Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

reply to post by rnaa


Uhh, I want real science that explains how the differentiate man-made CO2 from naturally occurring CO2.

Not a bunch of bunk stuff about how "Tree Rings" and 'Coral Shells' are magical crystal balls. Especially after the e-mails have uncovered the cozy relationship between the CRU and RealClimate.

Try again. There is no way to differentiate between man-made CO2 and naturally occurring CO2, that is the point. The BS about "ratios" is exactly that BS, a molecule of CO2 is CO2 if it's make up is anything else then it isn't CO2.

The whole deal is based off of faith, not science.

OP, take a look at this....

Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts
(1) Astronomical Causes
* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

(2) Atmospheric Causes
* Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
* Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps

(3) Tectonic Causes
* Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
* Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
For more details see: www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
www.abc.net.au...

Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data. Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate. During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.

www.geocraft.com...

The earth's temperature was warmer between the last ice ages then it is now. How do you explain this when we were not burning fossil fuels then? I don't understand how anyone can ignore the earth's natural cycles through out history when we weren't even here.
It's just like with the cigarettes. The government taxes them up to 62% because they're bad for you and they want you to stop. Well, if they really gave a rat's arse they would have the companies remove the 422 toxic chemicals. Instead, they collect an enormous amount of money in taxes, people die sooner and collect less social security. Perfect!!
It's the same with the cap and trade they are proposing, exactly the same!!!!!!! BS

Oh yeah, take a look at this also... I suppose you will ignore this science as well.

Controversial New Climate Change Data: Is Earth's Capacity to Absorb CO2 Much Greater Than Expected? ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by rnaa

The worst yardstick I can possibly imagine for any work is whether or not it gives results you want it to give.

Of course, maybe that's why I don't work for the IPCC.

Thanks for the star.

TheRedneck
(P.S.: Thank you for the information on Wikipedia. I have found it very useful for certain things, such as common chemical data and physical data.)

reply to post by rnaa


Wrong.
Your premise is incorrect and you failed to explain where the sometimes several thousand feet of limestone-----the remains of calcium fixing organisms in the oceans---found worldwide came from.
The paleo-archeology proves without a doubt that these were laid down when the planet was MUCH warmer and the CO2 levels were as much as 1,000 times greater than today.
You also failed to mention that all plants NEED CO2 to survive, and flourish (produce more food and oxygen) up to levels that do not sustain oxygen breathers. But for the fearful, that level isn't in the 10ths or hundredths of percentage concentration, but in the double digit concentration level.

Any who doubt that CO2 isn't the "doomsday poison" that the carbon taxers wish to promulgate should look up what every animal exhales, and why, when someone has stopped breathing in a medical emergency, mouth to mouth resuscitation doesn't kill them deader than a doornail.
According to the "climate experts", the concentration of CO2 in exhaled breath is deadly to all life.

reply to post by gotrox


I didn't have a premise for that post, other than to point out observations of drastic changes due to increased atmospheric CO2 that are being witnessed TODAY, causing damage TODAY, and are setting in motion unavoidable consequences for the future.

But to answer your question, it is simple: if limestone was being deposited in oceans then the ocean wasn't too acidic the time. Snails living near acidic sea vents do not have shells, because they cannot form. Furthermore, oceans are not the only place where limestone is formed.

Don't forget, if there was more CO2 in the air during that time, the green house effect would have been in full flight, the ice caps would be non-existent, and there would be more ocean to absorb the CO2. As the ocean absorbed the CO2 and ocean life sequestered it in limestone, and the plants sequestered it in soon to be coal and oil, the CO2 was being removed from the atmosphere allow the planet to cool and ice to form again etc, etc, etc.

That process has take 500 million years or so to reach the balance that has allowed mankind to thrive. It is taking mankind only a few hundred years to destroy that balance. How can you not see that as a problem?

Here is a diagram of the chemical process:


Today, coral reefs all over the planet are being affected by rising acidification of the oceans and the consequences are really scary.

Here is a pop-sci article from the Australian Broadcasting Company's Catalyst program.

Here is a more formal paper on the subject: Summar y and Full Report

And here is a report about ongoing studies of paleohistoric ocean conditions from Science Daily

Finally, no informed person is claiming that there should be no CO2 in the atmosphere. That is just silly, OK?

Read what R.J. Cunningham said in his Journal of Geology paper : The Influence of Great Epochs of Limestone Formation on the Constitution of the Atmosphere in 1898: (unfortunately I can't link to the entire paper, but there is a sample page with the following quote here)

...(Carbon Dioxide) is an essential link in a chain of vital processes which involve all the constituents of the atmosphere. Inherently it may be no more necessary to these processes, save in its thermal nature, than is oxygen, but being the minimum factor in the atmosphere it becomes regulative and decisive, because variations in it affect the whole cycle of processes dependent on it, while similar variation in the major constituents may have no appreciable effect. It is the least chemical constituent of a mixture that determines the amount of reaction. A loss of nitrogen or oxygen equal to .0003 of the atmosphere would doubtless be wholly inconsequential, while that amount of loss of carbon dioxide would be fatal to life and to many important geologic process...

The point being that the vital regulatory nature of atmospheric CO2 and its regulatory importance to the existence of life has been understood for well over 100 years.

edit: completed unfinished sentence. and spelling

[edit on 7/12/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 7/12/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by TheRedneck

The worst yardstick I can possibly imagine for any work is whether or not it gives results you want it to give.

You are kidding, right? You spend all that time on your model and you don't want it so reflect reality?

You have, by your own assertions in your OP where you present your model and the discussion that followed, set out to demonstrate that CO2 inserted into the atmosphere by human activity cannot be the source of the observed warming trend. And then, by your reckoning, you have done it. You have studiously ignored advice on how to improve your model because to do so would not give you the results you want it to give.

I can think of no better way to waste my time and my readers time than to burden them with work that bears no resemblance to the observed world around me.

I truly thought you were trying to learn something from your efforts, but clearly I was wrong.

You are just another nay-sayer, arguing for the sake of arguing.

reply to post by rnaa

You have got to be kidding me!

Do you really think that only calculations which 'prove' what you are wanting 'proved' are accurate, simply because they offer such 'proof'?

Every value I used was sourced. Every method I used was explained. Every assumption I made was detailed. And yet it can't be right simply because you don't like the answer. And that somehow makes me 'arguing for the sake of arguing'?

Yeah.... OK....

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck
So after all is said and done with this meeting in Copenhagen. and the decision is that we are a contributing factor, what then,...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by rnaa

You have got to be kidding me!

Do you really think that only calculations which 'prove' what you are wanting 'proved' are accurate, simply because they offer such 'proof'?

Absolutely not. But that is exactly what you have done.

Here is a really good video that highlights a lot of issues with the e-mails, and the state of mind of people who think the e-mails are more than they really are:

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by rizla

 

Thanks for your wise words.

Sadly, I already knew this would be an uphill battle because ATS is full of people who think they aren't sheep so they try to go against the norm. to prove it. However, when the norm. is actually the truth and they start to go against it, they don't care how true it is, they just don't want to be a sheep.

Sadly, now, the sheep are starting to follow the people who don't want to be sheep. This makes it harder for them to not be one.

They keep referencing the boy that cried wolf, but they are forgetting the end of the story where the boy told the truth, and nobody listened.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

The blind are truly leading the blind so to speak =)
So you don't think Cap and Trade has an alternative purpose? (even perhaps a less then desirable one?)
Climate change is obviously happening but the human element is fuzzy to me. (to much info and disinfo on both sides)

NOT TO MENTION
the f****ing bickering and personal attacks are COMPLETELY UNNEEDED
want to do a civil service?
Take a DEEP BREATH
AND
Just present your case and only your case. Personal attacks will turn people AWAY from your message NO MATTER WHAT. (even if they are not the person your attacking.)

Just saying buddy(ies -- IE many of you (including myself but i'm working on it))

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Here is a really good video that highlights a lot of issues with the e-mails, and the state of mind of people who think the e-mails are more than they really are:

Agh, ya beat me to it.

No one knows what they're talking about. Please stop all posts this instant. ALLisONE is clearly the smartest person in here and he is not to be denied. Why do you people keep posting? Can't you see that ALLisONE is smarter than you? He made this thread to debate with himself. How dare anyone step into his thread and question him! All hail ALLisONE, the smartest most gifted individual on this planet. True climate change genius and smoothed out scientist.

Edit: I forgot the obligatory huge lettering to get my point across, ALLisONE IS GENIUS

[edit on 8-12-2009 by forgetthenwo]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by forgetthenwo]

Originally posted by forgetthenwo
No one knows what they're talking about. Please stop all posts this instant. ALLisONE is clearly the smartest person in here and he is not to be denied. Why do you people keep posting? Can't you see that ALLisONE is smarter than you? He made this thread to debate with himself. How dare anyone step into his thread and question him! All hail ALLisONE, the smartest most gifted individual on this planet. True climate change genius and smoothed out scientist.

Edit: I forgot the obligatory huge lettering to get my point across, ALLisONE IS GENIUS

[edit on 8-12-2009 by forgetthenwo]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by forgetthenwo]

This is typically the kind of response that dumber people give smarter people when they lose an argument. When stumped/beaten with superior logic/evidence, an inferior mind will sometimes use the "OH SO YOU THINK YOU'RE SOME KINDA SMARTYPANTS HUH??!" argument.

Basically this is a sign that you've won, ALLisONE. Good job.

Changing The Climate

Let's please just stick to the topic and leave the personal commentary for forums that aren't on ATS.

Thanks.

First off, the info was leaked, not hacked. Secondly, this is a scam to literally tax us for breathing. And third, this was posted by the "TheRedneck" and I concur:

Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

Thanks to buddhasystem, I have decided to finish some calculations I started some time back. I am posting them here. The following will be used:
Due to charcter limitations, I will be avoiding the use of exponential expressions. I apologize for any difficulty this may cause; it causes me difficulty as well, but is an inherent weakness in the font systems used on the Internet and tends to cause confusion itself when used.
All values are given in metric units. The abbreviations used are:
m = meter
cm = centimeter (0.01m)
km = kilometer (1000m)
g = gram
kg = kilogram (1000g)
J = Joule
kJ = kiloJoule (1000J)
W = Watt
s = second
°K = degree Kelvin
Calculations, due to the size of the values involved in planetary mechanics, will be based on the km/kg/kJ units. Other units are used for conversion of physical values.
The Kelvin temperature scale will be used. Remember that a degree Kelvim is equal to a degree Celsius; the two are interchangable for purposes of temperature variance.
All sources will, of course, be linked. This will, however, be done through the use of footnotes at the end and reference numbers, rather than by links embedded throughout the text, in order to keep the calculations themselves as uncluttered as possible.


It has been theorized that the use of antropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.

All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heatb reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of
r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km

A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²


We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere):
1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km²

1,366,000,000 W/km² · 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s)

175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s


That result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:
100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s


We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:
175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s · 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr


Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr · 0.0001 =
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2


Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:
V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³

V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³

V = V(tot) - V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ - 1,083,206,917 km³
= 8,694,154 km³


Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:
1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K

1.012 kJ/kg·°K · 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³·°K

1.2144 kJ/m³·°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³·°K

Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as
1,214,400,000 kJ/km³

1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ · 8,694,154 km³ = 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ


But to be accurate, the troposphere is not the only thing warming up. It has been often claimed (correctly) that the oceans are a major heat sink. So let us now calculate the amount of energy required to raise the ocean temperature by a single degree Kelvin. The volume of water on the surface of the Earth is an estimation, but several estimations are available and all of them are close. Therefore, in the interests of conservatism, I am using the smaller of the estimated values: 1,347,000,000 km³[8]. The specific heat capacity of water by volume is 4.186 J/cm³·°K[6] at 25°C. Thus, in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by a single degree Kelvin:
4.186 J/cm³·°K = 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K

4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K · 1,347,000,000 km³
= 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ/°K

As before, since we are considering a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, this is equal to
5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ


We now add the values for the troposhpere and the oceans together to obtain the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of these t

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo



The Redneck's calculations are wrong. I already commented on that topic.

His conclusion is smaller than his margin of error. He didn't declare his uncertainties. Thats the first thing anyone should do with physics and measurements. Physics 101 teaches you that, and he didn't do it.

His starting inputs are all wrong. He debunked himself before he started.

reply to post by forgetthenwo


I agree.

You have no idea how right you are.

One day you will look back on this topic and see how right I am, and that I was right the entire time. That happens all the time on ATS.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

I am still waiting for a single - thats right - ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE from a scientist in a peer reviewed journal, that has not been debunked, which disproves AGW. This of course includes scientists who have not been misquoted, taken out of context, are paid lobyists. There should be thousands for you to choose from based on your passionate conviction ? Or are you all simply basing your assumptions on insane conspiracy theories rather than the balance of evidence before you......I repeat - this request has been on offer for literally MONTHS - has been made dozens of times and has never, ever, ever been met. Lets have it !

Pretty simple request - pretty simple solution - there are literally thousands upon thousands of studies confirming the fact of AGW - but not ONE disproving it - how insane can you people get.