AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Avro]

Maybe you can answer th questions Avro... Poor old Tonington is all flustered in his realization that the answer is one that he doesn't want to recognize.

Tonn is doing a fine job of making you look like a ninth grader.

I dropped out of grade ten so I'll leave the science to people who practice it, not people who subscribe to garbage basement science.

Besides, why would I attempt to answer you when you dodge my simple questions all the time?

 

[Tonington]

Maybe you can answer th questions Avro... Poor old Tonington is all flustered in his realization that the answer is one that he doesn't want to recognize.

Apparently you're too dense to even realize that the answers are above. DB is the one contesting them. We have ample evidence of the absorptive properties of greenhouse gases, and we have abundant evidence of decreased radiation escaping to space, and we have abundant evidence of human industrial pollution driving the rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I'm asking DB now to explain the phenomenon then with his preferred hypothesis.

I've given up on asking you anything related to science. You don't even understand what science is...

 

[captain morgan]

Still no answers, eh?

 

[Avro]

I've given up on asking you anything related to science. You don't even understand what science is...

That is becoming clearer and clearer.

Still no answers, eh?

He did and you still don't.

 

[petros]

Quoting Tonington
I've given up on asking you anything related to science. You don't even understand what science is...

Is that the system that is based on 100% verifiable facts and not prediction or belief?

Science is telling us there is indeed change but it has yet to pinpoint cause based on fact.

When will that happen?

When Jesus returns to quantify religion and turns it from a belief into a science?

Still no answers, eh?

Speaking of dodgers, the IPCC cherry picks what it includes in it's data sets. For example (this is pivital information BTW) man made cirrus formations which are considered a major global radiative forcer aren't included though they claim they are.

The IPCC data set doesn't include linear or persistent contrails which NASA reports find to be a major source of mean radiative forcing. The IPCC conveniently does not include any data to differentiate which are man made cirrus formations and which are natural because. They claim linear contrails are included but according to NASA there is no proper data compiled for linear and NOTHING for persistent contrails (see red highlight in NASA quote).

So what does NASA say about contrails and man made cirrus clouds that the IPCC doesn't?

Introduction​

The areal coverage of cirrus clouds produced by persistent contrails is expected to increase as the
global commercial fleet of aircraft grows. Current coverage by linear contrails that are detectable with
meteorological satellites is estimated at 0.1% or 4.6 x 10​

6 km2 (Sausen et al. 1980). From models of
projected air traffic, such contrails are expected to cover between 0.38 and 0.47% of the Earth's skies
by 2050. Besides decreasing the amount of blue sky, contrails affect the radiation budget by trapping
more longwave (LW) radiation than they reflect shortwave (SW) radiation. Using the assessments of
linear contrail coverage and assuming a mean contrail optical depth t = 0.3, Minnis et al. (1999)
estimated that the current mean global contrail radiative forcing (CRF) is only 0.02 Wm-2. This value
is expected to rise to about 0.10 Wm-2 by 2050.
Many of the parameter values used to estimate both the contrail coverage and the radiative forcing
are highly uncertain. Linear contrail coverage has not been measured directly over many parts of the
globe, in particular, over the United States of America (USA) where air traffic is extremely heavy.
Contrail optical depths have been measured remotely by some surface- and satellite-based instruments,
but the statistics are neither complete nor robust. For example, Meyer et al. (personal communication,
2000) applied an infrared technique to Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data
and derived a mean t of 0.11, which represents a 300% difference from the value currently used as
the best estimate. Using multispectral visible and infrared techniques to track contrails with
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) data, Minnis et al. (199 and Duda et al.
(2000) found that contrails often grow into natural looking cirrus clouds with t between 0.2 and 0.5.
At their peak, the areal coverage of these contrails can be up to four times that of the linear contrails
that would have been detected with the AVHRR data. Such studies are limited to a few cases,
however, because of the difficulties inherent in tracking contrails in an environment that often contains
natural clouds and newly forming contrails. To better determine and reduce the uncertainties in the
current estimates of contrail coverage, particle size, optical depth, and radiative forcing, it is necessary
to measure and estimate these quantities as accurately and comprehensively as possible. This paper​

describes the current results from an ongoing study of these contrail characteristics over the USA.

The complete paper can be viewed here: http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/A2C3_Minnis.extabs.pdf​

Another paper details a drop of mean temp by as much as 3 degrees the 3 days following 9-11 when all air traffic was grounded and gave a baseline.

Climate change during 9/11 - PDFCast.org​

And for the believers to do a quick check on the gods of the IPCC and their global mean radiative forcing compilation techniques which they themselves claims to be shaky guesses at best can be found here: 2.9.2 Global Mean Radiative Forcing - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing​

There is one thing that still has me baffled.​

How do you clean an overpopulated fish bowl without removing the fish or the water?​

​

 

[captain morgan]

Speaking of dodgers, the IPCC cherry picks what it includes in it's data sets. For example (this is pivital information BTW) man made cirrus formations which are considered a major global radiative forcer aren't included though they claim they are.

Rest assured that the IPCC has a specific reason for the exclusion of this information. While all i can possibly do is speculate as to the "whys" on this matter, me thinks that it has much to do with the underlying assumptions (upon which their "science" is based) will be somehow brought into question.

With the aforementioned possibility in mind, perhaps the IPCC is running low on stationary after having issued retractions and do not wish to be forced on issuing more.

There is one thing that still has me baffled.

How do you clean an overpopulated fish bowl without removing the fish or the water?

I believe that the IPCC solution is to blame only 1/4 of the fish for the mess... So really, by getting rid of the offending fish, one has a solution to the problem (albeit, only temporary)


​

That is an excellent question to ask Mr. Science... Afterall, he is a self appointed expert on most issues.

 

[Tonington]

Science is telling us there is indeed change but it has yet to pinpoint cause based on fact.

That is denial.

 

[mentalfloss]

That is denial.

Well, science is only credible if it shows other forms of climate change of course. :tongue9:

 

[Tonington]

That is an excellent question to ask Mr. Science... Afterall, he is a self appointed expert on most issues.

I'll ignore that you're incompetent enough to actually quote the question of Petros to which this comment applies...

If a fish bowl is overpopulated and dirty, and you can't remove water, then you cut back on feeding. Feed the fish a maintenance ration. Then you will have to add cleaners. Apple snails, loahes, planktivores, any detritivore really. Since you can't remove water, you have to work to get a functioning nutrient cycle going. That takes time, and in the meantime it means adding population to the system. But once the cycle is set up, then the system will become balanced. It would require careful monitoring of water quality parameters.

It means you need a more robust ecology in the bowl.

It's achievable.

After that, then the competent fish owner doesn't over-populate the system, or allow excessive nutrients to build up.

 

[Avro]

With the aforementioned possibility in mind, perhaps the IPCC is running low on stationary after having issued retractions and do not wish to be forced on issuing more.

Still waiting for all these retractions Captain.

 

[mentalfloss]

Still waiting for all these retractions Captain.

It's in the latest issue of Speculation Inquirer.

 

[petros]

Quoting petros
There is one thing that still has me baffled.

How do you clean an overpopulated fish bowl without removing the fish or the water?

Who is going to answer this one without denial?

 

[captain morgan]

How do you clean an overpopulated fish bowl without removing the fish or the water?

Good intentions.

 

[petros]

We could sit around and stare at it while we reminisce about the good ol days when we still had a blue sky without persistent contrails ruining the view?

 

[Tonington]

Who is going to answer this one without denial?

I already answered it.

 

[petros]

I already answered it.

I'm lazy. Repost it.

 

[Tonington]

I'm lazy. Repost it.

No coddling...oats :lol:

 

[petros]

No coddling...oats :lol:

I'll skip the oats. I already know it's impossible.

 

[Tonington]

I'll skip the oats. I already know it's impossible.

I thought you were skipping on denial? It's not impossible at all.

 

[petros]

I'll ignore that you're incompetent enough to actually quote the question of Petros to which this comment applies...

If a fish bowl is overpopulated and dirty, and you can't remove water, then you cut back on feeding. Feed the fish a maintenance ration. Then you will have to add cleaners. Apple snails, loahes, planktivores, any detritivore really. Since you can't remove water, you have to work to get a functioning nutrient cycle going. That takes time, and in the meantime it means adding population to the system. But once the cycle is set up, then the system will become balanced. It would require careful monitoring of water quality parameters.

It means you need a more robust ecology in the bowl.

It's achievable.

After that, then the competent fish owner doesn't over-populate the system, or allow excessive nutrients to build up.

How do you add new species to a closed system? How does a limited diet control overpopulation? Where do you get time when it's already at crisis?

While you're at it explain why your beloved IPCC doesn't include persistent condesation trails?

Why aren't they included even though they clearly show up on satellite and radar with absolutely no shortage of imaging to prove they turn clear skies overcast?

Isn't that a rather crucial piece of the puzzle to overlook or is it deliberate?