Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the facts about global warming
#21
jason_85, hello and welcome.
Just a simple question for you, if I may.

In your opinion is space cold ?
Can you say what temperature you understand it to be at. ?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#22
(02-24-2010, 06:46 AM)jason_85 Wrote: This is why I don't consider the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature before the 1970s to be an issue, because I believe that the correlation didn't exist.

In that case, the onus is on you to show that there now is a correlation between CO2 and temp since 1970. Remember, too, that correlation does not mean causation.

In other words, just because both CO2 levels and temps rise, seemingly together, does not mean that one is causing the other to rise - a third factor (or factors) could be causing both to rise.

This is part of the weakness of the AGW by CO2 concept - it has not been shown conclusively that CO2 is causing the temps to rise, especially when the temps stop rising, level off somewhat, and actually experience a slight cooling span.
jason_85 Wrote:[quote='JohnWho' pid='3898' dateline='1266883208']
I agree that this graphic should not be used in an attempt to disprove the AGW by CO2 concept, however it certainly should be used to show exactly what it shows - that we are currently in a time of very low levels of both atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

What you're saying is of course true, we can see it just from the graph. But what you're implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that going back to the historic "norm" would not be a bad thing. The earth has no "norms", and taking CO2 levels and temperatures back to a time when life, the continents and the atmosphere were completely different would be nothing less than a global disaster.[/quote]

"Disaster" compared to what? We humans would have the same number of millenniums to change and prepare for the higher levels as it would take for them to happen. Moreover, even if we stopped emitting any CO2 into the atmosphere at all, except for exhaling and any other natural bodily functions, if we are swinging toward a level that might be more normal there will be nothing we can do about it, at least at this stage of our scientific development.

On a more short term view, what we should be worrying about is moving toward another Ice Age. If you look at any of the more recent temp graphics that I provided a link to earlier, you'll see that from a "cyclic" viewpoint, that would be a more likely scenario. If we are moving toward another Ice Age, then higher CO2 atmospheric levels would make it somewhat easier for humanity assuming we take advantage of the increased food production due to the faster and healthier plant growth.


(02-22-2010, 05:00 PM)jason_85][quote=JohnWho Wrote: "Why do the AGW supporters continuously use misleading arguments, false information, sometimes direct lies, and other poor science concepts to support their concept?" Heck, if it is real and based on solid "settled" science, why do they need to do any of this? Why, for example, isn't Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" straightforward and truthful? If it is really happening, the science should be unassailable, and it is not. Worse, in some cases, it would be laughable if the main stream media (especially here in the US) wasn't so complacent.

Yeah it's a shame. I suppose the fact is that the real figures just aren't that exciting, it was the same thing in "The great global warming swindle". There seems to be a shocking-graphs arms race between the two sides... The media knows very well that "a rumour gets half way around the world before then truth can get its pants on".
[/quote]

While both sides of the issue may sometimes misrepresent proper science, I think it is important to point out that the predominance of this is clearly on the AGW side simply because the science does not readily support their bottom line position which is: "global temps are being increased primarily due to man's CO2 emissions". Again, remember, this is the "concept" that must be proved by the warmists. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the warmists were not making this claim. A movie such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would never have been made if it weren't for the tremendous amount of false information and wrong conclusions in "An Inconvenient Truth" and other claims by the AGW supporting side.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#23
The global warming fiasco isn't about average global temperature, charts, or history. It's about a scientist's clique that blindly passes on age-old misinformation without checking it out. The chart that reveals this the most is the one that starts in the 1880s, long before any modern global technology. You'd think that at least one of the science clique members would have the guts to bring up the impossibility of their chart, or at least challenge the process, but no, just too much buddy, buddy, mutual protection.

ricksfolly
Naturally, it's the SUN, OCEANS, and, WATER VAPOUR that does it.
Doing it cooler for the next few decades as well apparently..
Regardless of what climate models project. >>

The cause is irrelevant because the method used to gather the exact global average information needed to make comparisons was and is faulty. NASA's 1880s chart, where global warming was supposed to have started, is laughable. Even high school kids know that the kind of technology data needed to make that global chart, was still 90 years in the future.

ricksfolly
Reply
#24
Regarding my signature ricksfolly, here is an article that neatly sums up a lot of what I intended to convey with it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate...epage=true
February 24, 2010 - by Harrison Schmitt

Excerpt,
" Earth’s climate changes are extraordinarily complex phenomena.
They represent decadal, to millennial, to epochal changes in weather patterns as
nature continuously attempts to compensate for solar heating imbalances in and between the atmosphere and oceans.

Nature’s attempts to restore heat balance take place under the complicating influences of
the Earth’s inclined daily rotation, movement and
release of heat stored in the oceans,
aerosol production by many natural processes,
water and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and
periodically changing orbital position and orientation relative to the sun.


I would also emphasise that the solar orbital variations are more variable than most people are aware of, ie,
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20029

Excerpt,
" Variance in ER for the short periods of record are about 0.15%, which sounds like very little,
but theoretical calculations show a 6% variance explains all temperature variance in the history of the Earth.
"

and,
" Actually we have known for over 150 years that the orbit is constantly changing from
almost circular as it is now to more extreme ellipse as it was 22,000 years ago.
Constantly changing orbit is caused primarily by the gravitational pull of Jupiter.
Obviously the amount of energy received at the Earth varies as the elliptical orbit changes.
Currently the difference between when the earth is closest to the sun (perihelion) and
furthest away (aphelion) is ±3.5% for a total difference of 7%.
However at full ellipticity the difference is ±8.5% for a total of 17%.
The complete cycle from minimum to maximum ellipticity and back is 100,000 years.
This means the distance between Earth and Sun is changing every year,
which affects the amount of energy received.
"

and,
" Change in Earth’s tilt oscillating between 21.4° and 24.8°
with the current angle being approximately 23.5° and decreasing.
Full cycle from minimum to maximum and back to minimum takes 40,000 years.
"

and,
" Milutin Milankovitch worked to combine the three effects of orbit, tilt and precession
to determine the net effect on global temperature.
He worked without computers and calculated the net energy first at 55°, 60° and 75° North because changes there are critical.
Subsequently he added calculations for latitudes from 5°N and
in 1930 published his results in Koppens’s Manual of Climatology with the title
“Mathematical Climatology and the Astronomical Theory of Climatic Changes.”
After initial wide acceptance his theory and evidence were rejected because
radio carbon dating suggested the chronology was wrong.

It turned out the radio carbon dating was wrong,
"

and,
" Most people still have no idea about these constant and significant changes.
The IPCC do not include them in their computer models.
- The changes are easily put into a computer and are significant
especially when you are making predictions for 50 and 100 years.
"


We have very little idea / understanding regarding oceanic phases and changes / influences,
but I would suggest David Dilley has hit upon a major lunar influence that is rarely considered or mentioned.
ie,
http://www.globalweathercycles.com/about.html
I am not so keen upon Dilley's climate interpretation, but
I think the lunar influence on oceanic currents and phases must be taken into account.
It is not at present, and niether are it's variations in strength and constantly changing geographical location/s.
The example I would mention is the Baltic sea, it has a narrow, S shaped mouth,
and as the lunar track varies this must effect the tides in the Baltic,
and the heat exchanges with the North Sea.
I put this idea forward on a modelling site (before I'd ever heard of Dilley) I used to frequent,
and was basically ridiculed..

Thanks for the lead in ricksfolly. Wink

NB - Should I add MOON to my signature. ?
I havn't so far, because in my mind that is "covered" by OCEANS.

Jason I note your discussion thread has still had no replies....
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#25
Excellent article by Alan Siddons, "The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory" appeared here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/t...house.html

He discusses how publications from NASA and used in schools are teaching our children to believe that CO2 is responsible for global warming. He goes on to explain the theory of radiative heating and absorption by gases and explains why heating by a trace gas,CO2 ,in the atmosphere is an illusion.

I believe Siddons is a physicist but could not find his credentials or bio listed.

He also has articlies at climaterealists.com. An interesting article there:

"Proof That Anthropogenic CO2 Is No Accumulating" is at

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1742
Reply
#26
I have just been reading that very article by Alan Siddons.

I think he sums it all up with this "conundrum" for AGW.

" On one hand, then, if
surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire,
they rob the earth of a means of cooling off -- which makes them "greenhouse gases" by definition.

On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared,
then they are also "greenhouse gases,"
which defeats the premise that
only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth's temperature.
"
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#27
(02-24-2010, 12:44 PM)Richard111 Wrote: jason_85, you say this with confidence I think:

Quote:Those IR bands make a huge potential contribution. It's also the gas causing the most radiative forcing due to hour emissions (in terms of global warming potential * man made emissions).

I am keen to learn how this increase in radiative forcing happens because of increasing man made emissions.

As far as I can make out those IR bands, specific to CO2, cannot penetrate very far into the atmosphere. It seems my belief, obviously misguided, is that increasing CO2 makes no difference to radiative forcing.

I just wrote an article on the effect of carbon dioxide on radiative forcing, I hope it answers your questions. If not please let me know and I'll try to improve the article Smile
Reply
#28
Jason replies from post # 19,

Quote:This is stated misleadingly. CO2 increases have historically lagged temperature increases by several centuries (or more). These are completely different mechanisms to what is occurring today (the endings of ice ages), but is interesting to note is that while the lag is about 1000 years, the total temperature increase is somewhere around 5000 years. If you research the explanation for why these increases are so long, you'll inevitable arrive at predictions about CO2 driving these changes, not lagging. The lag was only initial, at least that's the theory.

Come on Jason!

You decide that since a warming trend was 4,000 years longer than the initial 1,000 year CO2 lag and think that CO2 made it last that long explains it.You provided no support for it and amusedly neither did RealClimate when they were confronted by the inconvenient peer reviewed science papers conclusions.

I already exploded that silly rationalization ahead of schedule at post # 12,the one you completely ignored.In the link is full data access to back up the chart.

In that post I showed that there were NO evidence of CO2 promoting or accelerating the warming trends as shown in the chart.

The initial cause of warming runs and runs for many centuries while your favorite trace gas slumbers in all that time,THEN it finally wakes up and play that catch up run.All the while the planet has been warming just fine without help from the trace molecule fellas and even when the planet goes back into a cooling trend,the CO2 kids keeps right on rising for a while longer,as if they did not get the memo in time and reverse themselves.

Quote:If this is about tripping me up on the fact that CO2 was once higher than today, it's not relevant. CO2 is higher now than it has been for the entire time the planet was in a state resembling the way it is today, and during that time such a high jump in CO2 concentrations has never been experienced.

Translation:

I do not know the answer to that question.

You are making up bull out of thin air.

Quote:Again, not a serious argument. Why don't we just spray pesticides into the atmosphere, or put aspirin in our water supply, that way there'll be no pests and no headaches. Great, right?

He he....

What I stated was factual and there is nothing you commented above that actually addressed my point.

That higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is BENEFICIAL to life.That the Biota benefits from higher CO2 levels.

Jason originally stated:

Quote:In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.

My reply was:

"This is about as scientific as eating a pancake since it is based on pure guesswork."

Jason replied:

Quote:More or less, yes. I wouldn't go as far as calling it guesswork though. It's an observation based on reasoning and the lack of a better explanation, and some limited scientific conjecture.

LOL,

You have not provided anything to back it up,just words that make no sense at all.

It is guesswork alright.

Jason continues:

Quote:Those IR bands make a huge potential contribution. It's also the gas causing the most radiative forcing due to hour emissions (in terms of global warming potential * man made emissions).

Have you actually noticed how little CO2 absorbs outgoing IR? Around 92-96% of IR zooms right by pacman er I mean CO2 molecules.

Do you realize that by the Logarithmic scale,it has already absorbed about all It can and that negligible warming is possible after the first 100 ppmv?

I find it amusing that you have ignored Water Vapor which is a much more prominent GHG than CO2 by far,and often ignored by AGW believers.

Quote:I could say the same to you. But the reason I started this discussion was to get ideas to improve my article, this isn't about right or wrong because neither of us can really know the truth.

You never did answer my question.

Big Grin

Quote:Again, you're using misleading wording. If a gas being a trace component in our atmosphere means that it cannot contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, then there would be no greenhouse effect, because all greenhouse gases are in on average trace quantities in our atmosphere.

Once again you completely left out Water Vapor,it is the DOMINANT GHG.

Not only that you ignored the role of those other pesky gases,the 99% that also contribute to keeping it warm.

You need to look at the entire atmosphere.

Jason complained here:

Quote:In regards to the other stuff, maybe you can be more specific about what New scientist is saying that "never happened", I didn't quite understand what you mean.

I was responding to this that YOU posted:

Quote:the actual time lag is subject to dispute since the air trapped inside the vostock ice records is younger than the ice itself (New Scientist (2007)). Even if temperature did in fact lag behind CO2 variations in the past, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that CO2 concentrations are not the driving force for temperature variations today, since the mechanisms are distinctly different to those that have occurred during the past 400,000 years (one needs only to look at the above graph to notice the sharp and unprecedented climb in CO2 concentrations during the last century to verify this).

This is pure babble,since they provide ZERO evidence to explain how atmospheric physics changes radically to support an absurd AGW hypothesis.

Meanwhile ALL of the "peer reviewed" published science papers have always stated clearly that CO2 lags temperature changes by 800 years or so.

You have not provided any "peer reviewed" papers attesting in the opposite.

New Scientist is trying to slip in this dishonest line:

Quote:Even if temperature did in fact lag behind CO2 variations in the past, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that CO2 concentrations are not the driving force for temperature variations today,

hoping that some people would not know that it never happened in the past and yet amazingly without any "peer reviewed" published science papers mentioned to support the very opposite of what has been happening today,as alleged by YOU and New Scientist.

I consider that dishonest.
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
#29
(02-25-2010, 08:26 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:
Quote:Again, you're using misleading wording. If a gas being a trace component in our atmosphere means that it cannot contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, then there would be no greenhouse effect, because all greenhouse gases are in on average trace quantities in our atmosphere.

Once again you completely left out Water Vapor,it is the DOMINANT GHG.

Not only that you ignored the role of those other pesky gases,the 99% that also contribute to keeping it warm.

You need to look at the entire atmosphere.

Errr, do N2 and O2 radiate through the depth of the atmosphere. ?
(As they are above absolute zero, I would of thought they must do..)

I agree completely regarding the "content" / "reasoning" of jason_85 replies, they are weasel words and basically dishonest.
I do like the numerous times where he has simply said that is not what happens, etc, without giving a reason/s excepting his belief in AGW.

He appears to be completely unaware and in denial of the fact that AGW is an unproven (some say disproven) hypothesis,
so the onus of proof is squarely upon him, as he is supporting the hypothesis of AGW.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#30
CO2 levels and ice ages! What is the problem? As ice retreats during the interglacial, vegetation growth increases, CO2 increases. Think huge forests with massive seasonal composting and warming oceans. When the ice returns growth areas reduce and CO2 reduces back into the cooling seas. The changes in CO2 levels follow a cycle just like the annual change of CO2 only it takes much more time.

edit: oops, seems I have the wrong thread.
(02-25-2010, 03:04 PM)jason_85 Wrote:
(02-24-2010, 12:44 PM)Richard111 Wrote: jason_85, you say this with confidence I think:

Quote:Those IR bands make a huge potential contribution. It's also the gas causing the most radiative forcing due to hour emissions (in terms of global warming potential * man made emissions).

I am keen to learn how this increase in radiative forcing happens because of increasing man made emissions.

As far as I can make out those IR bands, specific to CO2, cannot penetrate very far into the atmosphere. It seems my belief, obviously misguided, is that increasing CO2 makes no difference to radiative forcing.

I just wrote an article on the effect of carbon dioxide on radiative forcing, I hope it answers your questions. If not please let me know and I'll try to improve the article Smile

jason_85, I read your article. Nothing new. Standard AGW mantras. Look at the absorption problem from another view point. Why doesn't visible light penetrate to the bottom of the sea? For exactly the same reason IR light from the surface, at CO2 wavelengths, is unable to penetrate to the top of the atmosphere. Also IR at CO2 wavelenghts from the sun does not penetrate to the surface.

Do you know of any papers, tutorials, whatever, that attempt to explain absorption/emission in mixed gases with relation to heat transfer into the less reactive gases? See my post #57 in the Layman struggles thread.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#31
Murphy's law strikes! I think I just found something. Wink

Atmospheric Science Educator Guide Lesson 3: Greenhouse Gases

That's from American Thinker

brought to my attention by GREENIE WATCH

I'll post a comment when I have read it.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#32
Scheesh...!! I should have read the critique first! All links in my post above.

How did these people get someone to the moon and back if this is the level of physics they teach to school children???

Quote:Main Lesson Concept:
Carbon dioxide and water vapor are greenhouse gases that absorb energy radiated from Earth’s surface
and release some of it back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature.

The surface provides the heat to warm the greenhouse gases in the air, the greenhouse gases radiate SOME of that energy back AND MAKE THE SURFACE WARMER ! ! ! !

The Gospel according to NASA!

Why in the name of all that is holy do we need power generators? Lets just use all that free heat from the atmosphere!
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#33
(02-24-2010, 12:56 PM)Derek Wrote: In your opinion is space cold ?
Can you say what temperature you understand it to be at. ?

Depends on the time of day.

(02-24-2010, 02:12 PM)JohnWho Wrote: In that case, the onus is on you to show that there now is a correlation between CO2 and temp since 1970. Remember, too, that correlation does not mean causation.

In other words, just because both CO2 levels and temps rise, seemingly together, does not mean that one is causing the other to rise - a third factor (or factors) could be causing both to rise.

Yes, true, that's why I created the article and this discussion. Of course it's possible that there is another cause, but what is it, and why? The best explanation as I see it, and I don't want to repeat what I've already explained, is that CO2 levels are the root cause.

(02-24-2010, 02:12 PM)JohnWho Wrote: While both sides of the issue may sometimes misrepresent proper science, I think it is important to point out that the predominance of this is clearly on the AGW side simply because the science does not readily support their bottom line position which is: "global temps are being increased primarily due to man's CO2 emissions". Again, remember, this is the "concept" that must be proved by the warmists. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the warmists were not making this claim. A movie such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would never have been made if it weren't for the tremendous amount of false information and wrong conclusions in "An Inconvenient Truth" and other claims by the AGW supporting side.

Well the way I see it, things are happening now that can't be explained. So really, whoever comes up with the most plausible explanation is, at least in the eyes of the people, the bearer of truth. That's just the way things go, and the fact is that global warming denial doesn't have a complete theory, warmers do, however flawed it may be. I don't want to get into supporting the IPCC because they've really screwed up, but they do some solid science as well. I know several professors working for them, and they've invested their entire careers into making a contribution to climate science. That has to be worth something.
(02-22-2010, 07:32 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: let's have a real close look at the last spike in the Antarctic ice cores some 20,000 years ago.

Can you explain what we're looking at here? What is delta 180?
Reply
#34
(02-26-2010, 03:14 AM)jason_85 Wrote:
(02-24-2010, 12:56 PM)Derek Wrote: In your opinion is space cold ?
Can you say what temperature you understand it to be at. ?

Depends on the time of day.

That is not an answer jason_85.
The time of day implies you answer that "space" is recieving presumably solar radiation to alter it's temperature.
What complete and utter nonsense.
How does nothing (space) recieve solar radiation jason_85, ?

If nothing can absorb solar radiation (as your answer implies), which is the only interpretation I can put on your answer,
how in heavens name does any solar radiation from the sun get to earth after passing through 95 million miles of space. ??????
You appear with that "answer" to have violated the laws of energy conservation.

I can see why your discission thread has got no replies as of yesterday.
You do not appear able or informed enough, or able to consider what you are being asked to discuss.
(02-26-2010, 01:54 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Scheesh...!! I should have read the critique first! All links in my post above.

How did these people get someone to the moon and back if this is the level of physics they teach to school children???

Quote:Main Lesson Concept:
Carbon dioxide and water vapor are greenhouse gases that absorb energy radiated from Earth’s surface
and release some of it back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature.

Errr, presumably with funds generated from their "activities" in other areas of politically correct "science",
more accurately referred to as propaganda.

"Pay a scientist enough and he'll (OK,OK, she'll as well) prove WHATEVER you want him / her to "prove"...

It's the bit where money takes over from finding / searching for the truth...

Which so far appears to be jason_85's chosen career path - well, attempted career path, but a bit too late in the day "mate"..
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#35
Jason writes from post #

Quote:Can you explain what we're looking at here? What is delta 180?

The text I quoted explains it well,how can you not understand it?

Go back to post # 12 and read it again and see that there is no evident positive feedback shown on the chart.

Evidence shown (chart) that when CO2 finally starts going up after many centuries of warming had already been going on,that there is NO increase or acceleration of the warming trend.

The point that so far eludes you.

Delta 180 is the bottom end of the CO2 atmospheric level,as shown on the chart.
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
#36
(02-26-2010, 12:39 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Murphy's law strikes! I think I just found something. Wink

Atmospheric Science Educator Guide Lesson 3: Greenhouse Gases

That's from American Thinker

brought to my attention by GREENIE WATCH

I'll post a comment when I have read it.

Quoting Alan Siddons:

Quote:Utterly false. Heated masses always emit light (infrared). Always. That's a direct consequence of molecules in motion. And while it's true that some substances may be transparent to infrared light, it doesn't follow that they can't be heated or, if heated, might not emit infrared. Yet NASA's misleading formulation implies precisely that.

There are three ways for heat (better to say thermal energy) to move from one zone to another: by conduction, convection, and radiation. Conductive heat transfer involves direct contact, wherein vibrations spread from molecule to molecule. Convective transfer involves a mass in motion: expanded by heat, a fluid is pushed up and away by the denser fluid that surrounds it. Radiative transfer arises when molecules intercept the light that warmer molecules are emitting, which brings about a resonant molecular vibration -- i.e., heating.

Heat is transferred and absorbed in several ways, then, and no substance is immune to being heated, which means that all gases absorb heat -- contrary to what NASA tells children.

Yeah NASA and AGW lovers forget that CONDUCTION exist.

Rolleyes
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
#37
(02-26-2010, 03:14 AM)jason_85 Wrote:
(02-24-2010, 02:12 PM)JohnWho Wrote: In that case, the onus is on you to show that there now is a correlation between CO2 and temp since 1970. Remember, too, that correlation does not mean causation.

In other words, just because both CO2 levels and temps rise, seemingly together, does not mean that one is causing the other to rise - a third factor (or factors) could be causing both to rise.

Yes, true, that's why I created the article and this discussion. Of course it's possible that there is another cause, but what is it, and why? The best explanation as I see it, and I don't want to repeat what I've already explained, is that CO2 levels are the root cause.

Even though, historically, CO2 levels lagged temp changes? See, that simply makes no sense. What was the cause of temp increases 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10,000? etc.

What was the cause at the end of the LIA when the temps began to rise? They've risen at essentially the same rate and continue to do so. Why is it that only the last 50 years or so of this continual rise is being claimed by Warmists to be caused by CO2? What you and the Warmists are unable to do so far is show that man's CO2 emissions have had any noticeable effect on what has been happening. While it could, the fact that the natural warming trend hasn't been affected that much clearly implies that whatever causes the climate to change, either warmer or cooler, continues to do so.

Instead of saying "Gee, I dunno what it could be, so I'll say it's CO2", why aren't these so called "climate scientists" working to determine what factors do effect our climate? Oh, wait - it is only the Warmist scientists who aren't looking for other causes - the real, honest climate scientists are looking for other causes.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#38
(02-25-2010, 02:32 PM)ajmplanner Wrote: Excellent article by Alan Siddons, "The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory" appeared here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/t...house.html

He discusses how publications from NASA and used in schools are teaching our children to believe that CO2 is responsible for global warming. He goes on to explain the theory of radiative heating and absorption by gases and explains why heating by a trace gas,CO2 ,in the atmosphere is an illusion.

I believe Siddons is a physicist but could not find his credentials or bio listed.

He also has articlies at climaterealists.com. An interesting article there:

"Proof That Anthropogenic CO2 Is No Accumulating" is at

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1742

From the second link:

Quote:By current estimates, man is pumping about 4 ppm of CO2 into the air every year. But the atmospheric level is rising only 2 ppm every year. Theory has it, then, that half of human emissions are presently getting absorbed by so-called carbon sinks, thereby cutting the net emission in half every year.

Yet if half of human emissions stay in the air and the other half goes elsewhere, this proves that anthropogenic CO2 is not accumulating — the reason being that absorption is an ongoing process. A 50% reduction factor cannot be applicable only once. The next year would naturally see a further reduction. And so forth.

Yeah and that 50% reduction goes on every year,thus it makes sense for subsequent years to still have additional 50% reduction of those CO2 that survived the first year ,then the second year and so on.

The CO2 residence times are well established to be in the 5-15 year range based on 5 decades of "peer reviewed" published science papers.

Thus rapid accumulation is not possible at that meager 4 ppmv emission level.
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
#39
(02-26-2010, 07:10 AM)JohnWho Wrote:
(02-26-2010, 03:14 AM)jason_85 Wrote:
(02-24-2010, 02:12 PM)JohnWho Wrote: In that case, the onus is on you to show that there now is a correlation between CO2 and temp since 1970. Remember, too, that correlation does not mean causation.

In other words, just because both CO2 levels and temps rise, seemingly together, does not mean that one is causing the other to rise - a third factor (or factors) could be causing both to rise.

Yes, true, that's why I created the article and this discussion. Of course it's possible that there is another cause, but what is it, and why? The best explanation as I see it, and I don't want to repeat what I've already explained, is that CO2 levels are the root cause.

Even though, historically, CO2 levels lagged temp changes? See, that simply makes no sense. What was the cause of temp increases 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10,000? etc.

What was the cause at the end of the LIA when the temps began to rise? They've risen at essentially the same rate and continue to do so. Why is it that only the last 50 years or so of this continual rise is being claimed by Warmists to be caused by CO2? What you and the Warmists are unable to do so far is show that man's CO2 emissions have had any noticeable effect on what has been happening. While it could, the fact that the natural warming trend hasn't been affected that much clearly implies that whatever causes the climate to change, either warmer or cooler, continues to do so.

Instead of saying "Gee, I dunno what it could be, so I'll say it's CO2", why aren't these so called "climate scientists" working to determine what factors do effect our climate? Oh, wait - it is only the Warmist scientists who aren't looking for other causes - the real, honest climate scientists are looking for other causes.

The funny part is that ACCORDING to the alarmists,CO2 was stable for thousands of years until the 1800's.

From the END of the last ice age (the 90,000 year part) and for about 10,000 years the CO2 levels rose from around 180 ppmv to 280 ppmv by the 1880's.Most of the rise occurred early and has been stable for the last 8,000 years or so.

But we have documented evidence that temperatures have oscillated quite a bit and yet the CO2 levels were essentially unchanged.

Meaning that CO2 is NOT a driver of temperature changes that have undeniably existed,such as the "hot" Holocene optimism (the warmest period in the current interglacial period),or the Roman warm period or the Medievel warm period and so on with the cold periods.

CO2 has never been shown to be a player in temperature changes in THIS interglacial period that is almost over.
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
#40
When jason_85 says "Of course it's possible that there is another cause, but what is it, and why? The best explanation as I see it, and I don't want to repeat what I've already explained, is that CO2 levels are the root cause" then I believe this is the root cause of Jason's belief. All of his other efforts are attempts to make this seem accurate.

Over the past many millenniums (eons?) we've had many times when temps rose followed by rising CO2 levels. Also, but not often mentioned, there have been just as many times when temps were falling and CO2 levels were rising. How can this possibly be if CO2 is driving temps up? It can not, therefore we (true scientists) should be looking for what really is/are the primary causes of climate change - either cooling or warming. The elements that affect climate are very complex and there are a number of factors working either together or in opposition that determine how warm or cool we are. Just look at one date and one position on the earth - say Greenwich, England (hey, might as well give them props for being on "Mean Time") on, say, July 24th - every year. I suspect we'll find that the high on that date varies quite a bit over 100 (or more) years. What are the primary causes of this variety: Cloud cover, wind currents, solar activity, cosmic rays, a volcano eruption, a change in Atlantic Ocean currents, a change in Pacific Ocean currents, El Nino/La Nina etc. or some interaction between multiples of these?

Assuming, because one doesn't understand all of these interactions, that it must be atmospheric CO2 (a minor part of the "greenhouse effect") doesn't really make sense.
Another possibility:

If carbon didn’t warm us, what did?

It's like, cosmic, dude!
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study Sunsettommy 0 5,415 05-27-2013, 08:17 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Occam’s Razor, the Null Hypothesis, and Anthropogenic Global Warming Sunsettommy 0 3,517 04-13-2013, 06:43 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite water vapor observations Sunsettommy 0 4,117 03-23-2013, 08:30 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 0 3,201 03-23-2013, 07:45 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 1 3,773 10-10-2012, 12:29 PM
Last Post: Earthling
  Turkish Scientists Confirm UHI Effect Is Overstating Global Warming - 4 Degree UHI Im Sunsettommy 0 4,975 09-13-2012, 06:02 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  NOAA Conducts Large-Scale Experiment And Proves Global Warming Skeptics Correct Sunsettommy 0 2,946 09-09-2012, 06:52 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Thermodynamice Of Global Warming ajmplanner 5 6,691 06-11-2012, 12:32 PM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate
  Why the theory of man-made global warming is incorrect Sunsettommy 2 4,669 05-19-2012, 09:03 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Global Warming - A Coolist's View Sunsettommy 0 3,311 01-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)