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.

 

The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

page: 6
69
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck


Wow, to think ElectricUniverse and I single-handedly destroyed humanity by posting facts on an Internet forum... oh, such power we wield...


I love the drama... you forgot the part about us clubbing baby seals...


TheRedneck


Can you believe these guys?.... they can't even agree among themselves at all....


And here i thought after the AGW scammers admitted to have even used FALSE INFORMATION just so countries would implement MORE CONTROL that the AGW fanatic believers would stop for a second and think..... But that's too much to ask of them apparently...


And Audas...who in the heck are you to claim what amount of atmospheric CO2 is needed on Earth when IT IS A KNOWN FACT that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 ARE BENEFITIAL to nature, and mankind....and there is no "excessive heat" like you people claim....


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Other research concludes that even HIGHER atmospheric CO2 content than 1,500ppm is BENEFITIAL, yet these AGW like Audas want to claim Earth needs less atmospheric CO2?....




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Nope, nope, nope... got to take you to task on this post. In the first place, the infamous Nobel Prize swindler winner and the author of An Inconvenient Truth is actually Al Gore Jr. His father was Al Gore Sr., the fellow who was neck-deep in foreign oil...

And in the second place, please don't call melatonin a scientist... even in jest...


TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by audas

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........




Wow, to think ElectricUniverse and I single-handedly destroyed humanity by posting facts on an Internet forum... oh, such power we wield...


I love the drama... you forgot the part about us clubbing baby seals...


TheRedneck


Perhaps for once you could consider the consequences of what is happening if you are wrong - do you have any idea what the consequences of an Anoxic build up are ? Seriously do you have any idea the risk you are placing all of humanity in by being simply profoundly arrogant ?

Mind boggling - that you can not even consider the consequences of your actions.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by audas

If you want me to consider the consequences of my being wrong, then show me I am wrong. Give me the figures you use to determine that 350 ppmv CO2 is optimal... show me the equations that indicate that we are heading for a catastrophe... quantify what this catastrophe is and how and when it will occur.

Come on, I have never claimed to be perfect. mc_squared caught an error in my calculations a few posts back. And I was 'arrogant' enough to admit I made a mistake.

Show me the numbers and I'll switch sides. Open challenge. But be warned; I will verify them.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by audas

If you want me to consider the consequences of my being wrong, then show me I am wrong. Give me the figures you use to determine that 350 ppmv CO2 is optimal... show me the equations that indicate that we are heading for a catastrophe... quantify what this catastrophe is and how and when it will occur.

Come on, I have never claimed to be perfect. mc_squared caught an error in my calculations a few posts back. And I was 'arrogant' enough to admit I made a mistake.

Show me the numbers and I'll switch sides. Open challenge. But be warned; I will verify them.

TheRedneck


This thread - is based on the scientific theories of one person, someone who deines the theory of evolution no less - in the face of scientific support of almost the entire scientific community - his theory is the most straw clutching I have ever seen and for it to even stand up simply ignores virtually everything -

I don't have to prove anything to you - you should consider the consequences of your obstinacy - they are profound, and it is the sole cause of why we are all going to die. You. And you simply do not care about what you have done as you are sol self obsessed about finding loop holes in the mainstream....your position is so incredibly, profoundly hurtful to humanity - and is genuinely sad not just for the lack of consideration and the consequences but the sheer bloody minded selfishness driven by your inferiority complexes and attention deficit disorders.

I don't need you to change - your irrelevant - the idea that Global warming is a hoax or a myth was passed over almost five years ago by the rest of the planet - now that the last of the denialists in GW Bush is gone all that are left are the peripheral flat earthers clinging to the most improbable strands - sad. Really, really sad that this is how you find self fulfillment and meaning in your life.

Was merely hoping you might be able to help yourself feel better by considering the wider consequences - but clearly - the last vestige of self empowerment - the destruction of humanity by standing in the way of any measures at preventing harm for the paltry benefit of attention - is all that is left you and you can not let go - that is sad. You can not even try. Wow.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


Audus.....

For the record, I believe "global warming" is a politically driven scam that is being perpetrated by governments in order that they can take stronger control of taxation as a means of manipulating social agendas.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas

This thread - is based on the scientific theories of one person, someone who deines the theory of evolution no less - in the face of scientific support of almost the entire scientific community - his theory is the most straw clutching I have ever seen and for it to even stand up simply ignores virtually everything -


For crying out loud... First of all learn to stay on topic... You do know what staying on topic means right?....

Second of all there are many more scientists who disagree with the whole AGW scam/lie...

Third of all, your saviours ADMITTED to using FALSE INFORMATION just so people like you would continue to believe, and to FORCE governments to implement measures WHICH ARE NOT GOING TO HELP ANYONE, except the rich to get richer, but it won't help or "save" nature....



Originally posted by audas
I don't have to prove anything to you - you should consider the consequences of your obstinacy -....



WRONG...You need to prove your argument and not make BASELESS accusations, and continue to regurgitate nothing more than rhetorical nonsense....

Several of us have been talking about NATURAL Climate Change before you even showed up in these forums....

Whenever "disasters" will occur, they will occur because of NATURE, what the Sun does, and what the Universe does.... It won't be because of a BENEFITIAL gas....



Originally posted by audas
your irrelevant -


Another douchebag....
Yep, Nature does need to get rid of douchebags....



Originally posted by audas
the idea that Global warming is a hoax or a myth was passed over almost five years ago by the rest of the planet - ..........



What?... I fell asleep...what in the world are you talking about?....


Let's refresh the memory of those who hide under a rock when their masters are caught red handed....


The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story Link


A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had
''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UNs embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full
.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

www.cbsnews.com...



The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.
***
All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobbys regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

online.wsj.com...

That's not all...let's continue...



[edit on 23-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by audas

I don't have to prove anything to you - you should consider the consequences of your obstinacy - they are profound, and it is the sole cause of why we are all going to die. You.


I don't need you to change - your irrelevant

Do I really need to say anything about this?

Is it possible to be more contradictory in a single post?

Enjoy your belief, audas.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

Here are the statements by Dr. John Christy who happens to be a Climatologist and was trying to warn people years ago as to what he wtinessed the IPCC policy makers" wanted to do to coerce all nations into accepting the Kyoto Protocol.


The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date wasgrey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It wasn't a mistake like the IPCC policy makers, and some others are claiming, including those people who still believe in AGW after we have found concrete and danming evidence that shows it is nothing more than a scam...

Dr Murari Lal has admitted that they included the unfounded claims to pressure nations, and politicians into accepting the Kyoto Protocol...

Of course NOW that we found out this "error" this scientist is trying to come clean before this was found out through an investigation....

Not only have the IPCC "policy makers" which includes scientists who back the AGW have used dubious tactics which include false reports, and rigged data, but we also know the main proponents of the AGW scam have been using similar tactics...

Are people still so blind that they will continue to believe the lie that AGW is?...

Audas...you go ahead and keep believing the lies, and the "scam" all you want....

The rest of us, which is a mayority, would rather believe the evidence and facts....

[edit on 23-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Oh...and btw Audas... Jones considered suicide because of the pressure he started having after it was found out that he was rigging the data, hiding information, etc...


'Climategate' Professor Phil Jones 'considered suicide over email scandal'

Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the "Climategate" leaked email scandal, has told how he considered suicide over the affair.

Prof Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, said his "David Kelly moment" – a reference to the Government scientist who killed himself over WMD claims in the lead up to the Iraq war – came as death threats poured in from around the world.

Since the scandal broke on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December, he has lost a stone in weight and is on beta-blockers and sleeping pills.
.......

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I guess someone would consider suicide over false accusations?....



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
IMO the problem isn't that there is scientific debate going on (or a lack of), but that what sorts of things are being done (and being proposed) to "do" about the results.

I am not a scientist but I do quite a bit of reading up on various scientific disciplines, and one thing I have noticed is that there are cases where there is a consensus and other cases where there is not and everything in between. If you go back 50 years ago, quite a few things that were presumed to be true in a scientific sense (or not true) have been proved to be just the opposite today, with better information and better technology and new discoveries. For instance, at one time dinosaurs were believed to be cold-blooded, sluggish tail-dragging behemoths, yet now many believe they are directly related to modern birds and were anything but reptilian in behavior. Don't forget there was also a time, less than 100 years ago, when many people believed (based on the limited resolution of telescopes of that age) that intelligent life could exist on Mars, and even Venus. Now of course we know we'd be lucky to find even some microbes on Mars.

But the key difference between these theories and debates and those having to do with the possibility of human effects on the earth's climate is that only the latter is inspiring certain people to try and exert control over a vast populace. No one loses their job because the "canals" on Mars are only natural features set down by erosion and wind and ancient waterways, or that dinosaurs couldn't possibly have stood on their hind legs and dragged their tails like Godzilla.

The discovery of a new feathered dinosaur has nothing to do with me being able to afford to heat my house or put gas in my car. You want to know why I have a problem with this pushing of AWG? That's why.

If they really wanted to do something about pollution and environmental degradation, they wouldn't be trying to tax the entire nation into abject poverty. For instance, the banning of lead in paints in the late 70's might have upset some paint manufacturers and a few industries (like the auto industry) temporarily, but it did not cause economic collapse and rob millions of people of money.

This (cap and tax and its ilk) isn't an attempt to help the environment; it's an attempt to exert an iron fist of control over the lives of as many people as possible and to plunge the economy into a full-on depression.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 


Hi malcr. Are you still holding your breath? Did you actually watch Bob Carter's 35 minute presentation? I thought he was pretty thorough. Perhaps your wouldn't mind being a little more specific about which part of what he has to say isn't valid, logical and rational.

[edited for grammar]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by treesdancing]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Did you just try to deny that Co2 is a greenhouse gas?

If all the Co2 was removed from the atmosphere, Earth would drop to freezing temperatures.

Don't forget Co2 is made of physical elements, and physical elements absorb and reflect light. To deny Co2 is a greenhouse gas is to deny that simple fact.

-edit-
bad choice of words

[edit on 23-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Did you just try to deny that Co2 is a greenhouse gas?

If all the Co2 was removed from the atmosphere, Earth would drop to freezing temperatures.

Don't forget Co2 is made of physical elements, and physical elements absorb and reflect light. To deny Co2 is a greenhouse gas is to deny that simple fact.

-edit-
bad choice of words


WRONG.... If WATER VAPOR was removed from the Earth's atmosphere, then, and ONLY THEN would temperatures drop to freezing....

What is it that people can't understand that as an ESTIMATE WATER VAPOR accounts for 95% -98% and possibly 99% of the GREENHOUSE EFFECT?.....

Is that really so hard to comprehend?.... However, if all atmospheric CO2 was removed, or even if atmospheric CO2 concentrations fell too much ALL LIFE ON EARTH would cease to exist.... You know why?... Because plants need atmospheric CO2 to grow, and produce any yields, which can feed people, or animals....

I already showed how 1,200 ppm -1,500ppm in more than one research shows to help grow most plants, and increases yields up to 60% more....

The Earth right now has 380ppm... Which means the Earth LACKS atmospheric CO2....

To deny this is to be an AGW fanatic, and not depending on FACTS, and EVIDENCE to reach an intelligent conclusion...

[edit on 23-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

Please, mel, save your insults for someone who cares. You showed your true colors some time back when you couldn't grasp the concept of carbon sequestration... or when I called you on the availability of funding for something that has already been invented years ago.

At least mc_squared has called me on a specific point.

TheRedneck


lol, you mean when you were rattling on about the machine you were developing to reduce CO2? The little table-side heater type thing that people could have in their home? Not really up to the job; Lackner's idea of 'forests' of massive artificial trees is more the thing. And I think your attempts at revisionism are laughable.

I did call you on a specific point. If you understood IR spectroscopy in the lab then you'd know you were talking tripe.

And just to finish any of this BS. This is the emission spectra from an early Nimbus satellite for various locations around the earth (to save you messing up the maths: 10000/15 = 666cm-1):


Hanel & Conrath (1970)

The earth clearly emits at ranges covering CO2 absorption.

And here's a more recent study showing the increasing absorption due to GHGs (change in absorption 1970-1996):


Harries et al. (2001)

And you might want to check your maths again.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE

I just admitted that CO2 can act as a 'greenhouse gas'. I also said it is a minor one on Earth since the absorption bands are narrow and outside the general range of temperatures.

You really should try reading the posts.

If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, all life on Earth would die. No one would care about the greenhouse effect. CO2 is one of the major roleplayers in the life cycle: plants use CO2 in photosynthesis, giving off oxygen as a byproduct. Animals use oxygen to reduce food and acquire energy, giving off CO2 as a byproduct. If the CO2 level rises, plant growth increases to offset it; if the CO2 level drops, plant growth drops to offset it.

Instead of just listening to talking heads, you really should try reading a textbook sometime. It's simply not possible for the levels of CO2 we have on Earth to cause the drastic changes they are being blamed for in predictive models.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Ok. *deep breath*

Let me start off by saying I really appreciate your ability to own up to a mistake Redneck - unlike certain non-scientist trolls on this board who shall also remain nameless (although I like to call them Rush Limbaugh Jr).

Anyway, I know the -80°C value doesn't exactly correspond to nominal Earthly temperatures either but that's exactly why I made the next point about maximum wavelengths. Maximum "occurrence" is indeed what I meant (sorry if that wasn't clear) - so the point is you can't use Wien's Law to simply prove the Earth doesn't radiate at frequencies corresponding to 15 microns because that's not telling anywhere near the whole story.

A body radiating at 15°C for example is still going to deliver a Planck distribution that produces plenty of 15μm wavelengths. The fact that they are not the most common frequency according to Wien is just little more than a red herring really. For example here's a graph I googled up for 70°F - note that although Wien's Law tells you this distribution peaks around 10 microns, it's not like at 15 microns it's equal to zero or anything.



Furthermore that graph I posted before is definitely legit (I'll explain why in a second) but also notice that at least some of CO2's absorption band still extends out to 10 microns - which as melatonin already calculated before corresponds right around the Earth's mean temperature in Wien-world.


...


But now... *cracks knuckles*

Let's get to the really fun part




I'm not really sure where you dug up that graphic, but it identifies the peak frequency of the planet as corresponding to 255°K, which is -18°C or 0°F. I find that hard to believe...


Redneck my friend - believe it - because 255K is the Earth's blackbody radiating temperature. This is one of the most fundamental core foundations to Global Warming science - and I'm a bit surprised you didn't automatically recognize it, let alone you find it "hard to believe".

Anyway that temp is calculated from the solar constant, the Earth's albedo & otherwise basic principles of geometry & thermodynamics. It is completely objective scientific fact, so no matter how much certain non-scientist trolls want to tell you this information is all lies or "comes from blogs", someone with your apparent academic background should be able to verify these calculations for yourself (here for example).



Now I suppose the reason you found the 255K hard to swallow is because you're trying to consolidate it with the Earth's actual mean temperature - which is more like ~15°C (288K).


Well...hey, guess what - congrats: You just stumbled on the (natural) Greenhouse effect!


This is Climate Science 101. We know the Earth should be 255K (from math) but we know it actually is 288K (from reality).

So there is absolutely no friggin' doubt that the Greenhouse effect is real. And before you tell me "well, duh" or "nobody's disputing that part" please keep in mind certain non-scientist trolls on this board have tried to argue exactly that anyway:

Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics

(and PS I'm not talking about the OP of that thread - rather it's most "enthusiastic" contributor).

But I'm bringing this up for two reasons:

1. It provides a nice segue for pointing out Rush Limbaugh Jr proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in that thread he has less than zero understanding of how Global Warming even works. Yet here he is once again trying to call people like me out on an apparent lack of scientific comprehension? Ugh.

and

2. It also shows how much certain deniers choose to just throw any s*** they can at the wall and hope it sticks.

So my point is this - if we're really going to get anywhere the hypocrisy and the games need to stop. I mean, no offense but you just tried to use Wien's Law as a total red herring argument on the merits of CO2 as a GHG - which tells me either you were being purposely deceitful or you don't fully get this stuff yourself. The fact that you didn't instantly recognize where the 255K value came from makes me think it's the latter.

And of course there's nothing wrong with the latter! Just as long as we're all here to actually help each other deny ignorance and not merely participate in more pointless pissing contests. So I do respect the fact you can acknowledge that and acknowledge mistakes.

Now if you want to truly debate the quantitative aspects of CO2 as a GHG I'm ready and able, but I still need to know this isn't going to be a big fat waste of time. Because now I see you're falling back on another red herring with the whole CO2 is natural and good for plants thing. I mean come on - there's a huge difference between CO2 that is churned out by nature and CO2 that came from a Coal Plant. First of all we can literally chemically differentiate between the two, but regardless - if you're honestly going to try and argue that plants simply mediate and balance out our emissions then what the hell is this???



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
So my point is this - if we're really going to get anywhere the hypocrisy and the games need to stop. I mean, no offense but you just tried to use Wien's Law as a total red herring argument on the merits of CO2 as a GHG - which tells me either you were being purposely deceitful or you don't fully get this stuff yourself. The fact that you didn't instantly recognize where the 255K value came from makes me think it's the latter.


Well, I would go for the second after many experiences of Redneck science. I don't think it was that long back that he was telling us that the greenhouse effect is a consequence of absorption of ultraviolet radiation.

But he is sure willing to accept his more obvious boo-boos, which shows a degree of humility when cornered. Dunning-Kruger is strong is this one.

However, if I could ever choose a couple of talking-heads to front the denier-carnival (could be labelled the 'Stop Making Sense Tour'), I would choose RD and EU/muaddib.

Lulapalooza

[edit on 23-4-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared

Well, well, this is an interesting development, I must say. It is rare that I get to discuss actual science in this forum. I would be honored to debate you on the role of CO2 in climate.

I am not a climatologist, as I have mentioned many times. My forte is more along the lines of electromagnetics and chemistry. I do, however, tend to try and keep some working knowledge of other branches of physics.

And of course, my offer stands: prove to me that carbon dioxide levels, of the level we are experiencing or will likely experience, contribute significantly to catastrophic climate change and I will not only concede, but will argue as vehemently for the conclusion as I now argue against it. But it will have to be solid proof, and I warn you that I tend to question everything.

Now, to your points...

I had a sneaking suspicion that you were aware of the meaning of maximum in the equations; what I wrote on that topic was really meant for other readers. It is an easy mistake to make for those not familiar with blackbody radiation (saw that one back in my college days), and I didn't want anyone confusing the issue.

I am aware that this maximum occurring frequency is far from the only frequency that is emitted... I also know that the rate drops off rapidly in either direction, with the speed of drop-off actually corresponding to the composition of the body emitting it and the temperature itself. I personally believe this to be a function of molecular temperature, which I am sure you realize varies sometimes dramatically from the average temperature.

That would indicate that the radiation emitted would be more likely to be absorbed the closer the center frequency is to the absorption spectra, not that it could not be absorbed at all. This is why I have stated that CO2 does not have the ability to harbor the kinds of heat required to raise the planetary temperature by the amounts predicted, not that it made no difference at all. The problem is quantitative, not qualitative. The absorption characteristics of CO2 are fairly well researched.


255K is the Earth's blackbody radiating temperature. This is one of the most fundamental core foundations to Global Warming science

I read your link, and I now understand where this value of 255K comes from (notice that I am making a concerted effort to not use the '°' symbol
). Bear in mind that this value, while apparently straightforward, is based on the assumption that the planetary albedo is 0.3. This does correspond to the empirical data I have found.


This is Climate Science 101. We know the Earth should be 255K (from math) but we know it actually is 288K (from reality).

So there is absolutely no friggin' doubt that the Greenhouse effect is real.

I cut that quote short. I as well would prefer to leave unscientific opinions out of our exchange (as much as possible; melatonin is still active).

The question then becomes, why is this figure different than what we would expect? You state that it indicates that Global warming is real, but that doesn't exactly sound plausible either. I'll post later with specific calculations on that subject, whether they bear out my side or yours.


Now if you want to truly debate the quantitative aspects of CO2 as a GHG I'm ready and able, but I still need to know this isn't going to be a big fat waste of time. Because now I see you're falling back on another red herring with the whole CO2 is natural and good for plants thing. I mean come on - there's a huge difference between CO2 that is churned out by nature and CO2 that came from a Coal Plant. First of all we can literally chemically differentiate between the two, but regardless - if you're honestly going to try and argue that plants simply mediate and balance out our emissions then what the hell is this???

Whoops, you had me going for a moment there. I as well would love to have a sincere debate on the quantitative aspects of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but that debate must not be limited only to areas you deem as fitting to your side. Sure, if you discount the life cycle of the planet, you wind up with a serious issue. But we are talking about reality here and not some imaginary situation where photosynthesis does not occur.

There's a simple solution, of course: prove to me that flora does not have an effect on temperature or on CO2 levels. Then I'll drop that part of the argument.

You have made two excellent posts presenting your side, and in both you have decried the actions of those who do not understand the science. Please do not become what you decry by framing your own arguments in a manner that renders them imaginary only.

For the moment I will assume that I have misread your intention in that last part and continue on with my research. Please do not disappoint me; I have other things to do as well.

 

reply to post by melatonin

I don't think it was that long back that he was telling us that the greenhouse effect is a consequence of absorption of ultraviolet radiation.

Nice try mel... I guess that little oversight is still framed and hung on your wall?

You must be soooo proud of it.


TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are right in theory... more CO2 for trees to inhale.

But, you are forgetting a practical and very political issue: tree logging.

What is the use of more CO2 if no trees are left?


Less trees in one place means more CO2 in 'all' places, meaning more CO2 for all of the rest of the vegetation including for new forest growth, more abundant crops (and wild weeds even), and more CO2 for all types of algae. Plus CO2 absorbtion tends to be greater in new growth forests, while taking old trees and converting them to lumber for building things means the CO2 is being stored 'long term' whereas the dead trees would eventually fall and decompose thus releasing the CO2 back into the atmostphere.

Theres a cycle for everything. Contrary to environmentalist propaganda, tweakign one single thing doesnt lead to a total runaway with all things. Theres always somewhere to go, otherwise the global temperatures would be going up a percentage point or so every single year since they began measuring atmospheric CO2.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join