It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If it was the "most dominate factor" we wouldn't have seen the cooling trends that have been occurring...
You are just making a claim not based on fact... "Water vapor" had been increasing naturally during the warming cycle, like it always does,
and water vapor is the one gas that accounts for MOST of the ghg effect
...not CO2 no matter how many time 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...
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.
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?....
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.
Not to mention the hundreds of peer reviewed research that show GCMs are wrong, and AGW is nothing more than a scam.
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.
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.
Originally posted by gerdony
How do you explain the worldwide melting of the glaciers if not for "Global Warming' ?
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.
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.
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.
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?