House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

a reply to: tadaman

Carbon Dioxide cant account for that added radiation being stored here since it would dissipate by what we know.

Carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) prevent long wave infrared radiation from escaping into space. It absorbs, then re-emits infrared radiation.

Think about it like flipping a coin. There is a 50% chance that a given CO2 molecule will re-emit infrared radiation into space instead of back to Earth. Let's say we don't have any coins. No CO2 in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold.

Now let's add one "coin" worth of CO2. What happens? 50% chance that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer because the amount of radiation leaving is no longer the same as the amount of radiation incoming. Half of it is coming back to the surface.

Now let's add another "coin". What happens? With 2 coins the odds are 75% that you'll get at least one tail. Earth gets warmer still.

With 3 coins the odds are 87% that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer still.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you say, more will also be re-emitted upward. But more cannot be re-emitted upward. To understand why, go back to the no coin situation. The amount of escaping radiation cannot increase beyond 100% but the amount of returning radiation can increase from 0% and does. When 100% of the energy escapes, its cold. When 90% escapes it's a bit warmer. When 75% escapes it's warmer still. When the balance (where ever it may be) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Increasing GHGs is one thing that changes the balance.

a reply to: Spider879

so it's not just a question of the planet heating up.

Well, it is. Because the average global temperature is increasing.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Spider879

sure but climate alarmists use temperature to claim human influence on climate change.

Temperature is not the same as climate.

The concept is simple enough. More energy from the sun, more energy on earth.

Heat is a product of that energy transfer interacting with less density bodies (earth) receiving it coming from higher density bodies (sun) emitting it.

Carbon Dioxide cant account for that added radiation being stored here since it would dissipate by what we know. If there is an increased amount of energy on earth, its because the source is emitting more of it.

Climate is the product of that exchange.

But climatologist also said that we add to it , and while unlike our ancestors who could do nothing about climate change "we" can.put it like this if an asteroid was heading towards earth and you knew it would arrive in about 100yrs or so long after you are dead,would you go on as if there is nothing is to be done or would you invest in the future of your off spring and start making the necessary preparations today.

The pentagons job it to protect the USA and politics is trying to undermined that threw corporate influence, sad really.

a reply to: Spider879

I am not one to negate all man made effects. Large cities by producing concentrated amounts of greenhouse gases may alter a significant portion of their immediate micro climate where one already exists. Sure. Smog is visible and must have SOME effect.

Does that mean that its a global climate altering effect? I doubt it and based on the evidence its not.

This entire craze came off a series of political campaigns based on polls asking what people were most concerned about in the late 80s and early 90s. Smog is visible and people logically wondered what impact on the climate it had.

Before any meaningful research was carried out the alarms were rung and we have been playing "plug in" ever since with any supporting data to back up those claims while dismissing any contrary evidence.

Excuse us for having a memory global warming crowd. (not directed at you Spider)

Lets start over shall we? At least before we dedicate another 2 decades to a hunch while simultaneously castrating developing nations and obliterating local economies to ruin causing mass suffering and misery...just to keep a couple thousand jobs and careers. Whats the lives of a couple million brown people and dumb yocals really worth anyways.

a reply to: tadaman

All the contrary evidence I have seen comes from political or industry funded sources, did you believe big tobacco when they said smoking wasn't harmful to your health?

If research wasn't a threat to peoples ideology why ban the pentagon from researching a possible threat against the nation?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Well there is that billionaire out of San Francisco vowing to dedicate millions or billions ( I stopped listening) to refute REPUBLICAN counter theories.

Drawing party lines by the elite to defend a sinkhole of public funds...hmmm

and that s just in recent memory.

a reply to: tadaman

Here is a pic posted here on ATS, sorry don't remember who posted it but:

a reply to: Spider879

This is a really stupid move made by an ignorant House of Representatives that is not going to benefit anyone in the long run. Global warming is obviously going to happen and people aren't going to be able to pretend it isn't when cities on the American seaside start flooding.

One consequence of global warming has been added potential energy to the oceans used for hurricanes, resulting in more dangerous ones every year.

Not a winning strategy in the long run for the House of Representatives make themselves look like idiots - global warming is going to be one of the biggest issues of the century.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Spider879

I am not one to negate all man made effects. Large cities by producing concentrated amounts of greenhouse gases may alter a significant portion of their immediate micro climate where one already exists. Sure. Smog is visible and must have SOME effect.

Does that mean that its a global climate altering effect? I doubt it and based on the evidence its not.

This entire craze came off a series of political campaigns based on polls asking what people were most concerned about in the late 80s and early 90s. Smog is visible and people logically wondered what impact on the climate it had.

Before any meaningful research was carried out the alarms were rung and we have been playing "plug in" ever since with any supporting data to back up those claims while dismissing any contrary evidence.

Excuse us for having a memory global warming crowd. (not directed at you Spider)

Lets start over shall we? At least before we dedicate another 2 decades to a hunch while simultaneously castrating developing nations and obliterating local economies to ruin causing mass suffering and misery...just to keep a couple thousand jobs and careers. Whats the lives of a couple million brown people and dumb yocals really worth anyways.

But Tadaman this does not seem like a hunch not when 98% of scientist are saying this thing is real and we have a negative effect on it.

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

www.skepticalscience.com...
As a non scientist I would have to go by the conscientious if the 2% holdouts are true mavericks and prove themselves correct then I'd say ma bad they are right,but as of now I have to go with the majority on this.

Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Oh they are going to throw money away until the military is ordered to start shooting these AGW people . check this out

5.7 million dollar NSF grant to Columbia University for climate ‘voice mails from the future’ Columbia University’s Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university’s “PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership,” to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”

The funding was used to create climate change “games”, including fake voicemails from the future, one of which bizarrely warns that in 2035 neo-luddites would kill scientists, anyone who “knows anything”, and other oddities such as advertisements for Tsunami insurance." wattsupwiththat.com... a reply to: tadaman

a reply to: LDragonFire

Yet why is the end result of all these eco initiatives that developing nations and local economies must suffer by not being able to exploit their natural resources or traditional local industries until big business comes in to do it for them?

They pollute just as much and seem to just promise to not do it as much. Then they come up with this carbon emission tax so as to make yet another speculative market where (surprise) the average person is the variable and the loss in this casino of life is paid by the tax payer of respective nations.

I am sorry. Big business is clearly behind this. I dont need to guess. I had an almost local representative try to impose a tax on riding a bike for the carbon footprint we leave by all that extra breathing. There is a manual for lower carbon emission sex out there in lala land for christs sake!

Hell no.

a reply to: Spider879

But Tadaman this does not seem like a hunch not when 98% of scientist are saying this thing is real and we have a negative effect on it.

Is it 98 %


Are they sure..absolutely sure? So they can prove it right? without a shadow of a doubt and excluding all other factors by a testable and repeatable process?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: LDragonFire

Well there is that billionaire out of San Francisco vowing to dedicate millions or billions ( I stopped listening) to refute REPUBLICAN counter theories.

Drawing party lines by the elite to defend a sinkhole of public funds...hmmm

and that s just in recent memory.

He he he I posted that thread to ATS Green billionaire prepares.... but you didn't even get the facts right about this, so what makes me think you are right about anything else?