It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Essan
Maybe they should have spent 5 minutes reading Arhennius first?
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
Originally posted by melatonin
Obama has sent money that way for new tech.
Originally posted by melatonin
It was much more than the last crew ever did, they were too busy gagging scientists and altering science reports.
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.
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.
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.
.
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...
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?
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.
Originally posted by mc_squared
LOL why are you still here???
Originally posted by mc_squared
...and barking at others about religion and blind faith no less.
Originally posted by mc_squared
YOU already debunked the OP yourself remember??
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???
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...
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!
Recently, there have been lots of discussions regarding the economic and political implications of climate variability, in particular global warming as a measurable eect 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.
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.
"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 second statement is
falsied 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."
The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is
rather obscure.
The described mechanism of re-calibration to equilibrium has no physical
basis. The laws of cavity radiation do not apply to
fluids and gases.
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.
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.
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?
Last I checked you have stated to be an archeologist, albeit one that is not aware of many archeological findings.
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?....
Kind of ironic isn't it?..... You are talking about yourself with the above comment, yet you don't seem to realize it....
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.
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.
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....
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.
Originally posted by Byrd
It's a sloppy and unprofessional paper, and I stand by that remark.
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.
Originally posted by mc_squared
"Greenhouse Effect" is just a name. The mechanisms involved are completely different: one traps air, the other radiation.
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".
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?
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.
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.
...........
A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science
www.drroyspencer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
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,
............
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.
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.
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.
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.