Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
If any of these people gave a damn, dozens of nuclear reactors would be nearing completion or completed by now. They can't oppose the only real solution available and at the same time pretend to give a damn about anything but money.


As I'm sure you know, politicians always talk-the-talk, but tend to fall ass over tit.

But that's nothing to do with the science. You were talking about agenda-driven politicians and their funding of science. Generally, the money for science research from government sources is actually spread by scientists. They decide which projects are worthy of support.

But here is one of the few examples I've come across of a politician specifically acquiring funds from government coffers for a climate research project. And what's it for? Oh, yeah, climate model obscuration. They should call the project CADFUD.

The CRU emails did throw out some interesting things: there is a 2007 email by John Christy trying to get funding for this project (linked to Bush government dudes; one of whom was a George Marshall think-tanker - Jeff Salmon).

Anyway, yeah, I agree. We should be building nuclear power stations.


If any of them gave a damn, the billions being showered on Unions and Banks right now, would be going to fund private enterprises solutions and research.


Obama has sent money that way for new tech.

It was much more than the last crew ever did, they were too busy gagging scientists and altering science reports.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by melatonin]




posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Maybe they should have spent 5 minutes reading Arhennius first?


Again with Arrhenius?... Arrhenius claimed that with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 temperatures would increase 5-6C. Since his time atmospheric CO2 levels have increase to 90+ and temperatures have gotten NOWHERE close to even 2.5-3C... Arrhenius was wrong sorry to say...

Then again he was right about one thing... He stated that the Earth would become GREENER, trees, and plants would be stronger and there would be higher yields in harvests which could be used to feed people... In that he was right, but obviously his claims that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase temperatures to 2.5C -3C was wrong sorry to say.

Even when Arrhenius adjusted the values, AGAIN, he claimed temps would increase to 1.6C, and with water vapor temps would increase to 2.1C, again not only was he wrong, but he got it backwards. He actually thought atmospheric CO2 contributed more to the greenhouse effect than water vapor, and that is also wrong.

If this was true according to Arrhenius, and after he adjusted the values AGAIN, then temperatures would increase 1.6C because of atmospheric CO2, meanwhile water vapor would only increase temperatures by 0.5C. This is wrong, and we know this very well now, except for the AGW fans obviously.

His claim that temperatures would increase more because of CO2, and not because of water vapor is not only absurb, but it is idiotic.

We know for a fact that water vapor in the troposphere contributes at least for 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 and the rest of the GHGs contribute to about 2% -5%. And that is just one of the MANY estimates.

We also know for a fact that GCMs, the Gods of AGW fans, are flawed because they depend on false assumptions which do not stand to scrutiny.

When the atmosphere warms, it can hold more water vapor which increases the levels of atmospheric water vapor naturally. This means the warmer it gets, the higher that the levels of atmospheric water vapor increase naturally, and that is the main GHG, and the one that affects temperatures in any dramatic way.

Then again I have posted also peer-reviewed research that shows the oceans have warmed more than the atmosphere, which again shows the warming was/is not being caused by ghgs in the atmosphere, but by other NATURAL factors, and yes there are MANY natural factors that affect Climate Change.



Originally posted by Essan
Though in any case, unless they've have proved than human activity has no effect whatsoever on the Earth's albedo (a city has the same albedo as a forest? A forest has the same albedo as a field? Ice covered water has the same albedo as open water?) and/or that Earth's albedo has no effect whatsoever on temperature (a white object absorbs the same radiation as a black object?), then they haven't disproven AGW


For crying out loud just because mankind has an effect on the environment it doesn't mean we are affecting the GLOBAL temperatures...

Are you claiming, once again, that the urban heat island effect affects global temperatures?... that's preposterous, we have gone through this before Essan...

Even with deforestation the only thing that humans cause is a LOCAL impact, and not a global impact, simply because there are more powerful factors that are the cause for the Earth's climate, and it's environment.

Then there is the fact that since the 1800s the northern hemisphere has become GREENER, the same has been found of the oceans.

If you want to go after illegal deforestation go to south America, Asia, Russia, India, etc, and DEMAND of them to stop doing that... The west, and the U.S. is not the cause of this.

I have already shown several times that the U.S. has been the first country to implement a law against buying wood which has been acquired through illegal deforestation.

Do you understand the fact that you are living in a planet that is affected by what happens in space?

Going after CO2 because "environmentalists/AGW fans have a funny feeling about it" that you should demand for taxes, and for the elimination of a perfectly good gas, which is essential for all life on Earth, and which the Earth is deprived of right now, it is not only naive, but dangerous.

We have a big problem with food resources right now, and sequestering atmospheric CO2 will not only cause the worse environmental impact mankind has ever caused, but it would also cause for the starvation of billions of people, apart form the billions that are starving right now...

Again I keep pointing out to the irony that escapes environmentalists. They want "what is best for nature" yet they want to deprive of nature of a gas, CO2, which is beneficial, and essential to it...






[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Obama has sent money that way for new tech.


Obama, and his administration have allowed for the FEds to steal over 9 trillions dollars, more than was lost during the Bush administration or any other. Not to mention that he is destroying this country, something which of course someone of your ilk loves to see.

His administration spent more money than any other before it just for the inauguration, and to show that "he is the new ceasar"..... and this during a time when the Obama administration knew the U.S. and the world was in an economic crisis...yet of course someone like yourself see him and his administration as a hero...


Europeans, and others love to show their ugly heads in the government, and policy of the U.S., but they don't like it when we show our heads in theirs.... and don't give me that crap that it is different...




Originally posted by melatonin
It was much more than the last crew ever did, they were too busy gagging scientists and altering science reports.


Naa, we actually saw how your idols Mann, Jones, et al, if you are not one of the scammers, have been rigging data, hiding evidence that they didn't like because it refutes your AGW religion, going after any scientist who would dare to publish any research paper that refutes your religion, and they talked among other things to use any legal, and illegal ways to keep people in the dark, yet you want to claim the other side is the one doing it?...


You are hilarious. You should go back to saturday night live where you belong because science and the truth is not your thing.



[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

I did check their CVs. They're mathematicians, not physicists. One works with topology, one with Abelian sets. They didn't have any physicists review the paper before sending it out, nor have they ever done any earth modeling studies or research.

-- snip --

I think it's an exercise in ego by a mathematician who is frustrated abouot an issue and not a genuine study by a real physicist.


Hmm, you did research. You checked facts. You checked sources and you used logic.

Are you sure you are in the right thread?

What a relief to see someone with some common sense doing the stuff I should have thought to do. Mea Culpa.

Well that's pretty much it for me for this thread after that closer of an argument -- not much to add to that. It's been fun ElectricUinverse and friends... see guys around!


[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danna

earth is a closed system it means it only receives energy (as you said sunlight) but not matter. And when you think about meteors and outer space well that isn't enough matter compared to earth's size.


Really? how did Earth get all the water that exists in it?... Ice comets have been the main reason why Earth has gotten the water it has... yet you want to claim that the Earth does not get enough matter from outer space?...



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

I did check their CVs. They're mathematicians, not physicists. One works with topology, one with Abelian sets. They didn't have any physicists review the paper before sending it out, nor have they ever done any earth modeling studies or research.
.


Oooh, i see. so instead of discussing and debating what they are stating in the paper you instead turn to try to discredit them?...

Could you tell us in what field of science do you have a degree on?

Last I checked you have stated to be an archeologist, albeit one that is not aware of many archeological findings. You have even claimed in the past that the Vedic scriptures do not exist. Should we then dismiss everything you claim because of this?.... Because even though you are an archeologist you have no idea of many archeological findings and you like to reach conclusions based on your preconceived ideas, and also you resort to attacking the messenger/s instead of debating their argument?

Gerhard Gerlich teaches Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany. Both Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner have PhDs, yet the AGW fans can only refute their research by making rhetorical claims based on ASSUMPTIONS?.... and that is enough to dispute their findings?....



Originally posted by Byrd
I've seen this happen before, where a scientist in one field decides to comment on something they feel strongly about in another field...


And again what field of science do you have a degree on again?....oh that's right archeology....

Kind of ironic isn't it?..... You are talking about yourself with the above comment, yet you don't seem to realize it....

[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by metamagic

Hmm, you did research. You checked facts. You checked sources and you used logic.

Are you sure you are in the right thread?


Oh yeah right... i forgot, when someone agrees with you, and they resort to do nothing more than attack the messenger then they are telling the truth... Phew, I guess we are learning quite a few things in this thread...

BTW, just because someone agrees with you they are not displaying common sense.

Again your responses keep showing that you really have no idea on what it takes to discuss scientific topics.

Good day to you too, and good luck with your new religion.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


LOL why are you still here???

...and barking at others about religion and blind faith no less.

unreal.

YOU already debunked the OP yourself remember??

The same OP which you probably flagged and are now defending and using as some sort of evidence that AGW proponents only listen to one side of the story???

Your blatant hypocrisy is astounding EU. And watching you squirm and try to backpedal your way out of it is just embarrassing for everyone...

This article is complete junk and you know it. If what Gerlich & Tscheuschner were saying had any merit it would mean there is no such thing as a Greenhouse effect - not even a natural one - which would then mean the average temperature on Earth is around -18 C!


All you need to debunk this nonsense is to go outside.



Seriously, try that some time.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by melatonin
 

True, or not true, this is about money and power, not science and certainly will have almost imperceptible positive impact even if it were not.



IMO this is the fundamental flaw in the way skeptics look at the issue of Global Warming altogether.

They refuse to separate the science from the politics and since they don't understand the science part - they just tear it all down along with the political bullcrap.

In essence it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The politics of global warming are certainly flawed, possibly even corrupt (we're still waiting to see) - but that doesn't all of a sudden mean there's a giant conspiracy amongst tens of thousands of the worlds best scientists to fool everyone along with it.

Nature itself has no political agenda, and to make this connection is nothing short of absurd.



Yes cap & trade has serious issues - but these issues reflect the corrupt moral flaws in our economic system, not in science. Furthermore the fact that cap & trade is even on the table at this point is a testament to everyone's general apathy and overall corruption of values.

And by "everyone" I mean everyone, not just the powers that be.

If the general public really cared about this issue we wouldn't need cap & trade. But no, people would rather wave it all off as some ridiculous nonsensical conspiracy.

So here we are - feeding the beast.

The only way to get anyone to take action in this world is by motivating them with the almighty dollar. That's why cap & trade exists. Because of the same disgusting ideology that got us in this mess in the first place.

People really need to figure this out and stop foolishly trying to point the finger at science.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Global warming wether it is man made or not is a fact we just have to find out how best to respond to our current circumstances, these guys make perfect sense and i am not for a second disagreeing or agreeing with them but we do have a climate issue that needs fixing.
So stop pointing fingers and get together to help the environment out.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

LOL why are you still here???


Yep, and i am not going anywhere. I don't see you contribute anything at all here yet again squared...



Originally posted by mc_squared
...and barking at others about religion and blind faith no less.


:lol; me barking?... naa, i am not the one demanding for people to follow their ideology which is based on lies, rigged data, and on blind faith based on false assumptions and flawed computer models...


Originally posted by mc_squared

YOU already debunked the OP yourself remember??


So you first claim I was debunked, and again you lack the intelligence to know you can't debunk people, and now you are claiming I debunked the OP?... Please stop it, you are really embarrassing yourself....


Originally posted by mc_squared
The same OP which you probably flagged and are now defending and using as some sort of evidence that AGW proponents only listen to one side of the story???


Tell us square, do GHGs make the Earth?... Do GHGs comprise of everything that exists on Earth?.....

You see, you need to be intelligent enough to realize that what this paper is about is GHGs, not the entire Earth...

You see, you need to be intelligent enough to realize that the Earth's GHGs for the most part are a closed system, but that doesn't mean the entire Earth is a closed system, because GHGs do not equal the entire Earth... The Earth is more than just GHGs....but this seems to escape someone such as you.

Then again, in order to understand that you need to be way smarter than you are, so I understand your ignorance about this, but what makes it hilarious is that you actually think you are being smart when you are just showing to be the oposite.


Originally posted by mc_squared
Your blatant hypocrisy is astounding EU. And watching you squirm and try to backpedal your way out of it is just embarrassing for everyone...


My hypocrisy?... I am not the one who only writes nothing more than rhetorical nonsense, and doesn't even have the intelligence to make a concise argument.



Originally posted by mc_squared
This article is complete junk and you know it. If what Gerlich & Tscheuschner were saying had any merit it would mean there is no such thing as a Greenhouse effect - not even a natural one - which would then mean the average temperature on Earth is around -18 C!


No, you see, you did not even take the time to read the paper... The main point of the paper is the following, since you are too lazy to do a bit of reading yourself...


Recently, there have been lots of discussions regarding the economic and political implications of climate variability, in particular global warming as a measurable e ect of an anthropogenic, i.e. human-made, climate change [1{13]. Many authors assume that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel consumption represent a serious danger to the health of our planet, since they are supposed to influence the climates, in particular the average temperatures of the surface and lower atmosphere of the Earth. However, carbon dioxide is a rare trace gas, a very small part of the atmosphere found in concentrations as low as 0; 03Vol% (cf. Tables 1 and 2, see also Ref. [16]).1





Originally posted by mc_squared
All you need to debunk this nonsense is to go outside.

Seriously, try that some time.


You see... this is the sort of nonsense that people like you like to claim... As if going outside proved AGW.... in fact observation of the Earth system shows the contrary... It shows that GCMs are wrong, and that the claims of AGW are wrong...

Part of what the paper is trying to expalin is that, despite the claim form the AGW fanatics that the greenhouse effect of the Earth functions just like a greenhouse, that this is not true. A greenhouse is a truly completely closed system, the Earth is not....

There is no air circulating in a greenhouse, and a greenhouse is not affected by what happens in the oceans, among the many other natural factors that do no affect a greenhouse, but affect the Earth's atmosphere...

In the same manner CO2 does not react the same way in a test tube, or in a controlled experiment as it reacts in the atmosphere...

We cannot duplicate every single factor that affects the Earth's atmosphere, and it's climate, hence there is no way that we can create computer models that perfectly mimics what happens to Earth's climate.

But again, i am sure that's just way over your head.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Let's go back. I've read the original paper posted on the first page. It is not really physics, it more of a screed.

One thing is true---there are numerous incorrect explanations of the atmospheric "greenhouse effect" (it is not precisely the same as a terrestrial greenhouse for plants). But actual scientists who actually work in the field know the right one. It is Atmospheric Science 101.

This one is closest to truth:


The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lets the radiation of the Sun, whose maximum
lies in the visible light, go through completely, while on the other hand it
absorbs a part of the heat radiation emitted by the Earth into space because of
its larger wavelength. This leads to higher near-surface air temperatures.

The german paper's nonsensical reponse:


"Disproof: The rst statement is incorrect since the obviously non-neglible infrared part of
the incoming solar radiation is being absorbed (cf. Section 2.2).


The bulk of incoming solar radiation power is in the visible light, and goes through the CO2. It hits the surface and then re-radiates in longer wavelengths. This IR radiation goes up through the atmosphere. If there is more stuff in the atmosphere, like water and CO2, then some of that gets absorbed in the atmosphere and reflected back again.

From the point of view of an observer on the ground, the sky is shining in infrared, in addition the visible light coming from the Sun.

They continue


The second statement is
falsi ed by referring to a counterexample known to every housewife: The water pot on the
stove. Without water lled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. Water is an excellent absorber of infrared radiation. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the
pot will be substantially colder. Another example would be the replacement of the vacuum
or gas by glass in the space between two panes. Conventional glass absorbs infrared radiation
pretty well, but its thermal conductivity shortcuts any thermal isolation."


This is just totally nonsensical and disproves nothing. The reason why the water pot on the stove is cooler with the water on it is because the water is liquid, starts out at room temperature (non-equilibrium) and has a very large heat capacity compared to that of the metal electric coil & bottom of the pan. D'oh!

In the Earth's atmospheric system the Sun has been shining for 4 billion years. If suddenly the Sun turned on yes the presence of water would mean that it would take a little bit longer to get up from near absolute zero to our current temperature because of the heat capacity of water. True but utterly and totally irrelevant!



The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is
rather obscure.


Where did they think up this howler? Of course the atmospheric infrared emitters emit in all directions. If you get half going back down, that is still more than than the nothing that you get without an atmosphere.


The described mechanism of re-calibration to equilibrium has no physical
basis. The laws of cavity radiation do not apply to
fluids and gases.


WTF? Radiative transfer in fluids (gases are fluids) is a known science.


German nutters:


This statement is vacuous, even in a literal sense. One cannot compare the temperature
of a planet's lower atmosphere with the situation where a planetary atmosphere
does not exist at all.


Sure you can! The experiment is orbiting our planet as we speak.


The German "physicists" explanation denies all greenhouse effect---not the changes from humans, but the total physical phenomenon.



That is just plain silly, because then you cannot explain these fundamental physical observations:



a) The night time temperature on Earth is usually much, much warmer than the night time temperature on the Moon, even though they are the same distance from the Sun, and receive the same amount of solar radiation. Why? What is the physics of that?


b) the night time temperature is cooler (e.g. in a desert) when the humidity is very low, compared to when it is high. Why? What is the physics of that?

c) The surface of Venus is stupendously hot, far, far more than would be justified by a naive application of the use of the black body emission power and compensating with the closer distance to the Sun.

Even the (very) few actual scientists on the skeptical side (e.g. Lindzen) can'tt buy any of this garbage. At least when they are writing in professional journals and not penning crap in the wall street journal, they just maintain that the climate sensitivity (net effect after all sorts of physics is included) happens to be lower (not zero!) than the consensus value.

Of course there are always plenty of BS artists.

And in case it matters, yes I am a professional scientist with a PhD in physics. I am as "pro global warming" the way a microbiologist is "pro anthrax".

I really wonder whether this is some kind of postmodern "performance art", rather like the guy Sokol who submitted a baloney article about postmodern mathematics or something to a literary criticism journal. It is crafted quite well with just enough big words and assertions that some crank websites will pick it up and think it's the dog's bollocks.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
I believe that people either really like their "science" jobs, really like a random cause, are really gullible, or feel guilty for littering so much. There might even be other reasons I am not calculating.


Too bad! Because the reasons just might include adherence to logic and scientific method. As simple as that. As I explained in previous post, the paper cited in the OP is lacking in critical places.



The scientific method is CRAP. It leaves out one important factor which everyone has experienced and yet cannot be proven. THE SECOND YOU TRY TO OBSERVE SOMETHING, IT CHANGES.

"Science" SUCKS. It still has not gained us ----anything---- except for more STUFF. More STUFF weighs us down, gives us new ways to become comfortable and lazy, gives us new ways to kill people, and gives us new things to argue and complain about. STUFF keeps our mind off of the better things in life. STUFF keeps us from the truth. I'm sure everyone here has experienced truth that they could not communicate to others. That's because some truth can only happen upon you. It can't always be communicated. BUT STUFF gets in the way of even that little blessing in life!

Your "science" and all you "scientists" are WASTING everyone's time and the duller-heads in the world that need some truth and don't know what to believe are being led by their ear-lobes around the world with you guys.

As for you people who constantly try to fight science with science, are you not also incredibly slow? Any new science that you come up with is simply going to be rewritten 100 years from now anyway! So what awards do you earn for claiming global warming isn't real? You are saying something that is true, so therefore, your science must be truer?

This is a cry-baby thread in the guise of a bunch of adults attempting to discern --nothing--.

And for all you who are about to defend the scientific method...

Science is latin for "knowledge". A very smart MATHEMATICIAN calculated the circumference of the earth thousands of years ago (way before the Roman Catholic church whined about the shape of the earth). Tell me. Was this person able to calculate the circumference of the earth because he was able to become God for a moment, see the true form of the cosmos, see the true form of the earth, hold it in his hand, throw it in the air, bounce it off the ground, light it on fire, blow on it, cut it open, bite off a piece, and sing to it -- just to make sure it didn't change form first? Or... did he just do it by OBSERVING THE VISUAL EVIDENCE AROUND THE OBJECT INSTEAD OF OBTAINING EMPIRICAL INFORMATION ABOUT SAID OBJECT.

Before you tell me whether "global warming" has any valid science, how about you tell me the most basic thing about our globe. Why don't you tell me the circumference of it...

Using the scientific method.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Byrd

I did check their CVs. They're mathematicians, not physicists. One works with topology, one with Abelian sets. They didn't have any physicists review the paper before sending it out, nor have they ever done any earth modeling studies or research.
.


Oooh, i see. so instead of discussing and debating what they are stating in the paper you instead turn to try to discredit them?...

Could you tell us in what field of science do you have a degree on?


BSc (double major) in Biology and English
MSc in Biomedical Engineering
MSc in Anthropology
Finishing a PhD in Information Science.
Taught anatomy, calculus, and general math at universities, taught chemistry, physics, and biology at the high school level, taught math and geoscience at the junior high school level.


Last I checked you have stated to be an archeologist, albeit one that is not aware of many archeological findings.


That's because I'm not an archaeologist. I'm an anthropologist.


Gerhard Gerlich teaches Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany. Both Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner have PhDs, yet the AGW fans can only refute their research by making rhetorical claims based on ASSUMPTIONS?.... and that is enough to dispute their findings?....


I read their paper and then read the abstracts of their other papers. Gerlich, as I said, has done some fine work on Abelian groups that has been cited many times. Tscheuschner isn't associated with any university but his papers on topology are cited in other publications. That means folks found them valid.

Gerlich's papers on physics are nonexistent except for the climate change papers which have been poorly received, and physicists themselves have spoken slightingly about them.



Kind of ironic isn't it?..... You are talking about yourself with the above comment, yet you don't seem to realize it....


Actually, I was talking about standards for professional papers that get into major peer reviewed journals:
* You don't base your work on all the papers you've published before
* You don't cite items without giving full reference in the approved style (each discipline has its own style and it's a freakin' pain to switch between them.
* Websites are never cited as proof without other evidence to back it up.

...etc. They pound it into the head of every graduate student on the planet.

It's a sloppy and unprofessional paper, and I stand by that remark.

Yes, I know the Physics B journal; I considered submitting some of my theoretical material there because the reviews are "peer reviews" (meaning public review) instead of a juried review by a board of professionals in the field. It's easy to slip things through a peer review. It's very hard to pass the juried review. My advisors strongly suggested going the juried review publications because they're more respected.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Byrd]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
Let's go back. I've read the original paper posted on the first page. It is not really physics, it more of a screed.


That was the conclusion I came to.


I really wonder whether this is some kind of postmodern "performance art", rather like the guy Sokol who submitted a baloney article about postmodern mathematics or something to a literary criticism journal.


Nope. He has other articles (cited in his references, of course) in a similar vein and in most of them he's the sole author and shows an equal lack of rigor in writing and references. I read the abstracts and scan-read some of them. His juried publications in mathematics are far better, particularly since he works with multiple authors who presumably hold his toes to the fire on citations and structure.

Dunno how familiar you are with the Physics B (etc) journals, but they're full of amusing stuff. You should scan the indexes and browse a few of the papers with more unusual titles. Good way to waste the afternoon.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Part of what the paper is trying to expalin is that, despite the claim form the AGW fanatics that the greenhouse effect of the Earth functions just like a greenhouse, that this is not true. A greenhouse is a truly completely closed system, the Earth is not....


ding!ding!ding!

And we have a winner.

The fact that you think the AGW claim is based on the atmosphere functioning like an actual greenhouse shows you have absolutely ZERO understanding of this subject, just like Gerlich and Tscheuschner. None.

"Greenhouse Effect" is just a name. The mechanisms involved are completely different: one traps air, the other radiation.

Global Warming has everything to do with radiative balance - it has nothing to do with simply collecting warm particles inside a "closed system".

So you can't even get the most FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of Global Warming straight and yet you repeatedly challenge everyone else's intellect on the subject?

Again - keep barking EU, the more you open your mouth the more you expose your complete lack of understanding on this topic - so in other words yeah, you're debunking yourself.

Also try reading things a little more slowly next time - because certain comments are clearly going way over your head.

I never said going outside proves AGW, only that it disproves G&T. In either case that's not what I meant by suggesting you try it sometime.

Since the art of subtlety is apparently lost on you let me spell it out a little clearer:

Get yourself a new hobby. This one's not working out so well.




[edit on 29-1-2010 by mc_squared]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

BSc (double major) in Biology and English
MSc in Biomedical Engineering
MSc in Anthropology
Finishing a PhD in Information Science.
Taught anatomy, calculus, and general math at universities, taught chemistry, physics, and biology at the high school level, taught math and geoscience at the junior high school level.


Yet none of your knowledge makes you an expert on Climate Change does it? Don't you see the irony of your statements? You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse some other scientists of doing, and based on what exactly? Flawed computer models, and research papers which have been rigged because some people, and groups are pushing for a globalist agenda?



Originally posted by Byrd
It's a sloppy and unprofessional paper, and I stand by that remark.


And you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make you right.

Which part of their paper do you disagree with?

Are GCMs perfect, and they account for every factor that affects the climate?

Does the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere react in the same manner in a greenhouse?

That is part of what these two scientists are trying to convey with their paper.

You know, or should know that GCMs have been found to be flawed time and again, and they do not account for every natural factor that affects the Earth's climate.

Why should we be making any decisions based on flawed computer models which have been shown to be wrong time, and again?

The policy makers, and globalists of the IPCC, the UN, etc want to implement taxes, and policies based on those same flawed computer models which are wrong, and we found out evidence have had to be rigged, among other dirty tactics they have used, (Mann, Jones, et al)and keep using just to justify this globalist agenda to "fight Climate Change".

But at the end we know that all this is doing is redistributing wealth, making the rich richer meanwhile implementing more policies, and draconian laws to control people for a goal that both you, and I know will never really occur.

Mankind does not have the power to stop, or even mitigate Climate Change. All we can do is what ancient humans have done in the past....adapt.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
..............
The fact that you think the AGW claim is based on the atmosphere functioning like an actual greenhouse shows you have absolutely ZERO understanding of this subject, just like Gerlich and Tscheuschner. None.


What the hell?....

Listen kid, i don't have the time, nor the patience to discuss a topic which you know nothing about with someone who uses the claims in BLOGS as evidence to back your lunacy.



Originally posted by mc_squared
"Greenhouse Effect" is just a name. The mechanisms involved are completely different: one traps air, the other radiation.


First of all the "greenhouse effect" is more than a name.... It is mean to describe how the AGW proponents think GHGs react in the atmosphere...

Second of all, there is no mechanism that traps ANYTHING..... GHGs only retain for a while radiation in the form of heat and slowly release it into space....

If GHGs "trapped" heat it wouldn't be dissipating mostly at night....yet it does dissipate doesnt it?....



Originally posted by mc_squared
Global Warming has everything to do with radiative balance - it has nothing to do with simply collecting warm particles inside a "closed system".


....the claim that Earth is a closed system has been regurgitated by many in the AGW camp for years.... You don't even know the history of the religion you like to keep following.... and NOTHING that you just said above proves that mankind is responsible for either Climate Change, or Global Warming....

Just because a gas is a GHG, it doesn't mean it is the cause for the Climate change the EArth has been undergoing when we know for a fact that water vapor which is 99.999% natural retains more radiation in the form of heat thatn CO2 ever will...

I would give you the advice that if you want to discuss this you should be reading peer-reviewed literature instead of depending on the false CLAIMS made in BLOGS which are pushing for an agenda... but again I am sure you are going to continue to read from ridiculous blogs, and you are going to contiue believing the scammers which were caught red handed talking about rigging data, deleting evidence, using legal and illegal ways to keep people in the dark and not to release their raw data, and program but instead to give people like you the already rigged data just so that brainwashed sheep, i mean people like yourself can continue to bow to the AGW scam....



Originally posted by mc_squared
So you can't even get the most FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of Global Warming straight and yet you repeatedly challenge everyone else's intellect on the subject?


Oh, i actually got it very well almost from the beginning since I decided to do research for myself instead of relying on ridiculous BLOGS, and the lies being told by Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al....

Christ...the main perpetrators of the AGW scam were caught red handed yet people like you want to still believe in their scam and you want to claim that you are intelligent?




Originally posted by mc_squared
Again - keep barking EU, the more you open your mouth the more you expose your complete lack of understanding on this topic - so in other words yeah, you're debunking yourself.


For crying out loud kid... you still can't even understand that you can't debunk people?....


Yep, it is obvious of who needs to get a new hobbit.



Originally posted by mc_squared
I never said going outside proves AGW, only that it disproves G&T. In either case that's not what I meant by suggesting you try it sometime.
...........


How in the world does "going outside" disproves what these scientists have stipulated in their research paper?...

They are not claiming that GHGs don't exist, or that they don't contribute to the greenhouse effect.

What they are saying is that the "claims" of the AGW fans don't stand up to scrutiny.... that GHGs, and the real greenhouse effect don't work as the AGW fans claim it does... and you know what? he is telling the truth....

All you keep doing is embarrassing yourself....



A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science


www.drroyspencer.com

I’m always searching for better and simpler ways to explain the reason why I believe climate researchers have overestimated the sensitivity of our climate system to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. What follows is a somewhat different take than I’ve used in the past. In the following cartoon, I’ve illustrated 2 different ways to interpret a hypothetical (but realistic) set of satellite observations that indicate (1) warming of 1 degree C in global average temperature,
(visit the link for the full news article)
............
As a result of this inherent uncertainty regarding causation, climate modelers are free to tune their models to produce just about any amount of global warming they want to. It will be difficult to prove them wrong, since there is as yet no unambiguous interpretation of the satellite data in this regard. They can simply assert that there are no natural causes of climate change, and as a result they will conclude that our climate system is precariously balanced on a knife edge. The two go hand-in-hand.

Their science thus enters the realm of faith. Of course, there is always an element of faith in scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, in the arena of climate research the level of faith is unusually high, and I get the impression most researchers are not even aware of its existence.

www.drroyspencer.com...



Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs..



The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...

There is a lot more evidence that GCMs are flawed, and their models should not be seen as any "prediction" simply because they are flawed, don't take in consideration many natural factors, and as any computer program will do, if you "assume" a certain value for CO2, and tell the computer program that with more CO2 temperatures will increase more, that is exactly what the model will do, and more so, if you do not input all natural factors that affect the climate on Earth.


[edit on 29-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Here is another example of why GCMs are unreliable.



Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

But hey kid go ahead and keep believing in the scammers, Mann, Jones, et al who were found out to have created the scam that is AGW just to push for their agendas...and then keep claiming that "you are so smart and intelligent meanwhile you keep believing the lies told by these scammers"....


[edit on 29-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


closed exchange of energy no matter.
Isolated no exchange, easy to make in a lab





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join