Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

reply to post by Mez353


So you're basically not only going to reject the science of global warming but atmospheric science all together?

Originally posted by Mez353
What this study says is that CO2 enables a cooling effect within this region by sending back UV radiation which is dominant in this layer. So, MC and others, you are completly making up the twaddle about IR only, just as you normally do. Get the facts about the sky above you, how the sun works, what stops us frying and then get back to me.

Yeah. Trying to edumacate climate deniers on anything related to atmospheric science is definitely so damn hopeless lol. They don't understand the science to begin with (which is fine - most of us don't - I just hate how they love to come here and try to fake like they suddenly do), so they'll just look up 'thermosphere' on wikipedia (or worse - some denier website), glean something about UV radiation, and fill in the blanks of their own ignorance with whatever it is they want to believe.

CO2 absolutely does not "send back UV radiation", as is clear from the graph I posted on the last page:



UV radiation starts at ~400 nm (0.4 microns) and goes to shorter wavelengths from there. CO2's absorption bands simply do not reach that far.

The reason CO2 creates a cooling effect in the thermosphere is because it re-radiates IR energy generated from processes such as ionization, Joule heating, etc that result from all those energetic solar particles colliding with stuff in the thermosphere. The thermosphere in general does absorb a lot of UV radiation already, but that happens with or without CO2, and really has no bearing on carbon dioxide being highlighted as an important "coolant" here.

So as I wrote in the first post - all this NASA data does is help us visualize, and completely validate what a powerful infrared trapping gas CO2 actually is.

Mez here can make up whatever 'twaddle' he wants (and naturally projection bias it back on people like me) but anyone can read the link he posted himself and see there is absolutely nothing in there about CO2 "sending back UV radiation" at all, whereas infrared emission is repeatedly mentioned over and over again:

Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

A surge of infrared radiation from nitric oxide molecules on March 8-10, 2012, signals the biggest upper-atmospheric heating event in seven years.

Really though it doesn't even matter - the important point is that there is not nearly enough thermal energy generated up there to justify a cooling effect that compares anywhere close to the warming effect that happens closer to the surface.

Again - the link that Mez posted - that climate deniers are currently parading around the internet like a bunch of totally obtuse fools, points this out itself:

No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”

But I love how much they are suddenly all on board with CO2 as an infrared trapping gas when it produces a cooling effect, in what amounts to basically outer space - but completely DENY it has any impact doing the exact same thing, only in the opposite direction, and in MUCH larger magnitude, down here in the atmosphere that we breathe and feel every single day.



Honestly - if this latest round of climate denier back-asswards stupidity doesn't make them realize how much they are the ones getting played for fools by all the propaganda, hyperbole and disinformation here, nothing ever will.

reply to post by mc_squared


It's funny, I was actually following a post (now scrubbed) on Watts about that NASA article (yes I got sick after) in which Anthony Watts stated that he hated to do this but had to state that the way the article was being interpreted by the anti crowd was wrong, but the way he did it actually ended up pointing out why our current warming is driven by man. I should have linked it, it was hilarious.

reply to post by Kali74


I would've liked to have seen that. I know what you mean though - every now and then I like to peak in on WUWT myself to see what kind of backwards spin they're putting on the latest climate science. Sometimes I laugh, sometimes I shudder and cry, but every time I walk away feeling so so dirty for bringing web hits to that cesspool of willful demented ignorance.

reply to post by mc_squared


I've never said that it doesn't have a part to play in the greenhouse effect, you've just made that up (although water vapour is by far the most contributing factor). The argument is about man made global warming isn't it? And the argument we make is that the increase in CO2 by man added to the natural release of CO2 from earth doesn't drive up the temperature significantly, and climate changes according to the output from the sun, and also significantly the type of output from the sun. CO2 lags temperature increase, not the other way round, but please continue to blame the effect and not the cause.

Myths

reply to post by Mez353


talk about being intellectually challenged as well as being intellectually dishonest

reply to post by minor007


I'll leave that to you, thanks all the same.

And of course the map I linked to shows water levels lowering in places as stated which of course is what i said it was...

say what ever happened to "Blood and Gore?" anyhow?

reply to post by The_Liberator


i probably read this when you first posted it (although i don't remember now)..... it's amazing and i hope you do write an update/followup. i don't come to ATS too often anymore specifically because of the climate change denial.

i'd give you a big hug if i could.

reply to post by pasiphae


Well in my opinion that basically makes you a moron. Just saying.

reply to post by Mez353


Can you just pack it up and go home already?

You're the one who resurrected this old thread to make a complete fool of yourself (yet again) over the last couple of pages - and now you're resorting to one line posts calling other people morons?

As if the "opinion" of someone who suffers from a very obvious Dunning-Kruger complex such as yours really matters to the rest of us...just sayin.

Originally posted by Danbones
And of course the map I linked to shows water levels lowering in places as stated which of course is what i said it was...

Yeah exactly - those parts everyone can see YOU delusionally cherry-picked, while claiming that's what the "alarmists" are doing.

Amazing how much you guys can get caught intellectually naked, with your own head clearly up your own butt, and still sit there and try to convince everyone else the emperor's sporting some nice new threads here.

Oh and if that fails, there's always "OMG everyone turn around and look! It's Al Gore!!" *run away*

for mc_squared and liberator:

guymcpherson.com...

this blog is very interesting.... a personal friend of mine directed me to it today. i thought you guys might be interested.

Warm is Cold

Cherry picking nothing - just rationalising the facts.

Sure, global warming is real, and it's super dangerous. That's why it's actually snowing in here, near Montreal, in mid-may, as I write. And that's why you see a 16-year temperature drop in the charts. That's because of global warming, right? And that's why glaciers are growing. And that's why even global warmers admitted they were wrong.

www.climatedepot.com... s-been-no-statistically-significant-increase-in-global-surface-temperature/

An analysis provided by Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading compares the global average surface temperatures from the HadCRUT4 dataset with 20 models from the CMIP5 simulations. The comparison in Figure 3 shows that observations particularly since 2005 are on the low end of the envelope that contains 90% of the climate model simulations…
The IPCC’s attribution of the late 20th century warming has focused on external radiative forcing, and no explicit estimate of the contribution of natural internal variability to the warming was made. A recent paper by Tung and Zhou suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century…
The recent research on natural internal variability and black carbon aerosols, combined with ongoing plateau in global average surface temperature, suggests that the AR4 estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling
CO2 may be too high…

www.nationalpost.com...

No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

news.investors.com...

Further evidence of the climate models' flaws was offered on March 16 by the London Daily Mail, which published a chart that "reveals how (the United Nations') '95% certain' estimates of the earth heating up were a spectacular miscalculation."

reply to post by Mez353


is that the best you can do bring up some obscure chart data and claim theres the evidence despite tonnes of other evidence saying otherwise. Heres a hint look up planet heat distribution you might learn something.

I've been through the first 15 pages but haven't time to go through 50 pages, disclaimer first.

I believe that the greater cycles of our Solar System are what causes climate change. I'm putting a link to a pdf that I found interesting.

The critique of the 'Mann Hockey Stick' graph and it's slewing of the data that much of the anthropogenic argument rested on is particularly telling.

It includes ice core measurements and references to the Maunder and Dalton Solar minimums, oceanic readings of isotopes etc etc. Worth a look it's by a Professor J. Easterbrook from the Geology department at Western Washington University.

www.klimarealistene.com...

Originally posted by goldentorch
It includes ice core measurements and references to the Maunder and Dalton Solar minimums, oceanic readings of isotopes etc etc. Worth a look it's by a Professor J. Easterbrook from the Geology department at Western Washington University.

www.klimarealistene.com...

Thanks for that data! Hm, I didn't read it all yet, but it seems we're heading for... an Ice Age? Ouch, yeah, I'm reading it further now... the data is pretty straightforward... Correlation with solar activity... VEry intriguing read! Thanks for posting it!

There is, no global warming. There is however, global cooling due to a normal cycle the Earth is going through, totally unrelated to man's influence.