It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The ABC's of debating AGW.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven

I don't understand, the Sun has an affect on the climate? I can remember being told this is mans fault. If the sun has an affect, what percentage it it?

Uh, nobody other than you has said anything of the sort

Everyone knows the Sun has an effect on the climate. Climate scientists and laymen alike know this. I'm not sure why you are asking such a question. If all other things were equal, a change in the amount of solar irradiation would affect change in the Earth's climate. All other things are not equal, though.

The Sun is responsible for most of the heat on Earth. Without the atmospheric greenhouse gasses trapping this heat, it would escape back into space. We are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses trapping this heat, ergo we are causing more heat to be retained.
edit on 0Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:03:53 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Right, but what percentage? What I am getting at is the amount the sun affects our climate is important if you are going to put a number on what you think man's influence of the climate is. If the sun was always the same, then we should expect things to be relatively close, winter is always around X temperature plus or minus 2 degrees. But that's not the case. And to get an average for the global climate, you need to take all the temperatures into the equation.

As you know, the northern hemisphere sometimes has differing variances than the southern. As we had this year. So the more I try to understand all this, the more it seems like results come by guesses based on a preconceived idea. I thought science was supposed to take data, interpret it, and let the results just happen. You will have to agree, the "data" keeps being adjusted to ensure it shows warming. Just as your argument for which data sets are better. You like the ones that show warming. The ones that show a pause have flaws. (see how I used that cleaver paws thing)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

What exactly is the heat retention properties of differing levels of co2?

In other words, how much additional heat is trapped with an increase of 100%?

Let's assume that current levels are at 400, for ease of computation. What would be the difference in heat retention should co2 levels rise to 800ppm?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




Let's assume that current levels are at 400, for ease of computation. What would be the difference in heat retention should co2 levels rise to 800ppm?


... this should be good for some poops and giggles.




posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

haha...it's a trick question that no serious AGW proponent will touch



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
...


You'll note in that cartoon that it says "INCONVENIENT TRUTH: GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE DECLINING." This is a rather odd claim, given that this is what temperatures look like according to RSS and NASA's GISTEMP since August 1996 - neither of which show decline:


Additionally, you are demonstrably wrong about Mt. Pinatubo and quite ignorant of what our emissions are.
...

We emitted an estimate 36 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere last year alone.


The Earth has been warming since the 1600s, although throughout the time frame of 1600s to the present there have been many instances of warming and cooling. Which is what happens to the climate of Earth. But if we go back 1000, or 2000 years temperatures today are not warmer than they were back during the Medieval and warming periods.


Reference
Esper, J., Frank, D.C., Timonen, M., Zorita, E., Wilson, R.J.S., Luterbacher, J., Holzkamper S., Fischer, N., Wagner, S., Nievergelt, D., Verstege, A. and Buntgen, U. 2012. Orbital forcing of tree-ring data. Nature Climate Change: DOI 10.1038/NCLIMATE1589.
In a game-changing paper published in the online version of Nature Climate Change, Esper et al. (8 July 2012) provide convincing evidence that both the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods of 1000 and 2000 years ago, respectively, were warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date, in spite of the fact that today's atmospheric CO2 concentration is some 40% greater than it was during those two earlier periods.



In setting the stage for their paradigm-altering work, the twelve researchers - hailing from Finland, Germany, Scotland and Switzerland - write that "solar insolation changes, resulting from long-term oscillations of orbital configurations (Milankovitch, 1941), are an important driver of Holocene climate," referencing the studies of Mayewski et al. (2004) and Wanner et al. (2008). In addition, they state that this forcing has been "substantial over the past 2000 years, up to four times as large as the 1.6 W/m2 net anthropogenic forcing since 1750," as suggested by the work of Berger and Loutre (1991). And on the basis of "numerous high-latitude proxy records," as they describe it, they note that "slow orbital changes have recently been shown to gradually force boreal summer temperature cooling over the common era," citing Kaufman et al. (2009).

Fast-forwarding to the present, Esper et al. describe how they developed "a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction based on 587 high-precision maximum latewood density (MXD) series from northern Scandinavia," which feat was accomplished "over three years using living and subfossil pine (Pinus sylvestris) trees from 14 lakes and 3 lakeshore sites above 65°N, making it not only longer but also much better replicated than any existing MXD time series." Then, after calibrating the pine MXD series against regional June-July-August mean temperature over the period 1876-2006, they obtained their final summer temperature history for the period stretching from 138 BC to AD 2006, as depicted in the graph below.
...

www.nipccreport.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Greven

What exactly is the heat retention properties of differing levels of co2?

In other words, how much additional heat is trapped with an increase of 100%?

Let's assume that current levels are at 400, for ease of computation. What would be the difference in heat retention should co2 levels rise to 800ppm?

You've walked away from your earlier wrong and unattributed remarks without comment, but return to ask this?

Why not just look at what Svante Arrhenius wrote in 1906:

"If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°."
...
"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries."

The IPCC last estimated doubling the CO2 concentration to cause a 1.5C to 4.5C increase in temperature. NASA says the Earth's temperature rose between 0.6C and 0.9C from 1906 to the present. The CO2 concentration has risen by about 1/3rd, from ~300ppm to ~400ppm. Seems fairly close so far, but that's not the whole story.

I don't know why you ask for heat retention - what you should be asking for radiative forcing. The equation for radiative forcing for CO2 alone would be this equation: ΔF = k * ln(C/C0) Wm^-2, where k = 5.35, C = CO2 concentration, and C0 is the base CO2 concentration. Thus, the relationship is not linear. From 400 to 800ppm would be a change in the radiative forcing of 3.70834 Wm^-2, from my rough calculation - though, that matches others' numbers:

The new best estimate based on the published results for the
radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Wm−2,which is a reduction of 15% compared to the SAR. The forcing since pre-
industrial times in the SAR was estimated to be 1.56 Wm−2; thisis now altered to 1.46 Wm−2


edit on 23Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:13:27 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The vast majority. You can read about the energy balance in detail, but I'll summarize it a bit. We receive about 1361W/m^2 (Wm^-2 is another way of putting it, as I did with radiative forcing above) from the Sun. This is halved straight away when approximating how much energy reaches the Earth, since half of the Earth isn't facing the Sun while the other half is. Much of this is lost due to various things - passing straight through the atmosphere without striking the surface, reflecting off the atmosphere, reflecting off the surface, deflection from the angle relative to the Sun (similar to how sloped armor protects tanks from projectiles), reflecting off of clouds... after all is said and done, only approximately ~240W/m^2 of the ~340W/m^2 that penetrates the atmosphere is absorbed by our climate.

This source suggests internal heat escaping to the surface is approximately 0.058W/m^2, though Wikipedia disagrees with that and suggests 0.087W/m^2. Hard to track the source, though as it doesn't seem to be from the source linked. Elsewhere suggests a publication by Lodders and Fegley 1998 regarding geothermal flux as the source of the latter number. Either way, it's rather tiny in comparison to what the Sun sends our way. It's possible we also receive thermal radiation from sources other than the Sun, but I do not know of work done to measure that in comparison.

I do not agree that the data keeps getting adjusted for nefarious reasons and I don't "like to show ones that show warming" but rather ones that I know. There are only so many hours in the day to devote to reading and analyzing data.

Read up on Dr. Spencer's take of the RSS diverging from his UAH. RSS is showing cooler now, and you see all of these skeptics rushing to promote RSS over other sets. Dr. Spencer suggests it's because RSS used data from a satellite with a decaying orbit. He also mentions something else in the discussion:

The ABSOLUTE accuracy of the measurements is not nearly as good….probably no better than about 0.5 deg. C. But since each deep-layer measurement of the atmosphere includes individual air layers spanning tens of degrees, even small errors in the microwave absorption theory will translate into that much uncertainty.


He mentions just what I was discussing before - that the microwave sounders on satellites are limited in accuracy.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You've used this source before, and I've responded to it before. I see little reason to rehash the argument again.
edit on 0Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:17:09 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

news.nationalgeographic.com...


Although global temperatures have been rising over the past century, a slowdown in the rate of warming in the past few years has left some scratching their heads over a seeming "global warming pause."

The suggestion that global warming has stopped is "nonsense," climatologist Richard Alley of Penn State University said last fall. The fact that the year 2012 was no warmer than 2002, he said, ignores the long-term trend of warming.

But scientists say that trend has been partially obscured by the ocean, which is likely absorbing the excess heat.

A paper published in the journal Nature in August 2013 by staff of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, suggests the extra heat has been absorbed by the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean, aided by the warming and cooling cycles of weather patterns known as El Niño and La Niña.



I tried to pick the least offensive source I could find. Now, if there is not PAUSE, why in the hell would this guy be trying to explain it?



I just think it's only one minor point. In the overall view and data of long term analysis.

Here's a link that makes sense to me.

www.scientificamerican.com...



Scientific American has been politically correct since the economy left all connection of the currency to gold. Sometime in the 1970's. Nature must be politically correct as well, most raw research money comes from the socialistic elements of the government.

AGW is politically correct watermelons, green on the outside, red to the core.

How can absorption of a fraction less than 1/100 of ambient temperature, absorbed by less than .1% of the atmosphere of which less than 1/4 is reflected back, heat anything?

NIST CO2 Infra Red Absorbtion Spectrum

webbook.nist.gov...

CO2 only absorbs the frequencies at the depressions. All of the other energy flies on by the CO2 into space.

Kind of like a fishnet blanket. I did say blanket. fishnet blanket.

A heated atmosphere will expand, which will absorb heat and decrease temperature. Expansion will also increase the atmosphere's surface area and lose extra heat.

And if it did cause heating of the atmosphere by kinetic energy, how is a little heating bad thing?

The right amount of heating could bring rain to any desert, because more water would be evaporated from the ocean.

Some amount of heating and increased CO2 causes increased plant growth.

AGW is collectivist Yankee totalitarian snake oil.
edit on 18-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven



You've walked away from your earlier wrong and unattributed remarks without comment, but return to ask this?


I guess I missed something. I have been busy the last couple of days and doing drive-bys at the best. I expect to have more time this weekend, I will back up and see what I missed.

Meantime... see ya!



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

You're missing a major key factor with all of your copy/pasting of people's equations:

The equation is assuming the energy outflow is going to equally increase with all forms of outflow (evaporation, conduction, convection, AND radiation) when it comes to, specifically, CO2 atmospheric radiative forcing.

But, just because it calculates an increase of 1ºC (3.7 W/m2), doesn't mean that's actually what you are going to end up with in the real climate world.

The basic mechanisms of the infrared radiative emission of gases is a well understood science.

However, how that science applies to the dynamic functions of climate is a whole other ballgame. And why is that ?? Because there are far too many other mechanisms at play that can alter the results of their esteemed assumptions.

Climatologists are starting to learn this the hard way... they've gone from 4-7ºC for every doubling of CO2 (circa IPCC AR1 report), now down to 1-3ºC for every doubling of CO2 (circa IPCC AR5 report).

And that's going to change yet again, when the temp rate of increase continues to not cooperate with the CO2 rate of increase.




The IPCC last estimated doubling the CO2 concentration to cause a 1.5C to 4.5C increase in temperature. NASA says the Earth's temperature rose between 0.6C and 0.9C from 1906 to the present. The CO2 concentration has risen by about 1/3rd, from ~300ppm to ~400ppm. Seems fairly close so far, but that's not the whole story.


Of course the current calculation looks like it's working... the fricken thing's been adjusted and readjusted gawd knows how many times to reflect what we're currently seeing. [insert slap forehead here]




But don't mind me, I'm just here for the entertainment.

You can go back to your copy/pasting from sciencey web blogs in response to bbracken's questions....






edit on 19-9-2014 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Umm.. no they don't. Show me one lick of evidence that they include anything regarding the magnetosphere in their model. Zippo, nunca, nada, nuttin.

I do not believe they have much related to solar. I know for a fact that solar insolation is not included and that is generally regarded by geologists to be the main driver and responsible for the biggest part of climate change that ends glaciation and ends interglacial periods.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: bbracken677
The link in the statement regarding pre-inductrial co2 concentration takes on to Mauna Loa co2 ..

I would like to point out that correlation does not equal causation. As temperatures rise, co2 is released from the ocean. As temperatures drop, co2 is stored in the ocean. This is one of the reasons that at the end of glacial growth that co2 level increases typically lag behind temperature increases by 800-1000 years.

...And? I list the relevant contents to the point I'm making immediately afterwards - that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is considered to be 280ppm before the industrial age began.

Correlation does not equal causation, but the CO2 concentration is increasing slightly less than what we humans are estimated as emitting into the atmosphere - and it seems to be getting worse. Historically, CO2 leads temperature increase. I want to again note here that the term "historically" means during written history, which is well after the last ice age. Prehistorically, CO2 lags temperature rise by less than 200 years - in the Southern Hemisphere. What about the Northern Hemisphere? Well, CO2 leads temperature rise there - by hundreds of years.


So your source of data is a localized phenomena?

If you are going to compare man's contribution of co2 to co2 increase....why not compare it to natural sources? Because that minimizes the appearance of man's contributions? Natural sources of co2 outstrip man's contributions by multiples.

How much is being released by the ocean as the oceans warm? That by itself dwarfs man's contributions.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Your statement is inherently wrong. I, sir, am a geologist and I can tell you that a majority of geologists are not all caught up in the man-made climate change hysteria. I think you are poopin stuff now.

In fact, the wording : man-made climate change is wrong in any form, fashion or manner. Climate change is a natural phenomena that has been happening as long as there was a climate.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: amazing

Your statement is inherently wrong. I, sir, am a geologist and I can tell you that a majority of geologists are not all caught up in the man-made climate change hysteria. I think you are poopin stuff now.

In fact, the wording : man-made climate change is wrong in any form, fashion or manner. Climate change is a natural phenomena that has been happening as long as there was a climate.


Look I know that are other theories and we could be wrong on this, but...there are tons of real scientists in every field that are buying this. Let's not get caught up in the small details. If those thousands of scientists don't include any geologists, it's still something to listen to. Why so many scientists are thinking this and telling us this?

Also, If the theory is that Man is warming the globe...um then the it should be okay to state the theory as "Man Made Global Warming" Again, let's not get caught up in names and titles and minor details. it's the big picture that we should be looking at.

I'm not pooping anything...um...not at the moment. LOL

Again, There are literally thousands of scientists telling me that Man Made Global Warming is a real phenomena, including well respected famous scientists like Tyson and science evangelists like Nye. Also organizations like NASA.

So...that should lead to several thoughts.

If that many scientists and scientific organizations are telling me that Man Made Global Warming is real. Then I should listen. I may eventually come to a different conclusion but It wouldn't be doom porn to believe them. It's real science.

Secondly, if NASA is lying about this, then what else are they lying about. That's a very deep conspiracy right there, my friend.

Here's just one small list of agencies and organizations that support man made global warming

climate.nasa.gov...

That list includes the American Geophysical Union that um...wait for it...includes many prominent Geologists. LOL



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

You do realize that research grants are not awarded to disprove man-made climate change, right?

I stated that a majority are not caught up in the hysteria. You used the term "none".

Look at this graph. Note the end of the graph. I will also edit this with more information regarding heating cycles driven by oceanic activity that is common pre-man, pre-industrialization.



And, if you will notice, I do not deny and have not denied man's contribution. What I have stated is that man's contribution is overstated. When you look at how data is presented it becomes obvious that the data is presented in ways that are...hmm.. somewhat misleading. For instance, no one ever discusses water vapor, which accounts for 95% of the GH effect. If one only considers the traditionally discussed GHGs then it appears that man's contribution is significant. Once one factors in the 95% that water vapor contributes then man's contribution appears minuscule, given that natural sources of co2 dwarfs man's contribution. See what I mean? There are other small misleadings of a similar nature. Why would they do this? Why do they want to "maximize" the perception of man's effect? We wont even talk about Al Gore's BS of a mockumentary.


Here: Have a read

Interesting stuff and just one of a multitude of things the climate hysteria people fail to point out. It's all GHG! GHG! as if there is something magical in a mantra.



edit on 19-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

(btw, I loved your "not currently pooping" response. Cheers!)

I ran across this the other day Former NASA scientists on Climate Change

Excerpt from a letter addressed to NASA:



The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements Read more: www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

For me, it is hard to swallow many of the pronouncements made by the IPCC that are accepted as gospel by the climate hystericals given the repeated failure of their modeling attempts.



Missing and/or Simplified Processes Largely because of incomplete scientific data and understanding, and because of computing limitations, many processes and agents of climate change either are not incorporated in climate models, or they are represented in a simplified manner. The following list illustrates that the state-of-the-science in climate modeling, despite many improvements, still has many shortcom- ings and limitations. These shortcomings and limitations must be overcome in order to increase the credibility of the models. The list will allow the reader to evaluate the extent to which climate models simulate faithfully all important processes governing current and future climates, an IPCC requirement.
• “While improved parameterizations have built confidence in some areas, recognition of the complexity in other areas has not indicated an overall reduction or shift in the current range of uncertainty of model response to changes in atmospheric composition” (Stocker, 2001, p. 419). • There are “[l]arge uncertainties in estimates of internal climate variability from models and observations” (IPCC, 2001, p. 59). “Models tend to underestimate natural climate variability derived from proxy data over the last few centuries” (McAvaney, 2001, p. 512).
• Failure to adequately simulate key processes and feedbacks indicates that “... the major problems are generic, affecting all climate models”. These processes include ocean mixing, atmospheric convection, hydrologic processes, and representation of clouds and “... contribute significantly to model uncertainties” (USCCSP, 2002, p. 48). “In addition, climate models exhibit serious bias due to their inability to fully represent small-scale cloud and precipitation processes” (Lawford et al., 2002, p. 21). “Furthermore, it is not clear how the production of precipitation from these clouds will be altered as a result of forcing” (Lawford et al., 2002, p. 17).
• The Earth’s atmosphere is a heat engine driven primarily by solar radiation. Despite frequent reference to a solar “constant”, the global climate model experiments acknowl- edge that total solar irradiance (TSI) is, in fact, a variable that ranges from 1354 to 1370 Wm-2 (www-pcmdi.llnl.gov...; May 5, 2003 ). In discussing the estimate of solar radiative forcing since 1750, the IPCC reports that “...because of the large uncertainty in the absolute value of TSI and the reconstruction methods our assessment of the ‘level of scientific understanding’ is ‘very low’” (Ramaswamy, 2001, p. 382). “Other mechanisms for the amplification of solar effects on climate ... may exist but do not yet have a rigorous theoretical or observational basis” (Ramaswamy, 2001, p. 352).
• “Unfortunately, there are no global estimates of surface flux that do not rely heavily on models. The best model-independent estimates come from the Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA), a compilation of observations from more than 1,000 stations (Gilgen et al., 1998). Compared with GEBA observations, surface solar insolation is overestimated in most AGCMs (Betts et al., 1993; Garratt, 1994; Wild et al., 1997, 1998; Garratt et al., 1998). Downwelling long wave radiation, on the other hand, is underestimated (Garratt and Prata, 1996; Wild et al., 1997). The shortwave discrepancy is of more concern: it is more than a factor of two larger than the long-wave discrepancy, and could be due to missing absorption processes in the atmosphere.” “If the observations are correct, then improving the models will reduce the energy available for surface evaporation by 10-20% with a corresponding reduction in precipitation (Kiehl et al., 1995) and a general weaken- ing of the hydrological cycle” (McAvaney 2001, p. 484).
• “There are unresolved differences between the observed and modeled temperature varia- tions in the free atmosphere” (Mitchell and Karoly, 2001, p. 729).
• “Coupled models indicate that, in mid-latitudes, the predominant process is the atmo- sphere driving the ocean as seen by the surface fluxes and as observed, yet when an atmospheric model is run with specified SSTs, the fluxes are reversed in sign, showing the forcing of the atmosphere from the now infinite heat capacity of the ocean (implied by specified SSTs)” (Stocker, 2001, p. 451).
• “ENSO is not simulated well enough in global climate models to have confidence in projected changes with global warming (Chapter 8). It is likely that changes in ENSO will occur, but their nature, how large and rapid they will be, and their implications for re- gional climate change around the world are quite uncertain and vary from model to model (see this chapter and Chapter 9)” (Stocker, 2001, p. 453).
• “In the extra-tropics, a key question remains the sensitivity of the mid-latitude atmosphere to surface forcing from sea ice and sea surface temperature anomalies. Different modeling studies with similar surface conditions yield contradictory results (e.g., Robertson et al., 2000a,b). The crude treatment of processes involving sea ice, oceanic convection, internal ocean mixing and eddy-induced transports and the coarse resolution of most coupled climate models, adds considerably to the uncertainty” (Stocker, 2001, p. 451).


These are just a few of my favorite things... Actually they are a few of the many shortcomings of the IPCC modeling. Granted these are from 2001, but I am sure you are getting the drift. These are scientists, just in case there was any question.


Source

Here are a couple more of note. BTW, there are about double the number that I have posted, not counting the ones I posted. The list of shortcomings is .... staggering.

And we are supposed to buy this shist.



• “The atmospheric response time of carbon dioxide is subject to substantial scientific uncertainties, due to limitations in our knowledge of key processes. When carbon dioxide is used as the reference, as it often is, the numerical value of all global warming potential of all greenhouse gases can change substantially” (Ramaswamy, 2001, p. 386).
• “Temperatures during mid-winter in the stratopause and mesopause regions at the South Pole are 20-30 K colder than current model predictions” (Pan et al., 2002).



edit on 19-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677


I do see what you're saying and I know we're on opposite sides of the debate and I also know I can be just as beligerant as you! LOL

But, remember that there is a whole lot of funding for scientists who are doing research with the agenda of denying man made global warming or to cast doubt. That's what these big corporations want. A lot of money. You know that. You also know that there is good research by credible scientists who think that we are in the midst of man made global warming. It's not all scam or shoddy research. There is some good research out there and research going all the way back to the beginning of earth billions of years ago. Just sayin.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join