Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Po
#1
From No Tricks Zone

Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

January 2,2017

By Kenneth Richard

EXCERPT:

We are told that there is an overwhelming agreement, or consensus, among scientists that most weather and climate changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century have been caused by human activity — our fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions in particular.  We are told that natural mechanisms that used to dominate are no longer exerting much of any influence on weather or climate anymore.  Humans predominantly cause weather and climate changes now.

LINK
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
Good read there SST. Was going to make a comment and saw your note so decided to put my comment here.

All those papers listed seem to talk only about weather, is it getting worse or is it getting better.

No one ever seems to talk SCIENCE. Plenty of information available on the web about emission/absorption for radiative gases as found in the atmosphere. The science of photons is very explicit, no problem finding the energy for any frequency being radiated. Then with the frequency there is a peak temperature, always. Only photons above peak frequency/temperature can be absorbed IF THE MOLECULAR STRUCTURE of the gas molecule allows.

There is certainly no question about radiative gases like CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, the big question is when and where and how do these molecules 'back radiate' and warm the surface.

After more than three years of study on this subject the only heat trapping gases I have found in the atmosphere, some 99.9%, are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. These gases can be warmed by hot surfaces and/or by other 'pollution' molecules that can absorb high energy photons from the sun which is passed around by kinetic collisions.

People believe warmed air expands, rises and cools. It is the 'and cools' bit I question. Where did the energy go? There is no conduction to space! Heat energy, molecular vibration, shared around by kinetic collisions, can only escape to space via RADIATION.

The simple answer to that question is the radiative gases like CO2 and H2O. Sure there is not much H2O above the tropopause and CO2 might have a problem getting that high, just look up the facts on 14CO2!!!

Basic science tells me radiative molecules in the atmosphere can do some warming from sunlight but are mostly coolant when sun is absent. They are most certainly radiating constantly but NONE of that radiation is 'back radiation'.

So attempting to regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent 'global warming' is a total farce and extremely dangerous. People are going to die when the windmills freeze up and the solar panels are covered in snow.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#3
From HERE


Dan Pangburn

Quote:As though it was not bad enough that political bias drives research funding, a fundamental assertion by EPA results from a mistake in logic.

EPA Mistake

The EPA erroneously asserts Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of “effects on the Earth’s warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their “radiative efficiency”), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their “lifetime”).” https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgem.../gwps.html
 
The EPA calculation of the GWP of a ghg erroneously overlooks the fact that any effect the ghg might have on temperature is also integrated over the “lifetime” of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere ‘cancels out’. Therefore GWP, as calculated by the EPA, egregiously miscalculates the influence on average global temperature of greenhouse gases. The influence (forcing) of a ghg cannot be more than determined by its concentration.

The influence on average global temperature of a ghg molecule depends on how many different wavelengths of EMR the molecule can absorb/emit. Water vapor molecules can each absorb/emit at least 170 different wavelengths in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation (p 499 of http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1938ApJ….87..497E/0000499.000.html ) compared to only one for CO2. There are about 30 times more WV molecules in the sea level atmosphere so it is at least 170 x 30 = 5100 times more likely that EMR absorbed by CO2 and thermalized will be reverse-thermalized to water vapor.

Thermalization of all absorbed radiation and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor with the result that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/20/s...0-not-co2/
 
Identification of the three factors, in an equation which matches average global temperature (98% 1895-2015), is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
Thanks for Dan's link SST. I found I already had it and had forgotten!!

Lots of VERY interesting reading. Have had a quick browse hoping to find how cooling of the atmosphere works.

Hope eventually to ask Dan some questions such that I might understand the answers.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Low CO2 climate sensitivity published papers Sunsettommy 2 3,092 06-23-2015, 09:42 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Postma Debunks Skeptical Science Greenhouse Gas Defense Sunsettommy 0 4,534 06-19-2012, 05:32 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  75 reasons to be skeptical of "global warming" Sunsettommy 0 2,995 02-22-2010, 06:30 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)