Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 15
279
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
How do you explain the worldwide melting of the glaciers if not for "Global Warming' ?

www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org...

physicsworld.com...

www.rfa.org...




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Hmmm. Not being the math type, I can't really follow your argument in its specifics, so I am not qualified to critique it from that standpoint. Honestly, you could have just thrown together a bunch of meaningless, flawed equations, and I imagine that a great majority of the folks reading ATS wouldn't have the slightest idea how to read and process that information to determine if it was pointless.

However, I will say that I have a great many friends who are climatologists, or work for NOAA, and there is something they are pretty much all in concurrence with: global warming, and the idea that it is primarily a man-made state of affairs. As one climatologist said to me, "the problem is that most people, who are really ignorant to start out with, confuse 'weather' with 'climate.' They're entirely different things.' As far as I'm concerned, based on what I've been told, warmer weather for a few years, weather warmer than some models have allowed for, is totally within the statistical models for general warming trends in the next few decades. Isolated years of lower temperatures and such mean next to nothing. These things have to be seen in a much longer time scale.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





If it was the "most dominate factor" we wouldn't have seen the cooling trends that have been occurring...

Which is fine, because there is no such 'cooling trend'.



You are just making a claim not based on fact... "Water vapor" had been increasing naturally during the warming cycle, like it always does,

Atmospheric water vapor density varies with temperature, true. It has not increased enough to account to drive the warming trend that has been observed. The variability is just not sufficient or we would have been in green house runaway mode and Earth would look just like Venus. Simple fact is that is rains first.



and water vapor is the one gas that accounts for MOST of the ghg effect

The natural GHG effect yes. The natural GHG effect that keeps the planet from being a frozen iceball.



...not CO2 no matter how many time you try to claim otherwise...

We are talking about the unbalanced CO2 inserted into the atmosphere by human activity. The natural GHG effect is in equilibrium. When humans dump 500 million years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in a few hundred years, that balance is destroyed. No matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.



Then there is the fact that research has been found that during the second half of the 20th century the Sun's activity had been continuing to increase which is a fact that AGWers have been trying to hide...

No one is hiding anything. It just isn't increasing fast enough to match the warming trends that have been observed.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
Finally, now that we know the Russian Mob is behind the leaked emails we should all ask ourselves which side we're gonna choose: Criminal Gangs or Science.



Since the emails have been confirmed authentic I think we can safely put that piece of FUD to rest

www.eastangliaemails.com...

Or google it to find dozens of sources



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Byrd
 


So tell us why were the Climategate scammers found to be making statements that they can't understand why temperatures had been increasing?....


Haven't read the Climategate stuff. I've been busy with school. I haven't read a lot of news lately, although, as I understand it there's only a few individuals involved and not every climate scientist on the planet, right?


Climate models are flawed, and posting same old, same old claims, and same old research about GCMs is not going to stop the fact that we just found the game these scammers have been playing.


I'd be delighted to see information about non-flawed models. Can you post some so we can do a quick comparison of the factors they're using and the math they're using?


Not to mention the hundreds of peer reviewed research that show GCMs are wrong, and AGW is nothing more than a scam.

Can you point me to a list that I might review? There was one going around several years ago which was thoroughly debunked (it made claims that papers were anti-AGW when the scientists themselves stood up and said that whoever put their papers on the "no AGW" list obviously hadn't read the papers in question. I'm not sure if it's here or on another site, but about a hundred of us went through the whole list of papers (and read them) and then reported on what the papers really siad.

Anyway, pointing to a list of these would be appreciated.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I agree that numbers don't lie. It's the peopel who choose to creativly intret the numbers who lie. My #1 issue witht he whole AGW hypothesis is this. humna generated CO2 has been steadily rising and still is. If CO2 is the all powerful driver what has the globe been cooling for the past 11 years now? This alone should force the real scientists who have been trying to support this thoery to stop and rethink their stand and re-examine the data. It appears CO2 is not the all powerful driver of climate change the AW crowd wants us to believe. The fact that experts in geology, oceanography, and climatology have known for a VERY long time that CO2 levels only change a few hundred years AFTER global temps change.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Numbers do not lie, but they can be misapplied. I abandoned my examination of this computation as soon as I saw the first glaring error. The area of the earth as exposed to the sun is represented as a simple circle as opposed to a hemisphere which leads to a significant difference in area. I did not bother reading more, as this discrepancy alone is enough reason to discount the whole computation, as it forms an early value to which others are applied. However, one could assume that such indolent applications are to be found in the remainder of this worthless calculations as well. Aside from this, I note that Wikipedia is cited as source material, and one might as well cite Winnie the Pooh as a source of authoritative data.
I wish to make it clear that I believe that global warming is NOT significantly caused by CO2 emissions. In this regard I am in agreement with the author. However, attempts to qualify ones arguments in this regard should be done with all due diligence and precision. This work, however, is pure laziness, and the result is rubbish. I would suggest you rework the numbers with an eye toward reality. Unless of course you are a flat-Earth believer, as your numbers would infer, in which case you have a sound area computation. But watch out for the edge, we wouldn't want you to fall off.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richardatf
Numbers do not lie, but they can be misapplied. I abandoned my examination of this computation as soon as I saw the first glaring error. The area of the earth as exposed to the sun is represented as a simple circle as opposed to a hemisphere which leads to a significant difference in area. I did not bother reading more, as this discrepancy alone is enough reason to discount the whole computation, as it forms an early value to which others are applied. However, one could assume that such indolent applications are to be found in the remainder of this worthless calculations as well. Aside from this, I note that Wikipedia is cited as source material, and one might as well cite Winnie the Pooh as a source of authoritative data.
I wish to make it clear that I believe that global warming is NOT significantly caused by CO2 emissions. In this regard I am in agreement with the author. However, attempts to qualify ones arguments in this regard should be done with all due diligence and precision. This work, however, is pure laziness, and the result is rubbish. I would suggest you rework the numbers with an eye toward reality. Unless of course you are a flat-Earth believer, as your numbers would infer, in which case you have a sound area computation. But watch out for the edge, we wouldn't want you to fall off.


Calculations like these are fun little mental exercises but that's about it. We really don't know what drives our climate changes. People who take these computations seriusly need to look at the slew of climate models out there. Not a single one predicted the 11 year cooling cycle we currently find ourselves in. The most the AGW can do is pretend the cooling doesn't exist. I hope reason wins of fear and ignorance before governments start enacting insanely expensive and crippling "green" economic policies.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Richardatf

OK, let me try to explain this one more time...

The energy coming from the sun is radiating outward in all directions from what can essentially be considered a point source. Solar radiation moves in a straight line. The surface of the Earth is not all at right angles to this point source; since the Earth is a sphere, the only point that will be at right angles to the solar radiation at any time is the point of the sphere that is 'pointing' directly at the source. Any other surface will present an incidence angle to the point source, with that angle varying from 0° near the equator to 90° near the poles.

The side of the sphere where this angle exceeds 90° receives no solar radiation, which means it cannot be considered.

The energy coming from the sun is at a constant rate, measured to an area which is at right angles to the direction of the sun's energy flow. As the incidence angle of the Earth's surface increases, the area of the sphere which is affected by that energy increases, meaning the solar radiation per unit area of the Earth's surface decreases as the incidence angle increases, reaching zero where the incidence angle is 90° near the poles.

Any calculations involving the surface area of the planet must take this into account.

But there is another way to calculate the total energy coming from the sun. Since the distance from the sun to the surface of the earth is so great compared to the radius of the Earth, the distance measured along the path of the incoming radiation is irrelevant to the calculations. The only distances which affect the amount of energy are the height and width of the area of the planet's profile, which is a two-dimensional representation. In other words, the normal plane of the Earth in relation to a point source of radiation is a 2-dimensional sphere, otherwise known as a circle.

If we were calculating the amount of total energy emanating from the sun over half of its surface area, you would be right. The energy is not coming into the sun from a distant point source, but can be seen as emanating from the center of the sphere of the sun. Thus, the normal plane to the radiation would follow the surface. But the Earth does not 'suck in' sunlight from space itself over half of its area; it merely intercepts radiation from that point source.

One more way to look at this: tonight look up into the sky at the moon. We all know the moon is a sphere. Now cut a piece of paper so it is as small as possible, yet still just covers the moon when you hold it in front of your face. Is that piece of paper a sphere? Of course not. It's a circle. But to your eyes, it is the same size and shape as the moon, a sphere. Now consider what would happen if you shined a very powerful flashlight beam at the moon. If that piece of paper was covering the moon, would it cause the moon to not receive any energy from your flashlight? Of course it would. Can we then say that the energy that would have been received by the moon is now being received by the piece of paper? Of course we could. So if we measured the energy intercepted by that circle, it would be the same energy which would be intercepted by the hemisphere of the moon.

Same principle.

In mathematical terms, if we were to integrate the area of the hemisphere of any sphere multiplied by the incoming energy per unit area of the sphere's surface, the result would be the same as if we multiplied the area of a circle of equal radius as the Earth by the full energy output per unit area of the normal plane to the direction of energy flow.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The side of the sphere where this angle exceeds 90° receives no solar radiation, which means it cannot be considered.


Not quite true. It receives it by convection in the atmosphere (winds) and in the ocean (sustained heat in the ocean that cools somewhat during the night.) The night side is a dynamic part of the equation.

The earth stays warm for quite awhile after sundown, so it radiates heat back into the atmosphere (different rates for different landscapes.)



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd

Not quite true. It receives it by convection in the atmosphere (winds) and in the ocean (sustained heat in the ocean that cools somewhat during the night.) The night side is a dynamic part of the equation.

No, the night side of the planet does not receive solar radiation. That is the definition of day and night. Convection is different than radiation.

Yes, the Earth still contains some energy after the sun goes down, but it is receiving no more energy directly from the sun. Any received energy is in the form of conduction/convection/retained heat from when that section of the Earth was lit by the sun.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gerdony
How do you explain the worldwide melting of the glaciers if not for "Global Warming' ?

www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org...

physicsworld.com...

www.rfa.org...




If you look deeper into the melting of glaciers, you will see that these melting glaciers are revealinig signs of human habitation and "industry" which those glaciers had covered for hundreds of years.

In simpler language, the Earth was warmer in the past, than it is today. The period was known as the "Little Optimum" - at least it was until it became an "Inconvient Truth" for non-science huckster's like Al Gore then it got burried and and all but forgotten. The One World Government types are trying to use the hobgoblin of Global Warming to scare people into giving them the power they crave.

And, of course, also being ignored that while a few cherry picked glaciers are shrinking, many are growing www.iceagenow.com.... Not only that but, overall, the Earth has been cooling since the begining of this century.

-RTF



[edit on 8-12-2009 by Rufus T Firefly]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I hate to point out an error in your math.
The Formula for volume is: h r r n = Cylinder Volume. Which is what we are talking about.
h - height
r - Radius
n - Pie or 3.14

3.14 X 6371 X 6371 X 17 = 2,166,675,037 km²

Not 128,197,539 km²

If you follow it all the way down to the bottom using the rest of your numbers, (which I have not checked at this point but the formulas look right.) Then it would be 6.04 times the available energy not 1.02 times.

Please check this and change if needed. but it does make you think about what is being said out there about global warming.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jayjayson
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I hate to point out an error in your math.
The Formula for volume is: h r r n = Cylinder Volume. Which is what we are talking about.
h - height
r - Radius
n - Pie or 3.14

3.14 X 6371 X 6371 X 17 = 2,166,675,037 km²

Not 128,197,539 km²

If you follow it all the way down to the bottom using the rest of your numbers, (which I have not checked at this point but the formulas look right.) Then it would be 6.04 times the available energy not 1.02 times.

Please check this and change if needed. but it does make you think about what is being said out there about global warming.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by Barnowl]

The calculation is not for cylinder volume though, it is for the circular area of the earth's disc as presented to the sun so as to determine the total solar insolation in watts per square meter (W/m2), at least as far as I understand it.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by Barnowl]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, the Earth still contains some energy after the sun goes down, but it is receiving no more energy directly from the sun. Any received energy is in the form of conduction/convection/retained heat from when that section of the Earth was lit by the sun.


My bad! Inept reading on my part.

However, the surface of the earth does not receive the same amount of solar energy. It's a sphere and the thickness of the atmosphere (if it's hitting latitude 45 north or south, it is running through more atmosphere than if it's at the equator) has an impact.

We gave you links to several papers with good modeling formulas, and none of them treat the Earth as a flat plane because this generates substantial errors.

You're very good at math. Is there any reason you're still using a "it's a flat plane" calculation (which gives you errors) rather re-running your numbers with some of these formulas (or critiquing them and modifying your own formulas?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Even if global warming is not being caused by all the CO2 that is being pumped into the air on a daily basis from all across the globe, the simple fact is that humans are destroying the planet. You are going to tell me the constant smog over LA isn't destroying the planet? You are going to say that clear cutting the jungles across the globe to plant more and more crops is not destroying the planet? You are going to deny the evidence of the poles melting, the glaciers melting, and the polar bears regions shrinking? You going to say that the 6 billion + people that have to be fed every day isn't putting a real strain on this planet? If you really think that humans are not destroying the world, then you are an idiot. You can perform all the mathematical equations that you want, the simple fact is we are destroying the world, you can see the evidence everywhere around us, and if you are too blind to see that, then I really feel bad for you.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by WonOunce]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by WonOunce]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Great Job, indeed. Kudos.

Since the Thought Police are searching for anyone who disagrees with the policies of the Federal Government, I would recommend that everyone Flag and Star this and get it out anyway they can.

Gore and the Rothschilds' milking machine won't like this one bit.

Look up Ian Plimer, Australian Geologist, see how far his press release got.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
Great Job, indeed. Kudos.

Since the Thought Police are searching for anyone who disagrees with the policies of the Federal Government, I would recommend that everyone Flag and Star this and get it out anyway they can.

Gore and the Rothschilds' milking machine won't like this one bit.

Look up Ian Plimer, Australian Geologist, see how far his press release got.


Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, Ian, heh, heh, Plummer, heh, snort, heh, sorry, snort, heh, heh, Ian Plummer?, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, sorry, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, stop, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, I can't stand it, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd

However, the surface of the earth does not receive the same amount of solar energy. It's a sphere and the thickness of the atmosphere (if it's hitting latitude 45 north or south, it is running through more atmosphere than if it's at the equator) has an impact.

Yes it does, and that impact would appear to be the single largest complaint with my calculations from my peers here, as well as the admittedly largest hole I personally see in it. I still, until I have proven to myself that the retention of energy is 100+ times what can be accounted for using static CO2 data (which is what I used), will maintain that the figures do not allow for anthropogenic carbon-dioxide to be the culprit for observed warming.


We gave you links to several papers with good modeling formulas, and none of them treat the Earth as a flat plane because this generates substantial errors.

Yes, you did, and I am reading them.


You're very good at math. Is there any reason you're still using a "it's a flat plane" calculation (which gives you errors) rather re-running your numbers with some of these formulas (or critiquing them and modifying your own formulas?

Only time. You have already read the information you supplied, and are familiar with it. I, on the other hand, have not. At the present time, I am engaged in reading the information in these links, applying it to the conditions we have, continuing to look into pollutants, as you earlier suggested, and at the same time have to handle my regular life as well. I also have two major projects in construction at this time, either of which will take priority over this thread.

That means, my friend, to be patient.

The Theory of Relativity was not written in an afternoon. Nor was the present theories on Global Warming concocted in a short time. Your own education, which I must say is impressively submitted in this thread, has taken years to further to this point.

I think a few more days is a more than appropriate time to respond to such inputs as you have given.

I think such a closing statement, however, is at best ingenuous. You are well aware of the time it takes to analyze data. I expect much better from you than "hurry up; what's taking so long?"

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WonOunce

I made no mention that human pollution is not dangerous or destructive. I made no mention of how much food is consumed versus how much can be produced. I made no mention of smog, which is completely irrelevant to carbon dioxide levels (carbon dioxide is colorless and invisible).

All I am saying is that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is not the cause for observed warming trends.

Your other concerns have as much in relevance to this thread as whether or not a UFO was spotted over Colorado Saturday.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

TheRedneck





top topics
 
279
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join