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.
Originally posted by seenitall
The conspiracy about climate change is non-existent.
I'm not going to bother educating you all. It is very easy to find information on the viewpoints to which you subscribe, so you wont bother to look further.
When the world begins to change, you can also claim it is a cycle.
Its like an argument with a religious extremist, you can't win. 'Its the will of God' - 'Its a natural cycle', same turd different stink.
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false.
BBC: When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” what exactly do they mean, and what don’t they mean?
Jones: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well
[T]he 2007 Working Group I report uses the terms “uncertain” or “uncertainty” more than 1,300 times in its 987 pages, including what it identified as 54 “key uncertainties” limiting our mastery of climate prediction.
This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.
The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.
The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.
The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009.
It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.
Pre-industrial CO2 = 280 ppmv = a pH of 5.68
Present level CO2 = 380 ppm = a pH of 5.62
λ = b/T
where b = a constant value of 5.1·10^-3 m·°K
5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 2.7·10^-6 m = 1888°K
1888°K = 1615°C = 2939°F
5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 4.3·10^-6 m = 1186°K
1186°K = 913°C = 1675°F
5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 15·10^-6 m = 340°K
340°K = 67°C = 153°F
b is a constant of proportionality called Wien's displacement constant, equal to 2.8977685(51)×10−3 m·K
So as long as the planet is cooler than 67°C (152°F), CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas. On Venus, with an estimated surface temperature temperature of 460°C, CO2 would definitely tend to trap heat, but on earth the temperature rarely if ever reaches such extremes... maybe it could trap a little of the heat coming off the Iceland volcano?
According to Wein's Displacement Law, the wavelength emitted by a blackbody is a function of the temperature of that blackbody.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
So much ignorance, so little time...
Originally posted by melatonin
Perhaps it's best left to those with the edumacation. Petard, own, your, hoist, by comes to mind.
Originally posted by mc_squared
Also, CO2's absorption band isn't that narrowly centered around 15 microns. As you can see from the following graph - it covers plenty of real estate coinciding with the Earth's thermal output.
λ = b/T
where b = a constant value of 2.90·10^-3 m·°K
2.90·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 2.7·10^-6 m = 1888°K
1888°K = 1615°C = 1474°F
2.90·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 4.3·10^-6 m = 674°K
674°K = 401°C = 754°F
5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 15·10^-6 m = 193°K
193°K = -80°C = -112°F
Special thanks to people like RedNeck and Electric Universe for doing their very best to destroy humanity - some people seem to know no boundaries to their depravity........
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Unlike certain 'scientists' who I will allow to remain nameless, I can admit when I make a mistake, though... so let's do this again.