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.

 

Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More.

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Total Solar irradiance is about 1360wm^-2. However, the average across the earth is around 342wm^-2. Which is 1/4 TSI. Required due to spherical spinning nature of the earth. Basic physics.


spherical yes, spinning, no, but at least i now know what you meant. you won't have a hard time ignoring that paragraph in my past post, will you?



It would if it applied. But it doesn't. Your incredulity is not evidence.


i never claimed it was. reader's judgement i say.





1000ppm is a real possibility if we maintain myopia. You need to follow the current science.


peak oil, wasn't it in 2004? if true, approximately half of all usable reserves were depleted by then... massive coal burning would be the only way to achieve that. everyone can calculate exponential growth, but it doesn't come true, because it really cannot.

But when you are stating this sort of thing:




It just shows you really don't know what you are going on about. The 2% for 2xCO2? 280-560ppm? Centuries?


who knows. predictions are difficult especially when they're about the future.



As for amplification/feedbacks - do you think that melting ice doesn't alter albedo?


there is a difference between increased absorption (which means efficiency, in this context as strange as that sounds) and amplification, which implies a larger output than input, where the difference has to be 'paid for' by an additional external source.





Go back and read the articles again. Start with the first and work through.



these two graphs do not show the same situation, as simple as that. tube length does not matter. repost:


The transmission decays extremely rapidly for short tubes (under a centimeter or so), because when light first encounters CO2, it's the easy pickings near the peak of the absorption spectrum that are eaten up first. At larger tube lengths, because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather slowly with the amount of CO2.



this passage is at least misleading.




Try this.

linky

Note the difference between ice, snow, and water and soil. But glaciers are still just cold deserts, huh?


so, do you have an article at hand which shows the change in Earth's albedo (all relevant wavelengths) as a result of increasing CO2? i know what the term means and i know ice reflects, what i haven't seen yet is a 'space' view of the greenhouse effect. energy spectra scale with the 4th power of temperature, conversely temperatures scale with the 4th power root of incoming energy flow.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
spherical yes, spinning, no, but at least i now know what you meant. you won't have a hard time ignoring that paragraph in my past post, will you?


So, 342ish it is then? lol


albedo should be measured easily enough, don't you think? i still haven't hear a peep in this thread, regarding its effect: isn't it all there is to know about radiative balance? think about it.


Nope. It's not all there is to know. As for measuring it, CERES and another satellite or two are collecting data.

To the Bat research-cave!


i never claimed it was. reader's judgement i say.


So it's completely irrelevant. Why mention CO2 and saturation? lol


peak oil, wasn't it in 2004? if true, approximately half of all usable reserves were depleted by then... massive coal burning would be the only way to achieve that. everyone can calculate exponential growth, but it doesn't come true, because it really cannot.


And also natural gas, along with all the other human sources. But fossil fuels are the main source. I'm glad you're so positive and certain about how much carbon we can release in the future. Thing is, we actually release enough CO2 for 4-6ppm every year, rather than 2-3ppm. But the sinks are unlikely to keep such absorbing at such a level.


But when you are stating this sort of thing:




It just shows you really don't know what you are going on about. The 2% for 2xCO2? 280-560ppm? Centuries?


who knows. predictions are difficult especially when they're about the future.


Projection...

I'm quite sure we'll easily reach 560ppm. It's a business-as-usual projection. If we act, then we can certainly find a different future.


there is a difference between increased absorption (which means efficiency, in this context as strange as that sounds) and amplification, which implies a larger output than input, where the difference has to be 'paid for' by an additional external source.


But that's not even relevent then. When talking about amplification or feedback in this area, it means other consequential phenomena that either add or subtract from the primary forcing. No-one thinks it requires an 'additional energy source' - just variation of current radiative balance.



these two graphs do not show the same situation, as simple as that. tube length does not matter. repost:


The transmission decays extremely rapidly for short tubes (under a centimeter or so), because when light first encounters CO2, it's the easy pickings near the peak of the absorption spectrum that are eaten up first. At larger tube lengths, because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather slowly with the amount of CO2.


It does matter. Transmission still decreases with length. They are different experiments, but you are picking out more than is relevant. They are just assessing Koch's original experiment. They show that Koch was wrong because he didn't vary the length of the tube sufficiently.




so, do you have an article at hand which shows the change in Earth's albedo (all relevant wavelengths) as a result of increasing CO2? i know what the term means and i know ice reflects, what i haven't seen yet is a 'space' view of the greenhouse effect. energy spectra scale with the 4th power of temperature, conversely temperatures scale with the 4th power root of incoming energy flow.


Again, just do some research. Satellites, such as CERES, are collecting such data. Albedo is about reflectivity. Take some solar energy and send it right back unaltered.

www.physicalgeography.net...

[edit on 8-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Well it's a lot to go through, in the mean time I'll leave this for everyone else to read
LOL, yeah the IPCC reports are a lot to go through but before you actually read it you'll post a BLOG opinion attacking it. Nice.

Sorry atlas. I should have made it clear that it wasn't my opinion. As I said, I didn't have enough time to go through the report at the time. So you're right, I simply ran a search and clicked on the first dissenting voice I saw and thought I'd post it to see what kind of response it got. Well, it was amusing to see it got me a new screen name.




Originally posted by atlasastro
It about time you searched some else besides Blogs, think tanks and opinion pieces.

Will do.


Originally posted by atlasastro
You said in a previous post that you had a life, it seems it may be based on lies going by what you accept as the truth. Surf that dude, I'd say that you just got wiped out in the barrel and spat out the back. But thats what happens to kooks who drop in. My wave.

I'm going to have to borrow melatonin's favourite acronym.

lol

You criticize me for posting info from a blog (I repeat, not MY opinion), then make an assumption of what my life is based on by it? So you can make a judgent on my lifestyle, from one post?
And your use of surf terminology was entertaining, dude. "spat out the back" of what? the wave? I guess youve never wiped out in a barrel before. But fair enough, you can take that wave mate, you can have it. I'll wait for the set and watch you get pummelled on the inside



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Again, just do some research. Satellites, such as CERES, are collecting such data. Albedo is about reflectivity. Take some solar energy and send it right back unaltered.
..


what i'm trying to get at is a simple and easily understood way of looking at the problem, preferrably one that is persuasive, too. so, if we have a given amount of solar energy immited onto a body in the vaccum of space (->planet) and net inflow is supposed to be equal to emissions (when equilibrium is reached), then why not use the following train of thought:

absorption and emission coefficients (for all wavelenghts) have to be the same and absorptivity + reflectivity equal one (ie. incoming radiation is either reflected or absorbed and what is absorbed has to be emitted again to preserve thermal balance).

so, any change in absorption has to be matched by a corresponding but reverse change in reflectivity (= bond albedo ie. taking an entire spectrum into account).


do you agree or disagree?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Just thought I'd mention the current state of NZ weather. We've just had a cool southerly flow of freezing antartcic air over the country. I grew up on a high volcanic plateau in the central North Island and experienced many freezing fronts and hail storms. But I've never seen hail like this before, and this is at sea level in a usually mild area. There was sstill a large amount of hail built up on roadsides and outside my front door this morning.
Snowboarding on the beach in the Bay of Plenty, who would of thought. But I'm sure this storm can be linked to global warming (sorry, climate change).
I've got a question for those who fully support the IPCC's findings. Has the current mean global temperatures fitted in with previous IPCC predictions (actually, they call them projections, don't they)? Because havn't global mean temps been decreasing for the last few years?
Or does that still fit in with the 'CO2 is the driving factor in Earth's climate' theory?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Yes, lots of things collapsed over 2008 and 2009. And they had little to do with CO2 cap and trade.


Oh yeah, and none of them had anything to do with CO2. More so when there is research which refutes the claims that CO2 is the cause of melting glaciers.



Originally posted by melatonin
It hasn't failed. Again, the evidence clearly shows that when implemented well, it can work



BS the only thing it brought to Europe was rioting because people couldn't pay for their gas, and the prices of everything went through the roof because of the green taxes.

CO2 in test tubes does not act in the same manner as in the atmosphere.

The Troposphere is Earth's atmospheric layer where most weather events occur, and it is the atmospheric layer which affects temperatures on the Earth's surface.

At least 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, and the rest 5% by CO2 and other GHGs.

Some real scientists, such as Prof. Lindzen estimate water vapour accounts for 97%, and others claim it could even be 98% of the greenhouse effect. Nobody knows exactly because you can't put CO2 in a test tube and claim that's exactly what it will do, or how much it will warm up in the atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher than now on Earth's history yet the Earth wasn't warmer than now, and at times it was even cooler with almost the same amount of atmospheric CO2 as there is now.

Atmospheric CO2 has always been an effect of some Climate Changes, under certain circumstances, and the fact that mankind has increased it a little bit is not going to make it the main driver of Climate Change.

That's all there is to it.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


heck, he's probably either on vacation or was told to stay the f*ck out of solar irradiance (and absorption) topics.

for all it's worth:

www.telegraph.co.uk...



Meanwhile, up in the Arctic, after yet another delay for bad weather, the hapless Catlin trio, sponsored by an insurance firm which hopes to make money out of alarm over global warming, continue their painful progress towards the distant North Pole, measuring the ice with an old tape measure and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is "thinner than expected"
.

When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected.


as i said before, never let data get in the way of business!

what is happening? things are not going according to plan, because the data is intrinsically available, which means you'll have to talk people out of believing what they read, see, hear and feel when they go outside. could have told them, but PR is most compelling to insiders, apparently.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
or was told to stay the f*ck out of solar irradiance (and absorption) topics.


Of course, lol.

Seeing you missed me - the circular frippery is meaningless and I have better things to do than school people in basic science. Here in opposite land you can argue that up is down and left is right unhindered by me.

Enjoy.



[edit on 12-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

as i said before, never let data get in the way of business!

what is happening? things are not going according to plan, because the data is intrinsically available, which means you'll have to talk people out of believing what they read, see, hear and feel when they go outside. could have told them, but PR is most compelling to insiders, apparently.


And, never let the left hand know what the right hand is making up:

"OMB Criticizes EPA Finding on Greenhouse Gases"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is happening? People are getting tired of the deception, exaggeration and lies, even within the Obama administration. (Heads will soon roll, no doubt!)

"White House Memo Challenges EPA Finding on Warming"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ooops.

Now, Obama and the AGW thieves have to silence their own specialists and economists who mistakenly believed that their jobs were to report facts and act in the best interest of the people.

Congress told EPA administrator Lisa Jackson that the OMB compilation of several agencies' critiques of the EPA 'finding' was nothing less than a "smoking gun" that revealed the Obama/Chu/Browner fraud.

How sad.

Deny Ignorance.

jw



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
I do trust NASA data - a lot of people work there in many different areas of climate research. I don't think they're all wrong/misleading us

Well considering James Hansen was NASA's chief climate scientist, he would have had a lot of influence on their findings. James Hansen has got to be one of the most corrupt global warming alarmist, second only to Gore himself. Here's a little more info on him
James Hansen


Originally posted by Essan
There are many scientists who do not agree with the IPCC and its predictions.

Got that right.


Originally posted by Essan
Emphasised because I think a lot of people fail to understand what consensus means. It's a compromise position, not universal agreement on details.

I agree. But just because a panel, which was specifically set up to find the effects of AGW (not if AGW was occuring) and advise what policies (after all it is the Intergovernmental Panell for Climate Change) should be put in place, produces a report illustrating the dangers of AGW, does not in any way create a consensus. Barely even a compromise, considiring the IPCC choose only the info which corroborates their findings (in other words, cherry picking) and discards any info which goes against the grain.

I stumbled across this site here with links to 50 pages refuting IPCC's findings. Yes, some of the pages are merely blogs or peoples opinions, but some of them have credible arguments. There's even an IPCC Expert Panel Reviewer who supports a review of the findings, and illustrated the ineffectiveness of the climate models used. He thought the IPCC was fundamentally corrupt and thought the only reform he could think of was abolition. Hardly a reputable source to be basing policies which will negatively impact the majority of people on Earth (while giving a minority more wealth and control).

IMO, we should seriously be looking into the mechanisms which trigger ice ages, as global cooling would be exponentially more devastating than any minor warming. But that's a whole different topic



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Of course, lol.

Seeing you missed me - the circular frippery is meaningless and I have better things to do than school people in basic science. Here in opposite land you can argue that up is down and left is right unhindered by me.

Enjoy.




can you smell the hyperbole?

basic science is better than showing graphs which (as lopsided as they are) indicate a minimal change and claiming that's enough for any given amount of projected warming.

as i said, there can be arguments for anything, which, when viewed in isolation, may even look reasonable, especially if the concepts have been spoon fed to everyone during the last decade. popularity and validity are very different things, though and no matter of selective perception will help when this particular hysteria inevitably abates, leaving in its wake mostly disappointment and economic loss.

we'll still be importing petroleum of course, because the current paradigm doesn't really adress fuel use per se and considers CO2 neutrality above all else, especially volume. we could have working methane hydrate extraction and synthetic liquid fuel for transportation purposes going by then, but no, we'll be planting inefficient, heavily subsidzed fuel corn until kingdom come instead, which does nothing but reduce available land.

looking at problems rationally means being able to make compromises. in this case, it would mean catching CH4 before it's released all on its own and converting it eventually into CO2 + energy, while the natural process creates the same amount of CO2 and releases the energy into thin air. it's not bio, it's certainly greener than oil, though as long as your extraction process is decent and used with care. compare that to the hydrogen economy or other, lesser strawmen, like biofuels.

anyone can come up with this development goal which is in all honesty, quite modest. it'S not being done because there's no danger and maximum profit means lots of intermediate stages.


that's the real difference between fanatics and everyone else, they talk about the same old subject and claim expertise when it comes to danger, catastrophy and their alledged causes, but will only offer inconsequential, nonsensical, counter-productive and -intuitive or plain unrealistic 'solutions' to said problems, which, most importantly can't really be attained, leaving us all in the pitiful state os sin against their chosen deity.....


PS: we'll find out in time who's really living in 'opposite land'. just a Q: how many successful doomsday pre--- projections are there? count them!

[edit on 2009.5.13 by Long Lance]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

Of course Mel, it's just basic science. Well known science from over 100 years!
Did they know about the imminent danger of global warming, and all of the catastrophes that would ensue, back then?

Well, if international groups could have profited from claiming it was going to happen, it wouldn't have been hard to play on the common folks emotions, and convince them with 'scientific consensus' that the world was going to end
... unless they take responsibility and pay extra taxes for the good of mankind


But come on Mel, welcome to the 21st century. We now have the means (your using it right now :up
to see through the propaganda of major corporations and global entities. We can see through the lines and get a better understanding of the world around us.

I know it's hard to see the other side when your views have been tied to a fundamental belief for so long. All those hours put in, trying to convince everyone that AGW is actually as serious a problem to humanity as profiteers make it out to be. Two words. Cognitive. Dissonance.

Be good to see you back here Mel. Your teachings of "basic science" might have helped some people to see why you defend AGW with such fervour.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
yeah, if people only took a look at radiative heat transfer. very basic and very convincing and it's really not much of a surprise GW didn't take off when science was mostly done analytically as opposed to numerical models.

like electronic calculators, the latter only give results, which may or may not apply. anyone who ever stood below a cloud should immediately understand what went wrong here, but in all honesty, that's only an argument against he modelling, not GW itself.

therefore, i have one question for all of you:

which is the highest temperature you can obtain in a solar tower facility? (using focal mirrors) i'll accept values in Kelvin, cnetigrade or any other scale, but i'd really, really like to see an answer based on comparison.

[edit on 2009.5.18 by Long Lance]



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
............
Do I have to tell you that CO2 is not the only variable that influences climate. No? So why make such a silly comment...



Oh i see, so sometimes CO2 does cause wamring, and soemtimes CO2 does not cause warming?...

CO2 must be controlled by "melatonin" and the rest of the gang I guess...

what a bunch of crap.

Like always melatonin, you do nothing more than try to dismiss every "peer-reviewed' evidence that shows your religion is wrong. not to mention that you try to derail threads when too much truth is posted, and insult people just because "melatoning" wants to...

Grow up.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Of course, lol.

Seeing you missed me - the circular frippery is meaningless and I have better things to do than school people in basic science. Here in opposite land you can argue that up is down and left is right unhindered by me.

Enjoy.

Since this is the only way melatonin understands topics, let me awnser in "melatoni's dialect".



Melatonin "school people in basic science"?... you don't know the meaning of science, you can't "school" anyone except your parrot...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Another thread with facts the AGWers can't refute and they need to read...

But of course the AGwers will continue to refute aLL data, and ALL research because their AGW religion is at stake...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


It works pretty well in reverse to EU. There is plenty of research and data that is thrown around that AGW skeptics cannot refute and they are just as religious in their fervor to discredit AGW scientists and research. That is why there are Shills like Singer, Ball and co. out there pumping fraudulent "Oregon" petitions, blogs, websites and think tank propaganda in general.

Answer me this though EU, how can you exclude 6 billion humans and all that we have done. Can you categorically and scientifically rule Anthropogenic activity out as a cause or contributer.
Science will tell you that you cannot rule it out.
Science is also arguing that it is contributing.
Science is also arguing that there may be other causes.
There may be other causes or phenomena, but that still does not negate or render anthropogenic activity as insignificant or not a contributor.

There is plenty of refutation that has appeared in relation to the matters discussed here, if you choose to ignore these arguments, that does not mean it has gone undisputed. Just that you have ignored it in order to preserve a belief. Rather religious.

Refuted:Totally refuted
Refuted again


Funny, though, one day it's volcanic activity causing this and that, and now it's solar activity, lol. Scattergun denialism. Maybe he can bump his old solar system warming thread and develop a triumverate of inane babblings.
post by melatonin

You like bumping threads.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Sorry but you can't claim that they are right when their main claim is that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for Climate Change when I pointed out evidence that CO2 LAGS temperature changes, and not the reverse.

I also pointed out, and showed evidence that MORE atmospheric CO2 is MORe benefitial for the entire green biomass of Earth... Plants, trees, and everything green grows with MORE atmospheric CO2.... They crave CO2 and at 1,200-1,500 plants, trees ect produce and grow up to 60% more...

This is the reason why the EArth has become GREENER since atmospheric CO2 began to increase, and people like you are too proud to admit you have been wrong all along...

You can't debate that by claiming the AGWers are right, when they are not...

Can you read?.... can you refute the fact that the EArth has gone through worse WARMING cycles, and mankind, and the entire ecosystem survived?...

Can you not see that CO2 is irrelevant in it's very minuscle retention of heat, which is actually caused by WATER VAPOR and not CO2?...

And you want to refute all this evidence by claiming the AGWers have shown they are right?...


[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


BTW, your response, as well as those by melatoni shows this is a RELIGION for people like you two...

He likes to do nothing more than insult, just like others like you like to do, but when you are insulted back you cry as the victim....

I have NEVER said there is just one factor which affects the climate, and melatonin is too proud, and too naive to accept the fact that he has been wrong, and continues to be wrong...

The IPCC, Al Gore, MAnn, and Hansen claim that CO2 is the cause of Climate Change when this is not the true...

These people are so wrong they labeled CO2 as a pollutant when it is AS NECESSARY AS OXYGEN for life to exist....

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by atlasastro
 


BTW, your response, as well as those by melatoni shows this is a RELIGION for people like you two...

How is this for religion.
This is you spreading BIAS think tank propaganda B.S and me responding with reply to religion.NOT.




top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join