You might want to see this~~interesting

[guesty]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


Might want to have a gander at this. Shutdown.

[Sunsettommy]

He he...

I have a good idea who YOU are.But it is good to examine anyway.Unlike John Cook who has a well known reputation of deleting inconvenient comments.I allowed your provocative guest post.

Here are some links you and others should look to see what others have written about John Cook's website and the comments in them.

This is from Anthony Watts who has a personal experience with one of the writers of that website:

Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself

The next link was posted by a fully accredited Physics doctorate who actually replies to those 104 points that John Cook posted at his blog:

John Cook: Skeptical Science

Additional bonus for your reading pleasure:

John Cook's blog: photosynthesis is deniers' propaganda

One last time.This one written by another accredited scientist:

The New “Skeptical Science” Website: What is Going On Here?

The very long list of comments representing both camps as well as John Cook himself are worth reading.

[Richard111]

I had a look at the link questy posty and laughed.

Every single so called "scientific" rebuttal of sceptic claims is a strawman. Every one!

I'm not a scientist but because I have studied what I am able to I can answer every claim.

I was going to pick a claim but when I went back and read all 124 claims I see well over half are repeat claims just reworded. Typical warmist bullshit because they don't do science. I would be deeply ashamed to be involved in any way with that site.

Having said all that, just one challange to questy. Please tell me how CO2 changes the climate. That is a very serious question and I want sensible discussion. Not twaddle from from a failed railway engineer who writes smutty novels.

[JohnWho]

In my opinion, John Cook's site "SkepticalScience" (sic) is designed to sway the weak-minded and uninformed.

However, the many replies and the sites listed in SST's post surely show that the debate is far from over and the "AGW consensus" is not even close to being real.

As Richard111 points out, and I mention many times as the "bottom line" - we still need to be shown that specifically anthropogenic CO2 is moving us to catastrophic global climate warming. The CAGW folks have not shown that this is not a correct statement -

Quote:"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmsopheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."(From the Petition Project.)

That is the bottom line. Counting Polar Bears, staring at sun spots, and weighing sea ice are not.

[Sunsettommy]

I have strong doubts that Guesty,will ever post here again.Because I think he is John Cook,the owner of the blog.The one Guesty linked to.

[strogoff]

That´s funny SST. Maybe John Cook is missing the skeptic comments he uses to ban at his site.

[Sunsettommy]

He is a strange man who bans civil inconvenient comments at his blog.But comes here as guesty and make an odd comment.

It has been 8 days now and no reply from Guesty (John Cook).

[strogoff]

(But he is watching... Schssss...)

[Sunsettommy]

Update,in case John Cook visits here again:

SkepticalScience (debunking)

But he is too chicken to make a guest post here to defend his deceptive blog.I would allow him to post here if he is determined to prove me wrong about his accuracy.

[Guest]

Hello all. This is the *real* John Cook (I don't know who Guesty is but I always post under my own name). Sorry it's taken me so long to notice this thread (someone just tweeted it). I think Richard111 asks an excellent question: "tell me how CO2 changes climate". The answer comes from satellite measurements. Over the last few decades, satellites have been measuring radiation escaping to space from our climate system. In 2001, UK scientist John Harries compared measurements from the 1970s to current measurements. What he found was less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths that CO2 absorbs radiation. He described this as direct experimental evidence for an increased greenhouse effect.

That is how CO2 changes climate. It traps heat. This is an empirically observed reality. More evidence is outlined at http://sks.to/agw

[Sunsettommy]

I just realized that I have forgotten to approve this post.



Both Guest and Guesty are almost identical in their IP's and location.But I will take your word for it.That you Guest (John Cook) are the real John Cook.

I do see that have completely ignored my first post and the criticisms that have been made against you.

Later we will make a concerted reply to your post.

Cheers,

Sunsettommy

[Richard111]

Hi, the *real* John Cook. Thank you for taking the trouble to reply to my question. I have looked at your site and find far too much to query so will limit myself to just a couple of points for starters.

On the very nice graphic on the first page is the statement; "Nights warming faster than days" All I can say is Really? Where?

This business about a GAS, freely mixed in the atmosphere, as being capable of TRAPPING HEAT is incredible. How can any single molecule of CO2 absorb a photon of energy and RETAIN THAT ENERGY for more than a few billionths of a second? That "heat" is almost instantly transfered to an N2 or O2 molecule in a direct kinetic energy exchange (collision) thus heating the air. This heated air is NOT trapped heat! The warmed air becomes a part of the dry adiabatic lapse rate which moves heated air UPWARDS via convection which is far more efficient at moving energy than radiation at the temperatures encountered in the atmosphere. There has been NO RECORDED OBSERVATION OF ANY CHANGE IN THE DRY ADIABATIC LAPSE RATE OVER THE PERIOD OF RECORDED RISES IN CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

See my Post:#131 in the Layman struggles with Science thread which gives my laymans reasoning as why a gas cannot trap heat. Not even water vapour, H2O, which even in the driest areas of the world far exceeds the mass of CO2, (think 0.1% H20 and 0.04% CO2) is capable of trapping heat. Only when water vapour reaches the dew point and condenses, releasing huge amounts of latent heat, does the lapse rate change.

Under your observations list I would like to discuss the following:

Quote:Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

and the references covering these two statements:

Quote:5. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
6. If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "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." (Evans 2006).

Well of course the satellites will record less heat escaping out to space! The upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere are COOLING!

This means the INTENSITY of the 15 micron radiation is reducing because the temperature is dropping. This DOES NOT mean that less energy is leaving the earth. You must record the TOTAL IR energy band from 3 microns to 100 microns at least to claim LESS heat is escaping.

Above about 7,000 metres air density is so reduced as to allow almost free passage to space for all radiation. The atmosphere does not radiate from a flat surface. It radiates from a VOLUME of atmosphere above 7,000 metres all the way to the vacuum of space. At this altitude and above CO2 is the dominant radiative gas. N2 and O2 are nowhere near as capable of radiating as CO2 which can radiate down to -80C. Check out Wiens Law.

Radiation at the 15 micron band from the surface is almost completely absorbed by CO2 in the first 30 metres or so of the atmosphere. This 15 micron band accounts for just 5% of the TOTAL radiation leaving the surface. As I've stated above most of that absorbed energy will heat the atmosphere and be carried away by convection far more efficiently than by radiation. Only a very small amount of energy is radiated back by CO2. Almost all the energy radiated by CO2 throughout the atmosphere will be proportional to the temperature at which the CO2 resides in the atmosphere. And because radiation at the 15 micron band only travels some 30 metres of so in the dense lower atmosphere, the middle ranges of the atmosphere are not seeing any 15 micron radiation at the intensity of the surface radiation. Thus "backradiation" simply does not happen. There is some radiation at intensities proportional to the air temperature reaching the surface so you can say there is a "net" radiation at 15 microns leaving the surface. For any "heating" of the surface to take place ALL the 15 micron radiation from the surface must be cancelled by down welling radiation from the air. This does not and cannot happen.

I have many, many more points of dissagreement with your claims. But I will say you have produced a very readable website which will certainly convince people who don't take the time and effort to study the subject in depth.

[Derek]

(06-30-2011 03:00 PM)Guest Wrote:  That is how CO2 changes climate. It traps heat.
This is an empirically observed reality.

Am I correctly interpreting your above words to be clearly stating that atmospheric CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere?
If so, as that is actually, and physically impossible, please provide evidence of such a claim.

A brief description of the supposed mechanism CO2 uses to achieve such an apparently impossible feat would be greatly appreciated as well please.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:That is how CO2 changes climate. It traps heat.

He has no idea how absurd his statement is.CO2 has no ability on a molecular level to "trap" heat.That is because it absorbs IR RADIATION!

He just like so many other AGW believers.Ignore the undeniable evidence that CO2 changes lags temperature changes.

From the 5-6 month lag we observe today.To the 400-800 years lag as shown in a number of published science papers.

[Climate Realist]

Yes, radiation is not necessarily heat! All CO2 does is scatter IR at it's absorption wavelengths. That is what the research is measuring- slightly increased scattering, and not heating.