can i tell you something?

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MucksterSorry but how can you honestly pass this off as science... What it's basically saying is that only large quantities of a substance can make a difference!! That’s as stupid as saying that a virus cannot kill a person because its so small... this is playground stuff.

It seems fine to me. No-one is saying that the human component of atmospheric CO2 'makes no difference'. What we are saying is that it is not currently in sufficiently great enough concentration to bring about a global thermagedden necessary for the upheaval of global society. CO2 comprises less than 4% of the total gaseous atmospheric greenhouse and the other 96% of it consists of water vapour, which is also a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 molecule for molecule. It is physically impossible for that small amount of CO2 to be having a significant effect on the climate when water vapour must be having an effect that is at least 25 times greater. Under these circumstances CO2 cannot help having no more than a trivial effect on the global mean temperature and no detectable power as a climate driver. The IPCC tell us that the atmospheric greenhouse from all sources is responsible for increasing the global mean surface temperature by 33C above its black-body temperature of -18C. Therefore the less-than 4% of CO2 must be responsible for causing less than 4% of this warming, which would be 1.32 degC. (The net contribution to global warming from CO2 would be less than 4% of 33C not just because CO2 amounts to less than 4% of the total greenhouse, but also because the remaining 96% H2O is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2).

Please see my blog-post here explaining why human-CO2 cannot be responsible for the observed 2ppmv annual increase in atmospheric CO2: chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk...
edit on 22-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 





It seems fine to me. No-one is saying that the human component of atmospheric CO2 'makes no difference'. What we are saying is that it is not currently in sufficiently great enough concentration to bring about a global thermagedden necessary for the upheaval of global society. CO2 comprises less than 4% of the total gaseous atmospheric greenhouse and the other 96% of it consists of water vapour, which is also a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 molecule for molecule. It is physically impossible for that small amount of CO2 to be having a significant effect on the climate when water vapour must be having an effect that is at least 25 times greater. Under these circumstances CO2 cannot help having no more than a trivial effect on the global mean temperature and no detectable power as a climate driver. The IPCC tell us that the atmospheric greenhouse from all sources is responsible for increasing the global mean surface temperature by 33C above its black-body temperature of -18C. Therefore the less-than 4% of CO2 must be responsible for causing less than 4% of this warming, which would be 1.32 degC. (The net contribution to global warming from CO2 would be less than 4% of 33C not just because CO2 amounts to less than 4% of the total greenhouse, but also because the remaining 96% H2O is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2).

Please see my blog-post here explaining why human-CO2 cannot be responsible for the observed 2ppmv annual increase in atmospheric CO2:


False - Water vapour accounts for about 50% not 96%.





A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.


www.newscientist.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me Muckster. How can water vapour only contribute 50% to the atmospheric greenhouse when by volume it makes up 96% of the total greenhouse and when molecule for molecule it is by far and away a more potent absorber of IR-radiation than CO2? The threat from anthropogenic CO2 appears totally insignificant as far as I can see and utterly overwhelmed by the effects of water vapour. The article you linked doesn't offer any argument as to why water vapour contributes 50% to the atmospheric greenhouse, it just states it as a matter-of-fact. By a childishly simple process of arithmetical reasoning based on the IPCC's own data as I have shown above, the atmospheric CO2 can cause no more than 1.32C of warming – all 390ppmv – which is risible of course and a far cry from the IPCC's prediction from models of 2.5C – 6C by 2050! So I am not a Warmist and I need no convincing that their claims are high-grade, toxic BS. The graph below from spectrometer experiments shows how much more potent molecule for molecule water vapour is at absorbing IR-radiation than CO2. As you can see, it absorbs energy over a far-wider energy-wave spectrum, from infra-red to visible light and completely swamps the effects of poor-old CO2.

edit on 23-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
climate change and polution are like 2 different things. Im in Canada and if there really is climate change then we need tons more. TONS! Because it's so freakin cold up here it's rediculous. Climate change my butt



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 



By a childishly simple process of arithmetical reasoning based on the IPCC's own data as I have shown above, the atmospheric CO2 can cause no more than 1.32C of warming


Yes exactly.

All of your reasoning is ALWAYS childishly simple. That's precisely your problem.

You still haven't managed to figure out that atmospheric physics is a tad more complex than what you think you can put together with some extremely amateur blog science - but of course like usual, despite the fact you've been shown to be repeatedly, consistently, wrong about basically everything around here - once again you're ready to proclaim victory over all the world's mainstream scientists, because otherwise "it doesn't make any sense" to you.


The reason it doesn't make any sense to you is because YOUR reasoning is full of "childishly simple" shortcomings.


First of all where do you even get this 96% by volume nonsense? Show me a definitive, scientific source (not a blog) that proclaims this number as authoritatively as you try to do. Atmospheric water vapour is notoriously hard to quantify because it's so highly variable. Usually it's given a value between 3000-4000 ppm, which puts CO2 at around 10% by volume.

But my point isn't even about the numbers - it's simply the way YOU try to announce them like they're fact when you have absolutely no justifiable claim to that. It makes it particulary hypocritical when you respond to Muckster's post with stuff like this:


The article you linked doesn't offer any argument as to why water vapour contributes 50% to the atmospheric greenhouse, it just states it as a matter-of-fact.




Second of all - NO, water vapour is not a more powerful IR absorber molecule-for-molecule. This has already been explained to you before, here.

You are trying to imply that it's more powerful molecule-for-molecule because it absorbs over a wider range of frequencies, but the reason it absorbs over a wider range of frequencies is mainly due to pressure broadening that results from the fact that water vapour is more abundant.



When you move further up the atmosphere, where H2O thins out, the absorption bands become much more discrete and you can see for yourself CO2 begins to overtake water vapour in pound for pound strength:



Furthermore CO2's main absorption band is right around 15 microns - which is very close to the maxima of the Earth's blackbody curve. Water vapour's main band is around 6 microns, which is at a significantly lower stretch, meaning there is much less radiation for it to absorb.

All this adds up to why water vapor only produces about 2 to 2.5 times more greenhouse forcing than CO2 despite the fact it is 10x more abundant.

There are numerous places where the numbers for this stuff come from. Here are a few:

EARTH’S GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET. Kiehl & Trenberth, 2009
THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE. Mitchell, 1989
Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models. Ramanthan & Coakley, 1978

Please go read those for once instead of JoNova.com. I already proved to you before Joanne Nova is nothing but a shill who works for Shell Oil and has absolutely no background in climate science.

The fact that you consider her biased bullsh-- mickey mouse explanations "more robust" than people who have PhD's in this stuff says it all on why you will NEVER understand what's really going on here.



...
So anyway I'm sorry that some of this "doesn't make any sense" to you, but you know what: if we all lived by your standards that everything in this world be childishly simple otherwise it must be wrong - then the Earth would still be flat, the Sun would revolve around us, and lightning bolts would come from some angry Greek guy sitting on top of a mountain.


If you really want to be the expert climate skeptic you like to pretend you are then go take the time to learn real physics and real math and real climatology and stop thinking you've got it all figured out because you go to some oil-funded psuedoscience blog that deliberately makes everything "childishly simple" because they know that's the easiest way to spoonfeed you a bunch of 100% grade A bullcrap.

Otherwise yeah, open wide. Here comes the airplane!




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


i thiknk whats goin on here is a reflection of whats going on in the rest of the world.

the majority of folks just dnt care. its sad. its like a brainwashing trip



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Nathan-D
 

You still haven't managed to figure out that atmospheric physics is a tad more complex than what you think you can put together with some extremely amateur blog science

Actually, I think it’s you who needs to learn some more science. But I mean real science, not the phoney stuff churned out by fantasists like Hansen and Trenberth from their numerical models. Real science compels us to the conclusion that AGW from human emissions of CO2 cannot be proceeding at a rate faster than 0.001C/year. If you want to let the green cult’s mantra that man-made thermageddon is happening now get you all worked up into a hysterical lather you are free to do so, but your belief will be based on pseudoscientific make-believe, not real science.


once again you're ready to proclaim victory over all the world's mainstream scientists, because otherwise "it doesn't make any sense" to you.

I never suggested that I have. Don’t you ever get tired of arguing with yourself like this?


Atmospheric water vapour is notoriously hard to quantify because it's so highly variable. Usually it's given a value between 3000-4000 ppm, which puts CO2 at around 10% by volume.

Source: NASA Earth Fact Sheet. The average concentration of water vapour is indeed about 1%.


You are trying to imply that it's more powerful molecule-for-molecule because it absorbs over a wider range of frequencies, but the reason it absorbs over a wider range of frequencies is mainly due to pressure broadening that results from the fact that water vapour is more abundant

No it isn’t. Those are laboratory measurements using the same partial pressure for each gas.


Furthermore CO2's main absorption band is right around 15 microns - which is very close to the maxima of the Earth's blackbody curve.

That doesn’t make any sense to me. Why should the Earth’s blackbody curve favour CO2's absorption-capability over H2O? What exactly do you mean close to the maxima of Earth’s black-body curve? The Earth’s black-body radiation-curve is simply a measure of radiation-intensity which is proportional to wavelength and it is understood that only about 8% of the available black-body radiation is absorbed by CO2. Whatever the case, actual direct experiments of CO2’s absorptivity/emissivity have shown that the total absorptivity/emissivity of water vapour is some 125 times greater than that of CO2 (See Nasif Nahle). Spectrometer measurements have found that at similar partial pressures and temperatures water vapour’s emissivity is 0.4 whereas CO2's is 0.003, giving us a temperature increase of about 0.083C. The graph above is a direct measurement of how much IR-radiation water vapour absorbs relative to CO2 and you can clearly see it is significantly greater. CO2 absorbs a total of only 8% of all IR-radiation which means 92% of all radiation that leaves Earth’s surface passes straight through the atmosphere without being absorbed by CO2 at all. With a potency some 125 times greater than CO2 at similar partial pressures and considering also that water vapour’s variability in the atmosphere is far greater than CO2’s too and it becomes strikingly apparent to me at least that anthropogenic CO2’s effects are utterly overwhelmed by those of water vapour.

As I have said, I am happy to agree to disagree about the greenhouse effect of human CO2-emissions, but I think it may be worthwhile remembering that one doesn’t need to be the next Einstein in order to assess their effect objectively and realistically. One just needs to see how small a contribution humanity is making to the complete atmospheric greenhouse composed of both CO2 and water-vapour (plus a few negligible trace gases) and consider that the whole greenhouse is responsible for raising the Earth’s mean surface temperature 33C above its basal black-body temperature. Do the sums and it turns out that the total human contribution to the whole atmospheric greenhouse to date is less than 1/125th of the total and that therefore this is responsible for a maximum global warming effect of less than 0.264degC (ie. 33/125). That’s about a quarter of a degree centigrade! From where, then, is the IPCC getting its scary figures about the global warming effects of human CO2-emissions? (Rhetorical.) It appears to be a clever con to me. One does not even have to assume that water vapour makes up 96% of the atmospheric greenhouse to disprove the IPCC’s claims, even without that, the IPCC’s equations lead us unequivocally to the conclusion that the effect from anthropogenic CO2 is very small and not worth getting your green-knickers in a twist over. Indeed, the sums are so straighfoward a child could do them.

I would be more than happy to demonstrate the equations for you here and we can discuss them.



Nova is nothing but a shill who works for Shell Oil

What a fertile imagination you have!
edit on 23-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


I think you are just misunderstood.
I think you are an introvert.
I think you might want to read my intodcution to ATS.
I think you wouldnt want to reply for months after reading it.
I think I never did because of that.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster
...

Sadly, ElectricUniverse, you use the same tactic time and time again... you just spam a mixture of oil company sponsored pseudo science with your own biased opinion over and over again... spam spam spam... drown out other arguments with quantity instead of quality until people simply give up. I refuse to address you directly anymore!


Me?... What about you?... What have you REALLY contributed AT ALL in threads like this one?...

Stop the BS, I give several good examples of what I am talking about and links that corroborate what I say...

The BS, and "spam, spam", comes from people like you who do NOTHING but deny, deny, and deny just because you want to...

Admit it, AGW is nothing but a RELIGION to people like you...

And yes, the pictures I gave, from Outland, should show you how disenginious people like you are, who want to blame EVERYTHING on mankind and anthropogenic CO2...

Water Vapor which exists at much higher levels than CO2, is a much worse ghg than CO2 will EVER be yet all the blame is passed on to a gas that has never been proven to really cause the warming claimed by the AGW camp?...

How about instead of just responding with personal attakcs you LEARN to debate the points being presented?...

BTW, just saying "all that is spam and not true" is not EVIDENCE in case you didn't know...

How about you TRY to show us what I said that is wrong?...
edit on 23-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Like always, you and melatonin using the same claims from Hansen, Mann et al which have been proven to be wrong time and again... And you want to claim Nathan-D is childish?...


And of course climate science is "not easy"... This is WHY all the GCMs have been proven to be wrong, because they do not take into account natural processes which do affect the climate...



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...




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.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster


False - Water vapour accounts for about 50% not 96%.



Really? where did you get that from Mann, Hansen et al? Your messiah's who have been caught several times lying, cheating, posting false information, and using any tactic to stop real science refuting their pseudo-science from being published?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
i dont think it is the climate change scenerio that is taboo.i think its more about the divide between calling it "global warming"or "climate change" the first one suggesting the whole earth is warming up and the second being about local climates changing in extreme ways.my personal opinion is that were maybe going thru a whle solar system cycle or like maybe a galactic cycle.either way it is out of our hands to do anything about it.dont get me wrong though.i still think we should clean up the earth the best we can.this is our home and we should take care of it but everyones too busy playing war to get the bigger picture.theres signs of ice melting on mars and they can tellthat other further out planets are warming as well.we might be contrbuting to it maybe excellerating it but its just another cycle on a cosmic scale.just my 2 cents



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by notsoobvious
 


Actually is more like the fact that Global Warming, and Climate Change are being attributed to human activity when both are natural. Anthropogenic (anthropogenic means caused by humans) Global Warming, the claim as it was called originally has been found to be nothing but a lie to usher a One World Government "to combat Climate Change"...

If you look at the latest UN sumit for Climate Change, the idiots are calling to lower atmospheric CO2 levels to 190 ppm - 220 ppm which would in fact stunt all plant life on Earth which would significantly lower the amount of food that can be harvested and cause worldwide starvation due to a lack of food.

This plan to sequester and lower atmospheric CO2 levels that low is in fact par tof a plan which has been suggested many times by what I call environlunatics. These are the people, including scientists, who have been calling to "depopulate Earth" because they claim "we are a vius for the Earth and most of us must be eliminated"...

The oher plans, which they are demanding to start by 2013, include suing the west in the name of the Earth and forcing western countries, with the exception of third world countries China and Russia among others, for $100 billion a year for as long as they can squeeze us of money, and of course nowhere do they mention in these plans how they plan to use that money which the RICH leaders of the UN and other world leaders will be the ones stuffing their pockets with this money.

If you notice in these plans, they don't say "corporations will be forced to do this" but rather "the west will be forced to do this" which means you and I will be the ones paying this new, as well as other, "taxes" to make the rich elites richer...

Exclusive: UN Climate Draft Text Demands 'New International Climate Court' to compel reparations for 'climate debt' -- Also seeks 'rights of Mother Earth' & 2C° drop in global temps

The AGW believers don't want to relent event thou their messiah's Mann, Jones et al, as well as the IPCC policymakers have been caught several times, not only through the climategate scandal/emails that were hacked, but on other ocasions have also been caught lying to "push" governments and scare people into believing their dead religion.

If atmospheric CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGW believers the areas that would have been warming the most are those close in, or close to the sources of anthropogenic CO2, such as cities, but in fact the areas that have warmed the most have been areas far away from major cities and other sources of anthopogenic CO2.


...

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

But of course, and like always the "believers" in AGW will make up new or old excuses to ignore facts like the above...

Anyway. Another interesting fact is that the AGW believers always call those of us that don't believe in AGW as "climate skeptics" or "Climate Change skeptics" when that's the most ridiculous claim ever made since everyone knows the climate exists and it changes...

Not to mention the fact, as you can see by squared post, most of the time when they respond after rephrasing the same old lies that Hansen, Mann, Jones et al have been claiming for years the AGW "believers" will claim those of us who "don't believe in AGW" get our science from "BP and other oil companies" which of course is nothing but a strawman argument and a lie.

edit on 24-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: add link



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

When you move further up the atmosphere, where H2O thins out, the absorption bands become much more discrete and you can see for yourself CO2 begins to overtake water vapour in pound for pound strength:


That further up in the atmosphere atmospheric CO2 levels are a lot lower, and the higher you go in the atmosphere it gets colder, not warmer.

In the Troposphere, which is the atmospheric layer where most weather events occur, and it's the atmospheric layer that contributes to surface warming contains about 80% of the atmospheric mass and has 99% of water vapor content.

In this layer water vapor constitutes from 95% -97% (depending of who you ask) the greenhouse effect meanwhile CO2, alongside the rest of the ghgs are BELIEVED to constitute around 3% - 5% of the greenhouse effect.


Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

www.eia.doe.gov...

The Troposphere is the layer that matters when it comes to surface temperatures, and in this layer WATER VAPOR RULES... So I have to wonder why you would even think that your above statement helps your case because it doesn't...




Originally posted by mc_squared
All this adds up to why water vapor only produces about 2 to 2.5 times more greenhouse forcing than CO2 despite the fact it is 10x more abundant.


Excuse me?... From where are you getting your numbers and data?...


...
As a greenhouse gas, water vapor is 10 times more potent than carbon dioxide and its increase is a key factor in the rising global temperatures appearing in the models.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Wow...talk about "pseudo-science"... You are full of it buddy...


Oh, and some more new facts...


NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
...

news.yahoo.com...

edit on 24-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


It's because ATS is full of people who took the bait set out by the Koch Brothers and other opponents of AGW.

That's the problem with this place.

Get rid of something, suppress it but do nothing about it afterward.

Sounds like a disease of sort.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword

It's because ATS is full of people who took the bait set out by the Koch Brothers and other opponents of AGW.

That's the problem with this place.

Get rid of something, suppress it but do nothing about it afterward.

Sounds like a disease of sort.


Ohhh, wow, yeah that's what you call evidence huh?...

Niiice...


We can see "exactly" what the AGW "religious believers" use as "evidence"... They never truly know how to debate facts hence they have to come up with nothing but hot air rethoric as well as lie. They learnt this well from their masters Jones, Mann et al, including Al Gore...




edit on 24-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Except for the niche market, most people stopped living in log cabins to:

A-save the trees
B-easier and better housing
C-the government made them do it

The answer is B

The same can be said for gas powered cars, coal powered electric plants, gas grills,SUVs, etc. When a better, cheaper, and more effective way comes along... people will switch.

I have a farm. I use no chemicals, pesticides, herbicides... hell, I don't even have a tractor. I love the enviroment and as a result from the above, we have a massive population of birds, butterflies, honey bees, lady bugs and praying mantises, practically no sickness or disease or parasites in my animal herds.

My point is... people will willfully change their lifestyle, for the sake of the planet, when a better one comes along. Unfortunately, it is a long time coming yet... but more people than ever are aware. Still too many people are "asleep" with no awareness of what is going on around them. They eat fast food 3 times a day and then go home and kill "weeds" with chemicals by the bucket full... and then wonder why they have cancer, alzheimers, sores, and heart problems.

As for global warming... I firmly believe it is all cycles. One can look to the climate of recent and distant past and see the cycles...warm to hot to cool to cold and back again. Just looking at the recorded data for North Carolina over the last 100 years and the hottest years tend to fall during the 1930s, the 1950s, the 1970s, and then the 1990s... even here we see about a 20 year cycle.

And one erupting volcano in one day throws out more harmful gases than all the cars in the USA combined. Should we fine Mother Nature for CO2 emissions?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate. Evans & Puckrin, 2006

^^Do you know what this is?

That is direct infrared measurement of radiative forcing coming from anthropogenic gases in our atmosphere. Not models. Not calculations.

M-E-A-S-U-R-E-M-E-N-T-S


That paper includes all sorts of choice statements like this, in case it's still not clear to you -



Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases.



Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models



In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.




...
Meanwhile do you understand that the absorption properties of CO2 weren't studied by Trenberth and Hansen, or any of the supposed "lying" climate scientists? They were measured by the U.S. Air Force in the 1940's. Here - watch this 2 minute video and let Dr. Richard Alley explain it to you:




The air force hadn't set out to study Global Warming. They just wanted their missiles to work. But physics is physics - the atmosphere doesn't care whether you study it for warring, or warming. Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat.



So do you understand that if your goofy blog science was anywhere near correct then heat-seaking missiles wouldn't work either? I guess that's all just part of the hoax somehow too, right?



And this is just a taste of all the empirical evidence and common sense facts people like you conveniently ignore and, hey - guess what word I'm about to use: DENY in your ridiculous attempts to justify some totally bogus and ignorant blog science that suits your pre-disposed bias.



So you expect me to realistically throw all that out the window in favour of the calculations of Nasif Nahle - some fringe nobody who only has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology, has no formal background in climate science, no published papers in any reputable journals - because you judge his work to be robust, when you have even less of an understanding of the science than he does.


I've told you before and I'll tell you again: you are getting played like a fiddle by these lying denier clowns. And as much as you want to think it's an unfair label - YOU are in complete denial about it too.



All I need to prove my point is this:





Nova is nothing but a shill who works for Shell Oil

What a fertile imagination you have!


The fact that you brush off her connections to Shell with some lame-o comment like that speaks volumes about how much you are BSing yourself. It took me absolutely no effort to prove this women has a totally compromised position here. She advertises it on her own webpage for crying out loud. You think someone who proudly sports their Libertarian ideology and who worked for 5 years "communicating science" on the dime of Shell Oil is seriously an impartial observer to the global warming debate?

Especially considering how many times she has managed to get the science wrong:

How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot

How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag

How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change


You think this is all a coincidence? You think it's irrelevant?

Seriously: don't dodge the question with some useless comeback for once and explain yourself.
How do you honestly justify telling others they're the ones brainwashed by politically tainted science when YOU sponge up all your information from some repeatedly debunked far-right extremist who spent years collecting a paycheque from one of the largest oil companies in the world?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   


were measured by the U.S. Air Force in the 1940's.

Indeed, the US air-force own both the computer simulation codes from MODTRAN that delivers the radiative characteristics for CO2 to the IPCC and world in general. That is one of the key items of pseudoscientific paraphernalia that the IPCC uses for its illusion-spinning. It supplies the ‘radiative physics’ that the IPCC claims its logarithmic equation for calculating radiative forcing from CO2-increments is based upon. However, the MODTRAN source code is owned by the US air-force and kept under security-wraps at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, so no one can check it to verify that it is authentic. How’s that for ‘open science’? And would you believe it, MODTRAN just happens to predict an amount of global warming from the total CO2 greenhouse that simple arithmetic performed on the IPCC’s own basic data deems to be impossible! Why am I not surprised by that?



That is direct infrared measurement of radiative forcing coming from anthropogenic gases in our atmosphere.

David Evans (Joanne Nova's partner) gave an interesting counterargument to the Evans paper. Evans measured the downward radiation from CO2 with an IR-camera. An IR-camera has sensors that can pick up different frequencies of IR-radiation. By connecting LW and SW frequencies to Wien's Displacement law the photographic images that the IR-camera picks up can be read as a thermometers at distance. By connecting temperature to radiation-intensity by the Stefan-Boltzmann law an IR-camera can mistakenly be viewed as a instrument measuring downward radiation. All that the camera does however is measure frequency, the real fraud comes about when they relate those frequencies to the Stefan-Boltzmann law and convert them into radiative forcing. David Evans gives a better explanation than me. I will try to track down his article. Nevertheless, on my blog I accept the IPCC's logarithmic equation for argument's sake. Even so, when accepting the IPCC's logarithmic and their feedback-enhancement equation, it still appears that the IPCC have overestimated climate sensitivity by a factor of 2. See my blog-post 'The Cold Truth About CO2'.



And this is just a taste of all the empirical evidence and common sense facts people like you conveniently ignore and, hey - guess what word I'm about to use: DENY in your ridiculous attempts to justify some totally bogus and ignorant blog science that suits your pre-disposed bias

Denialism is what you see because denialism is what fills your mind. It’s in there because you have put it there. It’s also simple science to show that the amount of CO2 that we are adding to the atmospheric greenhouse is trivial and totally incapable of supporting the catastrophic claims that the IPCC, the NOAA, the Met Office and old green Uncle Alley all are making for it. But none of you green cultists ever do any actual real science yourselves to find that out, do you? Yet you think that you are supremely qualified to judge a good scientist from a bad one when you don’t even know what real science is! You folks are living in a space that is a long way from reality.



So you expect me to realistically throw all that out the window in favour of the calculations of Nasif Nahle

I didn't realise you were that confused! Those weren't calculations – they were measurements of CO2's and water vapour's emissivity by Hottel and Leckner, and other scientists too. These measurements were made as far back as 1954 and have been confirmed by other scientists since. We are not throwing anything out the _ All that Nasif has done is simply converted the emissivity of CO2 into a corresponding temperature increase by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



Some fringe nobody who only has a Bachelor's Degree, has no formal background in climate science

Your arrogant dogmatism is breathtaking Mc_squared. You give us no sources or explanations for these flat assertions that Joanne Nova is an oil-shill which you make as though they were established matters of fact when it is not. Do stop trying to slip your baseless propaganda under our radar like this, there’s a good chap. It really is tedious to have to keep dispelling the illusions with which you keep assailing us in your on-going psy-op campaign to impose your crackpot warmist belief-system upon us. If you could prove she was an oil-shill you would have been able to “prove” your allegation that skepticism towards CAGW is a conspiracy of fossil fuel interests by now, but you still haven’t done that. The scientific method is intrinsically skeptical by default. Why does she have to be an oil-shill? Why couldn't she just be faithfully adhereing to the scientific method? Where is the evidence that she has 'spent years collecting a paycheque from one of the largest oil companies in the world'? Please, show me. I wait in anticipation to be shocked to my toe-nails by your compelling evidence.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by pasiphae
 


It's because ATS is full of people who took the bait set out by the Koch Brothers and other opponents of AGW.

That's the problem with this place.

Get rid of something, suppress it but do nothing about it afterward.

Sounds like a disease of sort.


i like you.





new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join