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.

 

Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your source 7000 years ~constant rate
My source (BELOW) 8000 years ~ constant rate


Keeping in mind the wide variance of the data points. The "curve" is the perceived best fit

Since the last ice age maximum, over 20, 000 years ago, sea levels have risen over over 120m (my curve) due to natural Earth cycles, dwarfing anything of the last 8000 (or 7000) years

Over an even longer time scale, notice the NATURAL variation of 100s of meters


But hey, if you want to be King Canute.....

Instead if you wish to look at Earth temperature variations, recent variations are not dramatic but TRIVIAL over longer term


Current temperatures are LOWER than during the medieval warm period

Earth goes through natural cycles.
Deal with it.

Enough with the useless grandstanding and virtue signalling.
Deal with facts and reality, not Al Gore's moneymaking "indulgences" carbon credit scam.

Don't be so gullible.

Deny Ignorance
edit on 28-11-2017 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure. Sorry. The person I was replied to posted an unattributed chart. I figured it was ok.
commons.wikimedia.org...:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

The original data sources are provided on the above link. There are others.
scholar.google.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks. I don't ask in response to the thread topic, but it brought out some information I need to research on another topic.

ETA: When there is a ':' in the url, it's best to use the [url=???]...[/url] tags.

TheRedneck

edit on 11/28/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: liejunkie01

If CO2 doesn't trap and retain heat then explain why Venus is several magnitudes hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun.


I just typed up a long reply and lost it due to signal loss on my phone. Now i am standing in the cold trying to get this one to go through.

Mercury's atmosphere is 95.3% CO2 and Venus's is 95% CO2 why are the differences there?

I would think that it would be due to the density of the planets atmosphere. They do not even compare. Just like Venus and Earth's atmosphere do not compare.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz



Your source 7000 years ~constant rate
My source (BELOW) 8000 years ~ constant rate

Keeping in mind the vertical scale. False. My source is a "zoomed in" view of the same data used for your source. It is only in the past 2,000 years that the rate approaches anything that might be called constant.



Over an even longer time scale, notice the NATURAL variation of 100s of meters
Yeah. Well, we're not concerned about millions of years and an increase of a meter or two will cause big problems for a lot of people.
 





Current temperatures are LOWER than during the medieval warm period
No. That graph is just for one location in Greenland for one thing, so using it to indicate global temperatures is a bit problematic, but if you look at the data source (GISP2) for that chart you will find that the "present" point is not actually "the present." It's more than 100 years ago.

Here is the last data point for GISP2:

Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)

Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

So the age of the most recent point is: 0.0951409 * 1,000 = 95 yr BP.

But what is the starting point, the "present?" Is it 2017? Is it 1999? Nope.

For both GRIP and GISP2, these timescales are in years before present (yr BP) where year 0 refers to northern hemisphere summer of the year 1950 A.D.
www.cricyt.edu.ar...

So, that last data point is from 1855 (1950 - 95 = 1855). Not "the present", it's 132 years ago. It's gotten warmer since then. Quite a bit warmer. Even in Greenland. Here is where a more recent, atmospheric reading at the drill site, appears on the chart.
hot-topic.co.nz...
edit on 11/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Those curves are on extremely long timescales. The change from human activity is much faster and that's a big problem.

The existence of natural physics does in no way preclude human induced influences from changing climate through similar physical mechanisms, in fact quite the opposite---the natural influences show what change climate.


Deal with facts and reality, not Al Gore's moneymaking "indulgences" carbon credit scam.


Facts and reality means accepting laws of physics and their consequences and learning what scientists who work on this for their living say about it.

The denialist ignorance is sufficiently clear that even non-experts like Phage and myself find obvious mistakes in their arguments.

edit on 29-11-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: M5xaz



With respect to the rate of sea level rise, pretty much constant for the last 8000 years or so.
Hardly. Eight thousand years ago it was rising very, very fast. Past 2,000 or so, not so much.




That's right. As it got warmer significantly, and greenhouse gases increased and the radiative forcing increased and the reflectivity decreased, ice melted and sea level rose substantially.

Because that's what happens from the laws of physics.

And therefore with even more greenhouse effects which contribute to even more radiative forcing and warming and lowered albedo from polar sea ice ice melts, even more land-locked ice will melt or, more importantly, be lubricated and fall into the ocean quickly, and the sea level rise will increase more.

The existence of physical responses to natural stimulus does not preclude physical responses to human stimulus---it's the reverse, the natural responses show the climate sensitivity and mechanisms. The changes in radiative/orbital forcing from the Milankovitch cycles can be computed, and they are surprisingly very small, and yet the climate response was big. Around those same level of changes, or more, will happen from anthropogenic greenhouse emissions & artificial effects. So we are going into a Heat Age.


edit on 29-11-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: liejunkie01

If CO2 doesn't trap and retain heat then explain why Venus is several magnitudes hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun.


I just typed up a long reply and lost it due to signal loss on my phone. Now i am standing in the cold trying to get this one to go through.

Mercury's atmosphere is 95.3% CO2 and Venus's is 95% CO2 why are the differences there?

I would think that it would be due to the density of the planets atmosphere. They do not even compare. Just like Venus and Earth's atmosphere do not compare.


That's right. Mercury's atmosphere is very thin, but Venus's is not and the greenhouse effect on Venus is enormously larger as a consequence because there are far more greenhouse molecules contributing to the radiative forcing---the absolute number matters.

This shows the primary importance of atmospheres in physical equilibrium temperature.
edit on 29-11-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

Explain what is wrong with the comparison please.


Venus, 95% CO2
Earth, 78% N, ~21 % O2, NO POSSIBILITY OF EVER BECOMING 95% CO2

I also gave you two sources that show that predictive ability of "models" is NIL

Not obvious enough....

Where did I say that Earth's atmosphere is in danger of becoming 95% CO2? Also, your sources play a psychological trick. Note that the horizontal axis covers nearly half a century of observations, but the vertical axis covers only 1.2 degrees. The model accurately describes the curve within about four tenths of a degree.



You should read "How To Lie With Statistics" :
archive.org...

Also note that they used the "average combined runs" rather than the "best fit."



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

Explain what is wrong with the comparison please.


Venus, 95% CO2
Earth, 78% N, ~21 % O2, NO POSSIBILITY OF EVER BECOMING 95% CO2

I also gave you two sources that show that predictive ability of "models" is NIL

Not obvious enough....

Where did I say that Earth's atmosphere is in danger of becoming 95% CO2? Also, your sources play a psychological trick. Note that the horizontal axis covers nearly half a century of observations, but the vertical axis covers only 1.2 degrees. The model accurately describes the curve within about four tenths of a degree.



You should read "How To Lie With Statistics" :
archive.org...

Also note that they used the "average combined runs" rather than the "best fit."


You are the one who said Venus is an appropriate comparison for Earth, despite vastly different atmospheres.

Withe respect to the graph.
Psychological trick ?

No, FACTS.


You are unable to read or interpret graphs properly, never mind model anything- you never have.
edit on 30-11-2017 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

The examples of Mercury vs Venus are about the physical mechanisms where the atmosphere influences the temperature in a profound way.

Notice how the denialists don't really talk about physics? For the scientists, the physics are central to all aspects of earth science from the beginning (in all fields, far before global warming was a policy issue) and are the unifying, predictive bedrock of truth.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Hold on mate. You guys can't have it both ways. You cannot present "data" and then refute the actual comments made within those reports and wordsmith it to fit your belief because I point out the fallacies in that "data" and then present you with actual data such as the percentage of land occupied by man.

That previous poster was using that report claiming it as fact for contributing to as much as 40% of global warming. It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.


I wasn't throwing data at you. There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics.

Unless you can keep track of their relevance, it's real easy to get blinded by big sounding numbers.

Just look at the "ball park" issues. How many cars per day burn how many gallons of gasoline/diesel? Could all the animals in the world even come close to breathing that much CO2 out of their mouths?




Why?

Of the available actual Earth on the planet, i.e. land...1/3 of land mass is comprised of deserts. If man occupies less than 1% of the available land mass yet 33% of the available land mass are deserts then how in the hell can man possibly contribute to 40% of the global warming estimate when deserts which contribute to radiative forcing make up the overwhelming majority of the land mass responsible for radiative forcing? You don't see the absolute BS in that article?


That has to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

% of land occupation doesn't make any difference. Even if we did occupy 1% of the land (which we don't), we could still release too much CO2 if we drove enough cars, or burned enough coal.

Plants do absorb CO2, but they grow in the process. The amount they have absorbed is proportional to how much growth they get. They would have to grow more than they die.

Unless you see the actual total size of forests growing, you can assume the total world wide absorption of CO2 by plants is equal to the total amount of CO2 they are releasing when they die and get eaten by animal life. It's a zero sum game, not a magical disappearing act.

When we dig up giant fallen forests (which fell so long ago they are coal or oil or natural gas now), and burn it, there is nowhere for that CO2 to go. (Not unless the deserts start turning into jungles.)





Man occupies less than 1% of land on Earth. Yet Man supposedly (though land use) contributes as much as 40% to global warming through radiative forcing as a result of that land use. Yet somehow the 33% of the land on the planet being comprised of deserts somehow contributes less to radiative forcing?

Please tell me you understand this significant flaw in their argument. The lie they are continuing to tell you is written in their very words.




Your first mistake is where you say "as a result of that land use". Who says it has anything to do with land use?

Unless you count drilling for oil as "land use", and we're starting to run out of some of that stuff, so we can't be only 1% of that particular event.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: M5xaz

The examples of Mercury vs Venus are about the physical mechanisms where the atmosphere influences the temperature in a profound way.

Notice how the denialists don't really talk about physics? For the scientists, the physics are central to all aspects of earth science from the beginning (in all fields, far before global warming was a policy issue) and are the unifying, predictive bedrock of truth.


Precisely from a physics perspective, there is no comparison between Earth and Venusbecausethe atmospheres are so different.

I have made fluid models and tested them,including under turbulent conditions.

With respect to the "denialist" comment, "denier" is a comment that solely applies to those that deny the Holocaust, where 6 million people were systematically murdered for their Jewish origins by the Nazis.

Attempting to legitimize your warmist religion by debasing the suffering and death of millions says a lot about you.

That does make you an antisemite.
edit on 1-12-2017 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz




I have made fluid models and tested them,including under turbulent conditions.

Cool.
How about radiative forcing models?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Pardon my ignorance here but I still haven't really seen anybody really post any information directly related to the article in the op.

There have been some graphs and a lot of name calling and bashing about the article, but why hasn't anyone posted about how long a C02 molecule holds heat or refuted any of the actual data in the article?

I was just curious as to if the info could be correct.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

A CO2 molecule doesn't "hold heat" any more than any other molecule. But what it does do is absorb infrared radiation, some of which comes directly from the Sun, some of which comes from the ground which has been warmed by sunlight. Oxygen doesn't do that. Nitrogen doesn't do that.

What happens is that after a CO2 molecule absorbs that energy, one of two things will happen. It may bump into another molecule (oxygen or nitrogen, for example) and transmit some of the energy to that molecule. This is called conduction and the energy is in the form of molecular motion. The other thing that can happen is that the CO2 molecule will radiate that energy (as infrared radiation) and this is the important part.

To simplify the concept, think about it like flipping a coin. The direction in which the energy is radiated is random, so there is a 50% chance that a given CO2 molecule will re-emit radiation into space instead of back to Earth, the radiation will be "aimed" above the horizon or below the horizon. Heads or tails.

Let's start by imagining we don't have any coins. No CO2 (or other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation from the warm surface just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold. All of that heat from Sunlight is being sent back to space because there is nothing to stop it. Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation. Notice how a clear night will be cooler than an overcast night? Similar concept.

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.

This is, as I said, a simplification. But the simplification is based upon the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and then transfers that energy either directly to other molecules, or re-emits it. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you may think, more will also be re-emitted upward. Not really. 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 only 75% escapes it's warmer still.

When the balance (called radiative forcing) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Negative forcing means more energy is radiated back to space. Positive forcing means more energy is radiated back to the surface. Increasing GHGs is something that increases positive forcing. Positive forcing means more energy is retained in the atmosphere. More energy retained in the atmosphere means it gets warmer.

edit on 12/3/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
Pardon my ignorance here but I still haven't really seen anybody really post any information directly related to the article in the op.

There have been some graphs and a lot of name calling and bashing about the article, but why hasn't anyone posted about how long a C02 molecule holds heat or refuted any of the actual data in the article?

I was just curious as to if the info could be correct.


You might want to try reading the thread again. Maybe 3 or 4 times.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
With respect to the "denialist" comment, "denier" is a comment that solely applies to those that deny the Holocaust, where 6 million people were systematically murdered for their Jewish origins by the Nazis.

Attempting to legitimize your warmist religion by debasing the suffering and death of millions says a lot about you.

That does make you an antisemite.


Thanks for that, I can’t wait to show everyone I know this.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: M5xaz
With respect to the "denialist" comment, "denier" is a comment that solely applies to those that deny the Holocaust, where 6 million people were systematically murdered for their Jewish origins by the Nazis.

Attempting to legitimize your warmist religion by debasing the suffering and death of millions says a lot about you.

That does make you an antisemite.


Thanks for that, I can’t wait to show everyone I know this.


And with that, this thread has officially jumped the shark.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: liejunkie01

A CO2 molecule doesn't "hold heat" any more than any other molecule. But what it does do is absorb infrared radiation, some of which comes directly from the Sun, some of which comes from the ground which has been warmed by sunlight. Oxygen doesn't do that. Nitrogen doesn't do that.

What happens is that after a CO2 molecule absorbs that energy, one of two things will happen. It may bump into another molecule (oxygen or nitrogen, for example) and transmit some of the energy to that molecule. This is called conduction and the energy is in the form of molecular motion. The other thing that can happen is that the CO2 molecule will radiate that energy (as infrared radiation) and this is the important part.

To simplify the concept, think about it like flipping a coin. The direction in which the energy is radiated is random, so there is a 50% chance that a given CO2 molecule will re-emit radiation into space instead of back to Earth, the radiation will be "aimed" above the horizon or below the horizon. Heads or tails.

Let's start by imagining we don't have any coins. No CO2 (or other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation from the warm surface just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold. All of that heat from Sunlight is being sent back to space because there is nothing to stop it. Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation. Notice how a clear night will be cooler than an overcast night? Similar concept.

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.

This is, as I said, a simplification. But the simplification is based upon the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and then transfers that energy either directly to other molecules, or re-emits it. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you may think, more will also be re-emitted upward. Not really. 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 only 75% escapes it's warmer still.

When the balance (called radiative forcing) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Negative forcing means more energy is radiated back to space. Positive forcing means more energy is radiated back to the surface. Increasing GHGs is something that increases positive forcing. Positive forcing means more energy is retained in the atmosphere. More energy retained in the atmosphere means it gets warmer.



That is probably a very complete explanation.

A short, but perhaps less complete explanation would be that Sunlight is coming in at a certain range of frequncies, heating up the ground, and then the ground is sending another, quite different range of frequencies back.

If a chemical reflects the second thing, but is transparent to the first, then it will naturally be letting the enenergy in and then not letting it back out.



I should note: that is pretty much the only reason the Earth ever gets warm at all.

At the poles, the ice reflects the sunlight back at about the same frequency it arrived, which prevents the "greenhouse" effect from working at all. The same sunlight that passed transparently through the atmosphere to reach the ice, is turning around and passing transparently right back out into space.

But where there is no ice, the rocks and stuff absorb sunlight until they get warm enough to emit IR radiation, and then they emit about the same amount in total as they receive, but AT A DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. A frequency that can't pass transparently back into space.




top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join