[ QUOTE ]
I think that Phil's handle should be changed to Wacki disciple.
I frequently find that when I raise a real challenge to either of these guys based on my actual studies (which wacki challenged me to do, BTW) neither one of them responds with anything substantive. I frequently get ignored. Wacki seems to think he is the expert and is beyond questioning, and phil simply immitates. Both of them seem to be hung up on the fallacy of appeal to their own authority, which doesn't exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that Phil's handle should be changed to Wacki disciple.
I frequently find that when I raise a real challenge to either of these guys based on my actual studies (which wacki challenged me to do, BTW) neither one of them responds with anything substantive. I frequently get ignored. Wacki seems to think he is the expert and is beyond questioning, and phil simply immitates. Both of them seem to be hung up on the fallacy of appeal to their own authority, which doesn't exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do intend to answer everything. I don't know everything either and I'm open to changing my mind. But there's a lot of responses here and it takes to find the sources for things I've read in the past.
As for honesty and motives, which you're attacking...you have NOT answered my previous questions, instead bombarding me new ones and ignoring the huge holes I shot in your f'ed up theories. I'm going to write out comments and responses so everyone can see how honest you've been. They are from this thread.
First example
<font color="red">Submariner:</font>So, a warmer planet equals a wetter atmosphere which equals more clouds cancelling the effect.
<font color="blue">Phil153</font>Dumb question:
2. How did we ever get out of ice ages if the cloud feedback cancels out any heating?
<font color="red">Submariner</font>
2. The ice ages are a function of the precession of the equinox. The North Pole of the planet wobbles slightly over the course of many thousands of years. This has the effect delivering variable amounts of solar radiation to the poles.
<font color="blue">Phil153 (now)</font> You didn't really answer the question. You claim warming causes an increase in cloud, which reflects the sun and negates any warming, YET somehow the planet has happily increased in temperature in the past, in response to forcing. Does not compute...
Second example
<font color="red">Submariner</font>RAIN TAKES CO2 OUT OF THE AIR. A WARMER WETTER PLANET HAS MORE PRECIPITATION AND REMOVES THE CO2.
<font color="blue">Phil153</font>Please explain this graph:
Monthly CO2 trends at the Hawaii weather station
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Ind...Print=true&
[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Submariner</font>
Over the long term, CO2 lags 800 years behind climatic warm periods. There was a time known as the medieval warm period that took place about 800 years ago.
There is also a theory called the "Snowball Earth Theory" which addresses the role of volcanism in CO2 content. A CO2 content of many hundreds of times what the concentration was today was required to break out of the cycle keeping the Earth covered in ice. The reason why CO2 is still not that high is due to precipitation takeing it out of the air.
<font color="blue">Phil153 (now)</font> Two things here. Firstly, there is little to no evidence that the medieval warm period was a global phenomena. Secondly, can you find anyone who agrees with you about the lag being the reason of recent increases? In 1990, we were pumping 20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere a year, of a total 2 trillion tonnes. The amount of CO2 we've put into the atmosphere corresponds well with the increase we've seen. In fact, it's quite a bit larger, as the oceans have been absorbing a signficant quantity and becoming more acidic. Is there any scientist who thinks that that man isn't the cause of the increase? You're pretty much showing a great deal of ignorance here.
Secondly, the issue is not whether CO2 eventually weathers (it does, but not by getting washed out by rain in a few years - LOL). The issue is how long it takes. CO2 is largely stable in the climate system and takes thousands of years (or longer) to weather out by forming chemical reactions with rocks and getting stored in plants underground (but mostly rocks).
So the graph stands, and you can't explain it. You simply could not be more wrong on this point.
As for Lindzen, you have to realize that his public and scientific utterances are very different. He's an opportunist who will lie or mislead given the opportunity. Here's the quote regarding his distancing himself from the Iris Effect:
[ QUOTE ]
In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature.
The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this."
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...n.php?page=all
I have more responses to others but it takes time to find the references for things I've read. I will respond.