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 Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

page: 9
57
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Phage




But, I see that there are still those who deny that the planet is warming. Human caused, or otherwise.


And I can see why our friends in denial continue to talk about the coming ice age (chapeau!), with this cold front hovering above their heads.
+2,5 °C in the Arctic will pose a few serious difficulties nonetheless.

cci-reanalyzer.org...

Why blame mankind if it could also be ... err... the invisible Nibiru and Planet X? Right? Right? ... Right?




posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven


1) The Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law; at the surface, it is considerably warmer, but the whole of the atmosphere averages to about 255K.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to a perfect black body. We know of no such object that actually exists; instead we use Stefan-Boltzmann as a close approximation to most objects which do act close to a perfect black body.


2) This variation in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect, which redistributes energy within the atmosphere by gases intercepting radiation leaving the surface and redirecting some of it back to the surface - cooling higher parts of the atmosphere.

That is the prevailing theory, although the term "greenhouse effect" is a loose term scientifically speaking. The actual effect is the absorption and re-radiation in a random direction of photons with energy matching the spectroscopic absorption bands of the molecules in the atmosphere.


3) CO2, second only to water vapor in overall effect, is a gas that intercepts and re-emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths - long proven by spectroscopy.

As is every other gas known to mankind. Liquids and solids, too. Spectroscopy is the study of inherent bands of absorption and re-emission of materials, which exist due to possible quantum state variations in the atomic structure of the materials studied. ALL materials, not just those we decide to study, have spectroscopic absorption bands.

As to the extent of those bands between water vapor and carbon dioxide... you are attempting to consolidate atmospheric density and spectral bandwidth. Fine, in that case, carbon dioxide is second to water vapor. But it is a far distant second place; the spectroscopic bandwidth of carbon dioxide is a tiny, minute fraction of the spectral bandwidth of water vapor, and carbon dioxide also exists in minute quantities compared to water vapor.


4) CO2 levels are going up because we are burning fossil fuels, which combines atmospheric O2 with C; consequently, O2 levels are decreasing and CO2 levels are rising somewhat less than what humans are emitting to the atmosphere.

True enough, however it is also apparent from the data we have that the planet can reabsorb carbon dioxide through natural processes. The extent of those processes is as of yet unknown, as we do not know how long the systems will take to stabilize.

The amount of oxygen removed is so tiny compared to the amount that is there, mentioning it in a non-academic setting is flirting with abuse of connotation.


That's all the steps it takes to say that humans are causing warming.

That is not a leap of logic I am willing to make on the evidence thus far.


The idea that the Sun is cooling considerably is nonsense.

I must agree, although I use the term "unproven" rather than "nonsense." We have no evidence to indicate a substantial differential in the solar output during the time spans under consideration.

Again, I repeat, Stefan-Boltzmann will provide a close approximation of the black body radiation of the planet, not a precise amount. All materials have specific quantum states they can exist in, as mentioned above, and they can only absorb energy equal to the difference between these states. This quantization throws off the exactness of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and causes it to be an approximation. What we see as temperature of a material is actually a combination of various molecules at various temperatures, averaged together to give what appears to be a purely analog temperature. A single molecule, however, will likely not be at that average temperature and indeed, could be extremely higher or lower than the average temperature. It is these particles that actually emit the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation, not the planet as a whole.

With that in mind, I do question if the relative spectral output of the sun has altered, since this could make a slight difference in the absorption/radiation of the various materials of the planet. I have not yet seen any data on that, so I cannot say one way or another if it is feasible.

TheRedneck

Stefan-Boltzmann does indeed give a close approximation; the Earth's atmosphere as a whole is about 255 Kelvin.

Why is the Earth not a frozen ball of rock?

Fortunately, the atmosphere near the surface of the Earth is over 288 K on average.

The temperature profile of the atmosphere is not simply cooling with height, however; it cools up to the the tropopause, then remains virtually the same temperature for awhile before warming with height up to the stratopause, where it remains nearly constant again before cooling up to the mesopause, and then warming once more. Almost all of the atmospheric mass on Earth is at the stratopause or below.

The stratosphere contains only ~4.2% of the total mass of the atmosphere, but what causes the warming in the stratosphere? Ozone - a trace gas that tops out around 15 ppm in the stratosphere - reacting with UV, which is good because otherwise the Earth might not have any life due to damaging UV radiation.

However, the stratosphere tops out a bit below 273 K, roughly where water freezes. This is also true of the troposphere a little above 3 km (~2 mi) from the surface. No part of the atmosphere gets cold enough such that carbon dioxide freezes (this happens on Venus due to the greenhouse effect).

We know that water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas and thus is mostly responsible for the everyday greenhouse effect; it's primarily what keeps the surface at about 288 K instead of a frozen ball of rock at 255 K. However, the capacity of the atmosphere to carry water vapor is rather dependent upon temperature - it generally follows temperature. Water vapor averages from less than 1% in cold regions to up to 4% over the ocean, but as far as I can tell the mean is closer to 2% near the surface. ~20000ppm for water vapor dwarfs ~400ppm for carbon dioxide by 50 fold. However, they stick around in the atmosphere rather differently: water vapor has an estimated residence time of about 10 days, while low estimates for carbon dioxide residence time number multiple years.

This causes a problem: with water vapor having such a short residence time and being dependent upon temperature, entropy suggests that over time the water vapor in the atmosphere would decline. A decline in water vapor in the atmosphere would diminish the greenhouse effect. A diminished greenhouse effect would reduce the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface. A reduction in temperature at the surface would further decrease water vapor, and so on.

Obviously, the Earth is not a frozen ball at about 255 K - but why is it not?

This is where carbon dioxide comes in. It's not the predominant greenhouse gas, but it is strong enough given the quantity in the atmosphere and it sticks around long enough as the secondary greenhouse gas to nudge temperatures a little bit - 255 K to 273 K is 18 degrees. A greenhouse effect from CO2 that warmed the surface over 18 degrees would certainly be sufficient.

Recall ozone up there a bit back - it warms the stratosphere by about 47 degrees from the tropopause to the stratopause - and that's with a mere 15 ppm.

Can you see how this might play out?



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I can tell you have spent the last few days reading. Kudos.

Your observations on the anomalous temperature differentials in the atmosphere fail to include half of the equation. The warming of the planet is exclusively solar radiation, which arrives primarily as visible/UV radiation, is partially reflected depending on albedo, and is partially absorbed by the planet and re-emitted according to Stefan-Boltzmann, adjusted for quantum effects as I explained earlier.

Initial warming is caused by two things primarily: oxygen (~200,000 ppmv) spectral absorption, which covers most of the UV spectrum, including conversion to and absorption by ozone, and absorption/re-emission of water/water vapor which can cover some of the visible spectrum as well as the UV. That is the area you are missing.

The increasing temperature with altitude in the upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere is a result of incoming solar radiation being blocked by both ozone and oxygen... and thank God it is! Otherwise, we'd all die fairly rapidly due to radiation. So we're not talking about 15 ppmv being solely responsible for incoming absorption... we're talking about ~200,000 ppmv (20%).

Now, if you're attempting to prove (as I think you are) that the 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some effect on temperature, you can rest now. I already know that. However, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to the amount of other gases (water vapor, for instance) means the contribution to outgoing absorption is quite small overall... certainly not enough for even a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels to be catastrophic. My argument is quantitative, not qualitative.

The time a molecule spends in the atmosphere is a somewhat irrelevant bit of trivia. We can measure the (approximate) concentrations, and the changes have been pretty slow overall. We do know that carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and the resulting carbon integrated into plant cells, and it should be self evident that the faster a plant grows, the faster this removal would become. Plant growth rates generally increase with increasing carbon dioxide levels and temperature (and before anyone goes off on a tangent into irrelevance again, that growth is reliant on water and nutrient availability). And finally, should we need to remove carbon dioxide (an unlikely scenario in my educated opinion), there are plenty of methods already available to do so.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
It's early Spring in Texas.
It was 80 degrees yesterday and 35 this morning.
My garden is stressed.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Now, if you're attempting to prove (as I think you are) that the 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some effect on temperature, you can rest now. I already know that. However, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to the amount of other gases (water vapor, for instance) means the contribution to outgoing absorption is quite small overall... certainly not enough for even a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels to be catastrophic. My argument is quantitative, not qualitative.


Simply mentioning a number in an appeal to authority does not make an argument quantitative. You need to provide data which shows how much heat each of the factors you mentioned contributes to atmospheric temperatures in the troposphere. If the amount of CO2, however small, doubles, its contribution doubles. That is a quantitative argument. Now you can input some data and make an actual point.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That information is already published. A simple Google search will yield plenty of data.

An argument does not have to have detailed numerical data to be considered quantitative versus qualitative. The difference is the difference between "will this happen at specific levels" and "can this happen at any reasonable level." Where climatology is concerned, we simply cannot accurately measure atmospheric gas levels over any area of any size; the exact concentrations vary too much, sometimes in the distance of a few yards (meters). Thus, any of the numerical measurements you find will be averages. For example, the air outside should contain approximately 400 ppmv carbon dioxide. Inside my house, even with it well-ventilated, I would not be surprised to see 600, 700, or 800 ppmv carbon dioxide. 'Stuffy air' (which is just air with higher carbon dioxide levels) starts to become noticeable at around 1000 ppmv.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Snow in Saudi Arabia April 4th 2018... wide spread delays in planting crops world wide. youtu.be...

edit on 727thk18 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

No, it is not a contaminant. By your implied definition, oxygen is also a contaminant.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Now, if you're attempting to prove (as I think you are) that the 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some effect on temperature, you can rest now. I already know that. However, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to the amount of other gases (water vapor, for instance) means the contribution to outgoing absorption is quite small overall... certainly not enough for even a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels to be catastrophic. My argument is quantitative, not qualitative.


The change in temperature is small on the absolute Kelvin (fundamental physics) scale, e.g. 3-5 of 290. And yet, that amount can be pretty damn important to 8 billion humans trying to have a good civilization in the climate. Climate is quite sensitive to that number.

Catastrophic enough to sterilize the Earth of bacteria? Of course not. Big enough to have major effects on agriculture, human health, national security, agriculture, and comfort? Yes.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Something to consider about CO2: The Ocean is the repository of most of Earth's CO2. In 1992 there was an estimation that there were 10,000 under sea volcanoes. Then in 1993 another 1100 volcanoes were mapped.. Sometime later it is now believed the are between one and three million under sea volcanoes.. When you heat the water CO2 is released and there is not a darn thing humankind can do about it..




If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Perhaps as many as 75,000 of these volcanoes rise over half a mile (1 kilometer) above the ocean floor. Technology and hard work by a group of tenacious explorers/geologists have allowed us our first detailed glimpses of submarine volcanoes. The following pages outline some of the basic characteristics and features of submarine volcanoes.

volcano.oregonstate.edu...

I am not there doing the counting but 0ne million is a number that is thrown around quite abit... I have seen a high number of guesstimated 10 million under sea volcanoes..! The truth is somewhere between the guesstimates IMO.

What ever the actual number is, if only 10% are active at any one time that is a lot of heat dumped into the oceans of the world thus more CO2 is released.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


Big enough to have major effects on agriculture, human health, national security, agriculture, and comfort? Yes.

Oh, I'm sure it will have some effect on the items you listed.
  • Agriculture - absolutely! If the planet were to warm by just a degree or so overall, it would increase the length of the growing season, as well as make many areas now too cold for effective agriculture effective. Food supply would increase as the available land for growing crops as well as the length of the growing season increased.

  • Human health - historical records show that the population increased as the planet warmed after the last ice age. Following that example, a warmer climate would have health benefits.

  • National security - OK, maybe I spoke too soon above. Is our national security going to melt?

  • Agriculture - you must like agriculture; you listed it twice.

  • Comfort - YES! YES! YES! I suffer from Raynaud's Syndrome. My hands and feet get so cold during cold weather that it becomes extremely painful... to the point that my left foot will become almost unusable. My mother suffered from it as well; she lost the index finger of her left hand to gangrene that was caused by it, and almost lost another finger. In the summer (and remember, I live in Alabama), I can make do with a window fan. In the winter, I have to purchase fuel... FOSSIL FUELS, aka kerosene... in order to have enough heat to not freeze, even if I am under three heavy blankets. ANY increase in temperature will be a Godsend for my comfort level, to the point that, if I could come up with a reasonable legal theory to support it, I would sue Al Gore for breach of contract.
Thank you so much for pointing out the potential advantages that a slight temperature change would likely bring.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: mbkennel

Something to consider about CO2: The Ocean is the repository of most of Earth's CO2. In 1992 there was an estimation that there were 10,000 under sea volcanoes. Then in 1993 another 1100 volcanoes were mapped.. Sometime later it is now believed the are between one and three million under sea volcanoes.. When you heat the water CO2 is released and there is not a darn thing humankind can do about it..


Sure there is: don't heat the water excessively by unnatural burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.

In the current condition, the ocean is absorbing some of the CO2 which is being emitted. (this is a measurable fact, not conjecture). So that means that the greenhouse effect we see now is only a fraction of what it would be had all the extra greenhouse gas we created went into the atmosphere.

As the oceans warm, it will also decrease the ability of the oceans to do service to dirty humans and absorb the CO2, so in the future a given amount of fossil fuel burning will increase the greenhouse effect even more. And that will be on top of a substantially higher baseline than today.

If you think net emission of CO2 from the ocean will be a problem someday we'll be really fuxxored, because that will add to the excessive greenhouse gases emitted by people.






If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Perhaps as many as 75,000 of these volcanoes rise over half a mile (1 kilometer) above the ocean floor. Technology and hard work by a group of tenacious explorers/geologists have allowed us our first detailed glimpses of submarine volcanoes. The following pages outline some of the basic characteristics and features of submarine volcanoes.

volcano.oregonstate.edu...

I am not there doing the counting but 0ne million is a number that is thrown around quite abit... I have seen a high number of guesstimated 10 million under sea volcanoes..! The truth is somewhere between the guesstimates IMO.

What ever the actual number is, if only 10% are active at any one time that is a lot of heat dumped into the oceans of the world thus more CO2 is released.




posted on Apr, 14 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: mbkennel

Something to consider about CO2: The Ocean is the repository of most of Earth's CO2. In 1992 there was an estimation that there were 10,000 under sea volcanoes. Then in 1993 another 1100 volcanoes were mapped.. Sometime later it is now believed the are between one and three million under sea volcanoes.. When you heat the water CO2 is released and there is not a darn thing humankind can do about it..


Sure there is: don't heat the water excessively by unnatural burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.

In the current condition, the ocean is absorbing some of the CO2 which is being emitted. (this is a measurable fact, not conjecture). So that means that the greenhouse effect we see now is only a fraction of what it would be had all the extra greenhouse gas we created went into the atmosphere.

As the oceans warm, it will also decrease the ability of the oceans to do service to dirty humans and absorb the CO2, so in the future a given amount of fossil fuel burning will increase the greenhouse effect even more. And that will be on top of a substantially higher baseline than today.

If you think net emission of CO2 from the ocean will be a problem someday we'll be really fuxxored, because that will add to the excessive greenhouse gases emitted by people.






If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Perhaps as many as 75,000 of these volcanoes rise over half a mile (1 kilometer) above the ocean floor. Technology and hard work by a group of tenacious explorers/geologists have allowed us our first detailed glimpses of submarine volcanoes. The following pages outline some of the basic characteristics and features of submarine volcanoes.

volcano.oregonstate.edu...

I am not there doing the counting but 0ne million is a number that is thrown around quite abit... I have seen a high number of guesstimated 10 million under sea volcanoes..! The truth is somewhere between the guesstimates IMO.

What ever the actual number is, if only 10% are active at any one time that is a lot of heat dumped into the oceans of the world thus more CO2 is released.




posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

So you believe mankind has more effect on heating the oceans than one to 3 million undersea volcanoes of which no one knows just how many are active at any one time ?

I disagree; but a face saving measure, is neither one of us can prove our positions one way or the other..

We have heard how the oceans are getting more acidic... That IMO is caused by all the volcanoes going off.. Proof resides in all the fresh water lakes which are not becoming more acidic .... no volcanoes polluting them..

Can we find a fresh water lake that no life can exist, yes.. there are several through out the world... Usually they have a huge gas leak on occasion (which even kills the trees) or they are like Mono Lake in California which was killed by shutting off all the fresh water supply.

Edit to add: Those who believe it is all man's fault will say the oceans are warming from the top down not the bottom up... Where the volcano people will say warm water rises...DUH !! See no end to any of this stuff as there are arguments on both sides..

Anyway this thread was about paid scientist removing/changing temperatures that would show their models wrong or show the NWO agenda is B.S... As if we did not need any more proof their models have been wrong all along..


edit on 727thk18 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

I can tell you have spent the last few days reading. Kudos.

Your observations on the anomalous temperature differentials in the atmosphere fail to include half of the equation. The warming of the planet is exclusively solar radiation, which arrives primarily as visible/UV radiation, is partially reflected depending on albedo, and is partially absorbed by the planet and re-emitted according to Stefan-Boltzmann, adjusted for quantum effects as I explained earlier.

Initial warming is caused by two things primarily: oxygen (~200,000 ppmv) spectral absorption, which covers most of the UV spectrum, including conversion to and absorption by ozone, and absorption/re-emission of water/water vapor which can cover some of the visible spectrum as well as the UV. That is the area you are missing.

The increasing temperature with altitude in the upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere is a result of incoming solar radiation being blocked by both ozone and oxygen... and thank God it is! Otherwise, we'd all die fairly rapidly due to radiation. So we're not talking about 15 ppmv being solely responsible for incoming absorption... we're talking about ~200,000 ppmv (20%).

Now, if you're attempting to prove (as I think you are) that the 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some effect on temperature, you can rest now. I already know that. However, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to the amount of other gases (water vapor, for instance) means the contribution to outgoing absorption is quite small overall... certainly not enough for even a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels to be catastrophic. My argument is quantitative, not qualitative.

The time a molecule spends in the atmosphere is a somewhat irrelevant bit of trivia. We can measure the (approximate) concentrations, and the changes have been pretty slow overall. We do know that carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and the resulting carbon integrated into plant cells, and it should be self evident that the faster a plant grows, the faster this removal would become. Plant growth rates generally increase with increasing carbon dioxide levels and temperature (and before anyone goes off on a tangent into irrelevance again, that growth is reliant on water and nutrient availability). And finally, should we need to remove carbon dioxide (an unlikely scenario in my educated opinion), there are plenty of methods already available to do so.

TheRedneck

I haven't been doing any reading - I've just been busy working due to a deadline. I've posted about this stuff before, even here on ATS.

I did neglect to include ozone in the oxygen-ozone cycle. My bad. I did mention it being good to have. The stratosphere is however a small portion of atmospheric mass.

Many others do not share the opinion that an increase in carbon dioxide will cause warming. They are wrong, of course. They don't want to believe it causes warming because they do not like the implications - or at the very least, they don't like the shortsighted attempts to curtail CO2 emissions - a common example being taxation. Sure, that's a dumb idea, but it doesn't mean CO2 ain't warming the Earth much. Of the more than 33 K difference between surface temperature and mean Earth atmospheric temperature, CO2 is estimated to contribute ~6 K, with water vapor contributing ~25 K; the remaining ~2 K are from other gases.

The time a molecule spends in the atmosphere is relevant to how long they will linger. A shorter duration for water vapor coupled with its carrying capacity sensitivity to temperature suggests that it would gradually decay over time. The Sun hasn't changed appreciably, yet temperatures are increasing significantly over time in every single dataset. Also, carbon dioxide is not simply removed from the atmosphere by plants - there is a sawtooth pattern as CO2 is returned to the atmosphere each year. Plants clearly ain't keeping up, since CO2 levels continue to rise.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
More fiddled data:
youtu.be...


In God we trust all others bring data: youtu.be...



posted on Apr, 20 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Go to 1:04 in the video and see what is lengths they go to convince people of their falsified data. What we are shown and what actually is the case are two different things.. youtu.be...

So the question is.... if everything was as dire as they claim why do they need to push fake news/graphs ?


Unprecedented Arctic warming .... Not if you look at recent history. youtu.be...

edit on 727thk18 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

We get it. You don't think the earth is getting warmer.
I disagree.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

We get it. You don't think the earth is getting warmer.
I disagree.


Actually Phage all I know is there is enough documented evidence showing people and organizations who are supposed to be reporting the actual UN-fiddled temps are a bunch of lying POS when it come to the truth. Why all the B.S. ?

Why not just report the actual temps instead of white washing the cold numbers to make them look warmer or warm numbers to make the colder (1936 high temps as shown in this thread case in point) ?

There are plenty of articles and videos showing how the lords of global warming and now climate change have been pushing an agenda instead of pushing actual facts..

Nope I do not know if the world is getting warmer.... however.... for mankind's sake ..... I hope that is the case instead of global cooling and a mini ice age.. warm we can grow food..... cold we can not even plant and expect anything to grow..

Good news is the global cooling folks are saying in the next 5 years (if not sooner)we will have little or no doubt which way the temps are going... Better forecast than the other side saying ice free arctic by 2014 and all the other forecast that have not come true.. Better in my opinion anyway... hahaha




top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join