay away from Lloyd.

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations in
global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts far
greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

Repeated assertion is not convincing. You need to show some logic
somewhere.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Irrelevant to CO2 heating the surface.
Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is not
the main driver of global temperature increases.

You show no logical support for your assertion. An explanation is
required.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly unconvincing
- and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's point of view
about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable, but there are
so many scientists working in this field that I cannot believe that the
physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The "Lucrative
grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.


Bill's distorted physics picks up again on day 22 and counting without
any iota of evidence that man-made global warming does not exist.

Q

--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd