Euclid said "There is no royal road to geometry," and there is no royal road to science knowledge, either.
EDIT for Caliservative: Not everything is to be taken as evidence for AGW, sometimes it's just enjoyable to make fun of how dumb deniers are. By the way, it would only take a single counterexample to falsify the "dicto simpliciter" that "skeptics" are woefully bad at science.
We'll wait to see if you can come up with such a counterexample.
Another EDIT for Caliservative: No, it is not his burden to prove it, YOU were the one that came up with "dicto simpliciter", not him. We are just chatting about how woefully ignorant of science the "skeptics" are on here. If you think there are skeptics that make real informed contributions on here, and you expect us to believe that, then you surely should be able to come up with at least one. I have no doubt that there do exist informed skeptics SOMEWHERE in the world, but I don't see them on here. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant, you have not shown yourself fit to judge scientific content of anything, and I certainly don't value your opinion on either scientific matters or logical fallacies. However, if you want to prove to us you can make an argument (rather than just labeling others' arguments as faulty) then feel free to prove to us how informed you or others are on here about science.
If you can't do that, you should at least attempt to address the question that is being asked, rather than repeat your stock logical fallacy prattle.
Graphic Conception: If you read the full article you would see that the reason methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas is because of it's concentration.
"Because of the logarithmic behavior, clearly the one with lower concentration will be “better” when you add a little bit more. This behavior arises because of the “saturation” effect on principle absorption bands. The strongly absorbing part of the spectrum is not yet depleted for methane, while for carbon dioxide you’re adding absoprtion in relatively weak regions. Under modern concentrations, introducing a few parts per million of each gas would indeed favor methane in terms of “forcing effect” by almost a factor of 30."
Using the link in my sources, which is what was used in the article, we see that if we increase the amount of methane to the same concentration of CO2 and alternate between them there is a larger radiative flux with methane than CO2. This is because of the area along the Earth's blackbody curve methane absorption falls compared to CO2 which falls almost in the center.
As I replied elsewhere greenhouse gas effects depend upon all kinds of assumptions.
You seem to be claiming that sagebrush is necessarily wrong. Given the information in this link can you justify that, please? Would you say the information in the link is necessarily wrong, too?
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11...
Jeff M: Thanks, I did read the article as you will be able to ascertain if you look at the question that gave rise to this one.
My link says: "As you can see, CO2 is actually much more efficient than methane at cutting off the outgoing longwave radiation. That is, intrinsically speaking, methane is not as good a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. "
Are you agreeing with that or disagreeing?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"
Aristotle
People have an automatic tendency to pay attention to or seek out information that is in agreement with (confirms) our preconceptions, and to ignore, distort or avoid information that contradicts (disconfirms) our preconceptions, a tendency that is called Confirmation Bias. The confirmation bias serves to maintain and strengthen the beliefs that we already hold by causing us to automatically (without being aware that we are doing so) perceive and remember experiences that confirm these beliefs, and to ignore or reinterpret those that disconfirm them.
Because we tend to seek out only confirming evidence, our beliefs over time become so well confirmed in our minds that we come to think of them as “obviously true."
In order to avoid the confirmation bias, We Must Force Ourselves to look for evidence that disconfirms our beliefs.
My answer: on both sides of the argument - good to not so good.
LOL
This is someone who thinks that science is done by quoting politicians and by posting links that look like videos of graphs taped to see-saws. He claims that the GISS dataset has been debunked, yet all he has to back up such claims is ad homs against James Hansen.
Such people contribute nothing to science. They would be entertaining, except that people who believe what they want to hear take them seriously.
"The molecular weight for CO2 is 44.01 versus the molecular weight for Methane which is 16.043. So factor that out and you will see that Methane is substantially less influential than CO2. At least by using the Molecular Weight theory."
His molecular weight theory is nonsense. Xenon, MW 131.29 is not even a greenhouse gas.
Consider Caliservatives response to Jeff M's question.
"Since you posted the link to it, it is unlikely to be objective, and thus not worth the time it would take to read it.
"Source(s):
"Your history of poor logic and emotional hostility towards anyone who does not agree with you."
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
An amazing display of the ad hominem falacy from someone who claims that it is "warmers" who usually use ad homs.
Sagebrush
Your statement
< 'Greenhouse Gas' is a fictitious name, created by Madison Avenue>
That is wrong.
"The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
"In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_...
Give the man a cigar. No, they aren't greenhouse gases. Was that a lucky guess? Did you look them up? Do you know how we can know if they are greenhouse gases? Do you know what a bond dipole is?
All these years I thought absorption was proportional to
Molecular weight is so much easier to calculate for someone that can't be bothered to learn the science.
So what do you think? Try to find a fallacy in that logic. It is just theoretical, as I have stated, and open for discussion.
Rules for Radicals: ? Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
We know who you emulate.
CR: Ha! Ha! Neither is Iron. Neither is Uranium. Ha! Ha! What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China. You fellows are getting desperate. The question is about CO2 and Methane, for your information.
BTW thanks for letting me know how much throwing greenies words right back at them gets under your skin. Ha! Ha!
EDIT:< 'Greenhouse Gas' is a fictitious name, created by Madison Avenue>
That is wrong.
"The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
You see your own citation says 'greenhouse effect' Notice the the little marks that I put around greenhouse gas. That means I meant greenhouse gas not greenhouse effect. And I was speaking about the term not the theory. If you knew anything about science or English you would know such things. Now be a man and apologize.
I am still waiting Darwin, do you have a better one? Ha! Ha! I didn't think so.
I don't think commenting on a particular post is worth a whole thread to itself.
As to your general question, the alternative is having a big kumbaya festival where one cannot question authority.
... and the rate of warming is what?
Let's see. Hmmmm! 0.8C rise in 150 years = ?
The math is definitely too hard for me. Let me get a calculator.
I'll get back to you on that. I can't figure out where the zero is.
Can you guys help me? I'm trying to figure out why this so hard to understand. Global Warming I mean.
LOL the problem is that every planet in the solar System is warming, it has to do with the sun there is nothing we can do no matter what some corrupt piece of garbage politician promises. its a fact of life in our solar system that we must learn to live with, no politician on earth can fix it, no tax is high enough to fix the problem. Its just the sun doing what it does. all we can do sell the beach house before its under water, good news is well have all new beaches...YEA!
Generally, far superior to those 'contributions' of the Gore Groupies.
For example:
<
... this from our self proclaimed "true scientist"!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApM5mIamkYuDG97SKf92uif_5nNG;_ylv=3?qid=20130902041125AAz5cPm
So what do you think of the quality of the "skeptics" contributions here; in general and for this example in particular?
Very low quality is there are even quality at all. They are mostly BS blog and youtube links or links to diehard deniers spewing the same BS over and over or lies like the 16 years of no warming
Until a single skeptic comes up with a single bit of real climate science then they are just blowing hot air and adding to GW
dicto simpliciter
In general, the skeptics are keeping alive the (nearly) lost art of critical thinking, and, with it, the scientific method; both of which are in danger of being plowed under at the hands of CAGW dogmatists, such as yourself.
With regard to the specific case, it is irrelevant. Your implication that it generalizes to the whole group is a dicto simpliciter.
The continued use of such logical fallacies to make your case is how the CAGW movement has destroyed its scientific credibility. We now believe *nothing* you say, unless it can be independently verified.
@pegminer
Reversal of the burden of proof. It is his statement, thus his responsibility to support it (he can't). It is not my responsibility to disprove it. More bad logic from someone who ought to know better; this is how you as an individual, and climate 'science' as a movement, have lost your credibility.
The 'skeptics' here are more about quantity of contributions than quality.
Anyone that could do a fart spray's worth of investigation could figure this one out.
Even for denialists their attempt are poor
