Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 Next
Comments 130901 to 130950:
-
frankbi at 03:50 AM on 29 February 2008What 1970s science said about global cooling
BTN: "Correct. As long as we agree"? I don't get this. Does the climate's behaviour depend on what we agree on? The "solar activity" argument has, of course, been debunked on this very web site. -
frankbi at 03:47 AM on 29 February 2008It's the sun
"No Frank the other countries spend money the same way, many have systems that are more corrupt. But, the US is by far the biggest player in the actual funding." So, by a sheer stroke of coincidence, _all_ the governments in the world decided _independently_ to promote the Great Global Warming Scam and then band together to create the World Gaia Government and rally around Al Gore The Antichrist or something? "If you read various threads here you would know that solar affects are blamed for millions of years of climate change in the past and now treated by some as irrelevent that's just not logical." Um, excuse me, that's the _whole_ _point_ of the AGW theory. Rive and Friis-Christensen olar effects correlated _well_ with _past_ climate change, but from 1985 on there was _no_ correlation between solar activity and global climate. Again, the link: http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html -
BTN at 01:30 AM on 29 February 2008What 1970s science said about global cooling
Correct. As long we agree on the consensus that solar activity is the principal cause of global warming, not humans or CO2.Response: I do agree with the consensus on solar activity - that the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began. Which lead Usoskin 2005 to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." More on the sun... -
PaulM at 01:07 AM on 29 February 2008Ice age predicted in the 70s
The claim by Peterson that there were only 7 papers in the 1970s predicting cooling is just ridiculous. Anyone can check this with a quick look at Google scholar. Here are two examples they have missed, but there are many more. Return of the ice age and drought in peninsular Florida? Joseph M. Moran, Geology 3 (12): 695-696 (1975) Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age T. Hughes, Science Vol. 170. no. 3958, pp. 630 - 633 (1970) What is strange is why people attempt to re-write recent history in this way, when their claims can so easily be disproven. Where did all the stories in the papers, TV and magazines come from? Were they all just fabricated? No of course not, they came from scientists who made suggestions (like the above 'possibly to a new ice age') which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the global warming scare. -
BTN at 17:29 PM on 28 February 2008What 1970s science said about global cooling
I think the actual point from the skeptics is that there actually was a long cooling period from the 1940's to the 1970's despite record increases in CO2. http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/Response: That's a different argument which is covered here. It is connected, of course - it's the mid-century cooling which led to 1970's ice age predictions. Nevertheless, two fairly distinct arguments. -
Zarkov at 16:38 PM on 28 February 2008What 1970s science said about global cooling
I will draw your attention to http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report... >> Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. >> An oil induced Ice Age is starting and the proliferation of the Ice Clouds are a first warning. Global Climate Change is an oil induced problem, and no one is at all concerned. http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/Response: Ordinarily, I would delete this comment as it has little to no relevance to the post. However, I am in the process of writing a response to this very argument (which is barnstorming its way up the skeptic leaderboard) so stay tuned over the next week. -
FarmerOnMars at 11:41 AM on 28 February 2008CO2 lags temperature
Tekhasski, you sure can pile on the jargon but the basic argument is not affected by what you or GMB are saying: sunlight comes in with a small amount of long-wavelength infrared (so does not get absorbed so much by CO2, methane, NO2, etc.), gets absorbed, then tries to head out again as blackbody radiation, which is mostly in the long-infrared range and is strongly absorbed by the accumulating CO2, methane, NO2, etc. in the atmosphere. No matter what the atmosphere is doing, if you add heat you get warming. You don't need a PhD to understand that. The main outcome of the above research is to suggest that heating of the planet causes more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (with some delay). We already know that increased carbon dioxide causes warming, so this means that the warming will be amplified by increased CO2 emission from the oceans. GMB, everything you are saying has already been taken into account in the current climate models. Climatologists have been out of their armchairs for decades now; where are you sitting? -
FarmerOnMars at 11:15 AM on 28 February 20081934 - hottest year on record
"The United States shows no warming trend but that doesn't matter because it's only 2% of the surface area of the Earth, correct?" No. The U.S. definitely shows a warming trend. Look at the actual NASA correction: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf 2000 is the hottest year in this graph. Also, although there is a bump in the 30's, the overall trend is clearly up. All that aside, global statistics are clearly what matter for a global phenomenon. If you look around a bit on this site you'll find plenty of references to well-averaged, peer-reviewed data (permafrost, deep ocean temps, etc.) from all over the globe showing warming that matches anthropogenic forcing. -
Wondering Aloud at 06:25 AM on 28 February 2008There is no consensus
The deniers series in the National post has grown much larger. It is still a good series can you update the link so it doesn't just lead to the first 10. -
Wondering Aloud at 02:05 AM on 28 February 2008There is no consensus
My point is the consensus, such as it is, is closer to the denialist view than the popular view of Al Gore etc. The claim that there is some vast number of scientists that constitute a consensus and that agree with catastrophic warming is not only not science it isn't even correct. We constantly see people pointing out IPCC to supposedly prove this supposed consensus. IPCC isnt all qualified scientists any more than any of these lists are. But more important than that, despite the fact that a pro warming bias is built into the entire IPCC process, the actual body of the IPCC report in fact supports my position rather than that of Al Gore. When I pointed out that the petition project and other similar things like the Heidelberg appeal all had one thing the IPCC didn't have; the consent and agreement of the people involved. (This is something lacking in the lists of academies etc. in the original post as well.) You ignored it completely as if tiny politically active committees somehow spoke for all. Personal attacks on a handful of people, each of which is questionable in itself does nothing to refute my stated point. It appears rather to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue. -
skepticism_is_a_virtue at 16:14 PM on 26 February 2008What 1970s science said about global cooling
Welcome back. This is a fascinating look at the history of how theory (long wave absorption and aerosol cooling) and observation (post war cooling) vie in the peer-reviewed literature. Thanks to you, Stoat, and others who do such good work. -
paledriver at 10:02 AM on 26 February 2008There is no consensus
please, for my age addled mind, explain how I've proved your point. -
Wondering Aloud at 03:15 AM on 26 February 2008Models are unreliable
And you say I'm the one who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about! -
Wondering Aloud at 03:07 AM on 26 February 2008There is no consensus
You mean I should have quickly pointed out that you had proven my point? Not allow you time to elaborate or correct? -
Wondering Aloud at 02:58 AM on 26 February 2008Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
Catastrophic warming claims all rely on strong positive feedback. You do so yourself on several threads. For it to not create a run away feedback loop it would have to be negative or tiny and decreasing to zero or negative. Both of those situations eliminste the possibility of catastrophic warming. You can't have strong positive feedback to create the catastrophic warming and historically no such thing existing so it didn't happen before. -
paledriver at 11:09 AM on 25 February 2008There is no consensus
it took you 23 days to come up with that? -
Wondering Aloud at 03:25 AM on 23 February 2008It's the sun
Gee now it's a conspiracy theory! And here all I had was a practicle observation of how scientists sometimes face ethical challenges. On a more serious note, John I am not the one who claimed anything about their results vs their statements. Their results from your own references clearly are not contradicted by their public positions. You said: "but key to the argument is that they stated positions that were not supported by their research. This is what I was commenting on, you made the very logic error you attribute to me. The research in question does nothing to support the idea of catastrophic antropogenic global warming. So their public position that they didn't see strong evidence for it was perfectly reasonable. The problem is with the supposed vs. actual consensus again. I think you would have to concede that someone who recieves publicity as a "denier" is likely to have more trouble with funding agencies. Newell and Michels are clearly examples. I am not familiar enough with Taylor to judge. -
Wondering Aloud at 02:32 AM on 23 February 2008It's the sun
First off... No Frank the other countries spend money the same way, many have systems that are more corrupt. But, the US is by far the biggest player in the actual funding. The entire sun question was most certainly not created in some film made last year. If you read various threads here you would know that solar affects are blamed for millions of years of climate change in the past and now treated by some as irrelevent that's just not logical. -
Wondering Aloud at 02:17 AM on 23 February 2008Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
Systems with positive feedback are inherently unstable in this context. Therefore if the feedback were large and positive as you suggest than earlier eons when we had greater CO2 in the atmosphere and/or greater water vapor would have created a run away greenhouse that would have been nearly impossible to stop. Our existence is an overwelming argument against a strong positive feedback.Response: Systems with positive feedbacks aren't necessarily unstable. It depends on the strength of the positive feedback. If it's less than a certain threshhold, the positive feedback gets less and less till a stable position is reached. Empirical observations of climate sensitivity estimate that's the case with our climate. -
Carrick at 13:59 PM on 21 February 2008Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll reiterate that while Al Gore's graph has some flaws, his main point that modern times are the warmest over the last millenia are backed up by multiple studies, the NAS and NOAA.
Had some flaws? Give me a break, it was bloody well completely wrong. He represented Mann's curve as if it were Thomspsons! So you are invoking the old "fake but accurate" defense? There is nothing scientific in that argument.Response: "Fake but accurate" is not the argument. The argument is that multiple studies, the NAS and NOAA all confirm that modern times are the warmest over the last millenia. Obsessing over Al Gore's graph is missing that point. -
John Cross at 06:34 AM on 21 February 2008It's the sun
Wondering Aloud: You may want to check your logic. Because your present a paper that does not support position A - it does not follow that you do support position A. If Mr. Taylor wishes to make a statement about global warming, he should produce the evidence that backs up his claim. Thus he is obligated to produce the research that supports his position - not say, my research does not contradict this position. And, as I indicated in my last post - he still appears to be the state climatologist so he does not appear to be fired. reagrds, John -
frankbi at 03:24 AM on 19 February 2008It's the sun
Wondering Aloud: "With $6 billion/year in the US alone tied to GW orthodoxy, most people who need to keep their jobs are pretty hesitant to be branded a `denier'." And somehow Al Gore The Antichrist managed to create a _world-wide_ conspiracy using the US's budget alone? The _entire_ _world's_ climate research -- from China to India, from Hungary to Sweden, from Canada to Brazil -- depend on this $6b/year from the US? Can't you at least cook up a more plausible conspiracy theory? Back to the "it's the sun" topic, I find this particularly hilarious... apparently the creators of the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" decided in their infinite wisdom to fabricate their own data to "prove" that it's the sun's fault: http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html -- Frank Bi, http://zompower.tk/ -
Wondering Aloud at 12:53 PM on 18 February 2008It's the sun
Money figures? the $6 Billion? thats what is in the federal budget currently. the $170 Million is what the budget was just before George H Bush decided to throw money at the problem, first two numbers per Richard Lindzen, but I remember the numbers myself from back then. John gives $2.4 in 1993 which is after my $2 billion and $5.1 billion for 2004 which is before the current $6 billion. I think those numbers are right he just chose different years. As to the research question, you're the one making the claim "but key to the argument is that they stated positions that were not supported by their research". In what way did Mr. Taylor's statements fly in the face of his own research? How does writting a paper on Regional Precipitation Frequency or Observer Bias contradict his opinion that the warming did not seem catastrophic? Of course it doesn't. He was fired because his statements were not fasionable for politicians in power. In the case of Michels your claim that his statements were not supported by his research is rediculous. While you may not like it, any reader here who does read his papers will know that. Newell's work in particular shows no sign of bias and I think was very well done. His only mistake as far as I can tell was honesty. When his results didnt match what the climate models predicted... the end. -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:14 PM on 17 February 2008It's the sun
WA, incidentally, where are those money figures coming from? -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:01 AM on 16 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
How significant that actually is remains to be seen. About the satellite record: The T2 channel, used for troposphere measurements is influenced by the stratosphere. The T4 channel is all stratosphere. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/rss-msu.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VinnikovGrody2003.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/TrendsJGRrevised3InPress.pdf http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf About balloons: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5740/1556 -
John Cross at 04:58 AM on 16 February 2008It's the sun
OK, I went back to do a little digging and found out that first, I appear to be incorrect since George Taylor appears to still be the State Climatologist. Was he one of the ones that you were thinking of? Anyway, keeping with Mr. Taylor, I tried to get a record of his publications and there was nothing listed on his site so I went the Web of Science and found the following 4 publications. Going back to your statement, “ people who have lost jobs because they did perfectly competent research that didn't support the AGW idea,” Which of these do you consider competent research that does not support AGW and how does it fit in with Mr. Taylor’s statements. Title: Regional precipitation-frequency analysis and spatial mapping for 24-hour and 2-hour durations for Washington State Title: Observer bias in daily precipitation measurements at United States cooperative network stations Title: A knowledge-based approach to the statistical mapping of climate Title: Spatial variability and interpolation of stochastic weather simulation model parameters In regards to Reginald Newell, thanks, the name change was a help. Unfortunately all I was able to find was a quote from an interview. Is there anything more substantive than that? Regards, John PS, For the thread with Victor, try It's the Sun -
Wondering Aloud at 03:15 AM on 16 February 2008It's the sun
Odd I google it and get tons or references of course I typed in "Reginald Newell MIT" I felt it was safe to use him as an example as he has passed away. I would disagree that any of the 3 stated positions that were not supported by their research. Also if that was the criteria look how many people on the other side would be unemployed. Hey folks what is the other thread where people were discussing the solar spectra Victor asked about I cant remember. -
Wondering Aloud at 03:09 AM on 16 February 2008It's the sun
Yes Victor, the change in output during high solar activity is not uniform for wavelength and I don't know how important that is. It does seem like a mighty large effect for such a small change so there must be something more to it. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:07 AM on 16 February 2008There is no consensus
It appears you have proved my point. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:00 AM on 16 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Back to comment 3 John V's post actually suggests that the CRN5 stations are introducing a poitive bias in the surface results since 1960. He graphs it fartherr down the page. -
Wondering Aloud at 00:52 AM on 16 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Yes I am 100% sure about that... if the surface warms more than the atmosphere than the atmosphere cannot be the cause as this would violate the second law of thermodynamics, think in terms of entropy and in terms of what is known as zeroeth law. I suspect that there must be something else in there that we aren't seeing, if they are using different reference periods for their anomaly calculations then combining them in the graphs as they have; that would be amazing incompetence so I doubt that's what it is. It could be what I have suggested on other threads we ought to quit using the land surface record until we get a better handle on what the heck the problems with it are. This meets enormous resistance because the warming signal from balloon measures has been so much weaker and the satellite record is so short. -
frankbi at 21:10 PM on 15 February 2008Scientists can't even predict weather
Will Nitschke, what a load of nonsense. I've already rebutted your arguments here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm#304 And... "Common sense dictates that his work will probably have to be reviewed at least independently before anyone should take his claims seriously." The peer review process of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America -- in which Hansen et al.'s 2006 paper was published -- isn't "independent" enough for you? -
frankbi at 21:04 PM on 15 February 2008Models are unreliable
Wondering Aloud: "because current models have been changed" You're clearly off spouting rubbish you don't know a thing about. Look at the temperature predictions in Hansen et al. (2006) and Hansen et al. (1998). They are _exactly_ _the_ _same_. The 1998 model has _not_ been changed at all, and it still agrees all the way to 2006. All your talk about "fudge factors" can't explain that. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:40 PM on 15 February 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
Roy, there was no Arctic ice cap until the Isthmus of Panama closed. Changes in oceanic circulation, no TSI involved for the start of the first ice ages is a very plausible possibility. The most constant thing in Earth climate over the past half million years is solar energy input. That 4% variation would have to persist to trigger climate change. Look at the CERES and ERBE pages and see how many papers are there about clouds. There is nothing magic about CO2, the physics of it are very well known. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:34 PM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Are you saying that it is ok that the surface is warming more than the atmosphere? That would directly falsify the entire greenhouse hypothesis. Are you really sure about that? Did you also look at what reference period is used to compute anomalies? -
Victor at 10:52 AM on 15 February 2008It's the sun
About the sun. Whether the solar irridiance has increased or not during the past 50 years, I think it's important to know that solar irridiance changes most in the shorter wavelengths such as UV during a sunspotcycle. Part of this extra radiation will be absorbed by stratopheric ozone and shouldn't reach the earth-atmosphere system at all. But... 1) Couldn't the climate became more sensitive to solar activity because of the 'ozone hole' the past few decades? Due to less ozone a higher intensity of UV-light reaches the earth surface. These are just the wavelenghts that an active sun submits. 2) Another point is that shortwave radiation penetrates deeper in the ocean as longwave radiation does (this effect gives the typical blue light in deep waters). So an active sun heats the deeper layers of the ocean where it can be stored for years or, probably, several decades, before it comes to the surface. This means that climate responds delayed on solar activity and perhaps explains the lag of about 10 years found by Solanki and the higher climate sensitivity for longterm sunspotcycles. The oceans absorb most solar energy in the tropics. The small zenit-angle results not only in a high net radiation but also in a deeper penetration of UV-light, and the ozone layer is thinner around the equator. Furthermore the ocean is stratified here so the heat can be well stored before it can be transported by ocean currents. The ocean releases its heat especially on higher latitudes to the atmosphere, possibly modulated by fluctuations in thermo-halien circulations. It also seems that climate responds more sensitive on high latitudes. This hypothesis means that we should't under-estimate the solar influence on global warming. Though there is no significant increase in solar irridiance in recent decades, the climate may still warming due to the major increase during the first half of twentieth century and loss of ozone. This is my first post on this site and I like to discuss about climate more. I'm a dutch meteorologist (semi-professional) and very interested in climate change and its mechanism. I'm not convinced by AGW because there are some questions left. Thanks to John Cook for this forum and the possibility to debate here with open mind. Regards, Victor de Vries -
Wondering Aloud at 06:06 AM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Yeah but they are anomaly numbers, in other words how far they are from some mean. if surface anomaly is +.75 degrees are you saying it's ok that troposhere numbers are only +.25 degrees? Are you saying that it is ok that the surface is warming more than the atmosphere? That would directly falsify the entire greenhouse hypothesis. That can't be right. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:45 AM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
That's because they are troposphere numbers. They should be like that. The trends are in agreement. -
Wondering Aloud at 04:39 AM on 15 February 2008Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
I can see why you think the MWP was regional some proxies don't show it as being much but others show it as larger than the current warming. It at least affected some mighty big regions. Like Europe, Greenland, North America and Asia. I don't think the LIA was regional unless our entire climate record and the explanation of the ice ages is wrong. I suppose that is a possibility. You might note that the current warming is also not universal on the regional scale. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:10 AM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
I don't know what you want me to look at. The giss data is clearly surface only. From what I can actually open of the remss data which appears to be similar style data sets, it is clear that the anomaly numbers in the remss data are very much lower that the giss data. for 2007 for instance they appear to be more than a half a degree C lower! We have been discussing the surface station data. I am not familiar with all of the ways these different data sets are compiled. I am pointing out that the USHCN has clearly got problems in their data collection end. Is it your contention that the balloon and satellite data show the large anomaly that the surface stations data does? The satellite and ballon data match each other well but neither is nearly as dramatic as the "surface record". -
John Cross at 02:12 AM on 14 February 2008Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
Wondering Aloud: I generally don't consider the paleoclimate stuff as important as the current physics so I don't focus on the reconstructions. However you are very clearly wrong on a couple of your points. Mann's hockeystick has not vanished from AR4. Mann's 1998 paper is mentioned at least 9 times in the Paleoclimate chapter and there is at least 1/2 page devoted to the criticisms of it. The actual diagram is also used but is combined with other reconstructions. I would also disagree with your comment about the MWP and LIA unless you are talking about regional events. The MWP seems to be most pronounced in the Western European areas. What climate reconstructions are you using to draw your conclusions? Regards, John -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:37 PM on 13 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
What are you talking about? The comparison is between GISS and MSU. You say there is a problem with USHCN and by extension GISS, this graph compares the "problem data" to satellite (MSU). Did you even look at REMSS.com? Tamino's graph puts them nicely together so as to compare the trends. I don't see any significant disagreement. You say: "Compare to the Balloon data and the satellite data where the anomally is much smaller, and the trend much less pronounced." Graphs, sources, data, links? -
Wondering Aloud at 07:31 AM on 13 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
"Historic Climate Network surface stations only" That is the graphs and data sets that your post leads to Phillippe. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov.gistemp/) Exactly the portion of the data with which there is a problem. Compare to the Balloon data and the satellite data where the anomally is much smaller, and the trend much less pronounced. Yes the graphs from the surface data agree with the graphs from the surface data. -
Wondering Aloud at 07:12 AM on 13 February 2008Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
Mann itself was a compilation of some of the same proxy studies you are giving as independant confirmation. It so happens he made some rather significant method errors which created the exaggerated "Hockey Stick" graph. It appears that McIntyre's actual contention is that it is not possible to check Thompson's graph as the ice core data sets it was supposedly derived from have not been archived. This by definition makes them not science because they can not be independantly reproduced or checked. Mann's famous hockey stick from the IPCC 3rd report has vaninshed from the 4th report without comment but for darn good reason. It might be a good idea to admit it was incorrect and move on. While CO2 increase may be a contributor to 20th century warming, the MWP, LIA and the Holocene Maximum are all strongly supported in the paleo record unless you cherry pick like crazy. All of these events had temperature changes as large or larger than the 1975-1998 one we're all worried about, and the rate of change coming in or out of them appears to have been at least as great. -
Nick Palmer at 11:56 AM on 12 February 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
A new sceptic argument that a "faith" based sceptic that I am arguing with currently has raised is that it is increased undersea volcanoes that are warming the oceans and therefore causing the current observed warming... I have not found too much to counter this apart from a few lines on Real Climate but those weren't too helpful - any suggestions? -
GMB at 18:49 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You haven't posted a link. But in any case what I want to see is some plausible evidence in the first place. I cannot see how this CO2 would be all that relevant unless it was so abundant as to increase substantially air pressure or we are talking about the planet being so hot as make the other two absorption spectrum relevant….. …. or again so cold as to make the first absorbtion region more relevant. Its not really anything much of a greenhouse gas for this planet once the early work has been done to get the planet above 0 degrees Celsius. And yet those with a contrary view don’t bother showing why it is that they take this view from first premises. They certainly don’t disaggregate matters for the different parts of the earths surface or yet even for the different times during the day. Once we ignore the phrase “greenhouse gas” and disaggregate the specific absorption regions of CO2 we find that these energy-deprivation-crusaders don’t even have the beginnings of a case. Can anyone come up with even so much as the beginnings of plausibility to this this global warming racket SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE THREE ACTUAL ABSORPTION SPECTRA OF CO2. Now are any of you able to make that case? The absorption spectra of OZONE is just right to heat up the earth so long as we could get heaps of ozone actually at surface level. Which would of course be poisonous. But what I’m saying is that the light frequency of the area that OZONE absorbs at is far more relevent to the temperature coming off the earths surface. But 2 of the three absorption regions for CO2 are just not relevant at all for Earth. For Venus yes. But not for earth except to block incoming. And the one that is relevant is more relevant for heating the earth above zero. Not for heating it above where it is now. At least thats what it looks like to me. But I cannot find any of these fraudsters making the case from the ground up. Its hard enough to get them to make any sort of scientific case. They prefer to talk about whether to destroy the economy in its entirety, or whether to force multi-billions of costs upon us in terms of carbon sequestration. -
GMB at 18:33 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
No if the oceans were radiating greater heat you'd see a more active absorption in the bands of greenhouse gasses present. Which is what you have seen is it not? Your jumper works better if you aren't suffering hypothermia already. Same principle. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:32 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
So if the oceans were radiating greater heat, you'd see less heat radiating out to space? That makes perfect sense in your mind I'm sure. Do you even read what you post? you make no sense whatsoever. What is relevant pertains to heat, LW radiation. I did post the link to that paper. Your abusive language and your incoherence speak volume. If you did not appear to be also relatively simple, I'd say you're a mole trying to discredit the all skeptic side. Enjoy the ranting, I have better things to do than read your delirium. -
GMB at 14:36 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
I think its time to remind people of the theses for which we need to find evidence for. 1. Have we any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming? 2. Have we any evidence that suggests that a little bit of human-induced warming IS A BAD THING during a brutal and pulverising ice age? 3. Have we any evidence that industrial-CO2-release is BAD for the environment when so far its wall-to-wall evidence that it enhances the biosphere. 4. Do we even have any real evidence that the extra industrial-CO2-release heats up the planet on a global level in any substantial way? So far the science tells us that there is simply no chance of catastrophic warming since we live on a planet with a one-way catastrophic cooling bias. So far the science tells us also that industrial-CO2-release is good for man and the environment. These two propositions are so uncontested by the scientific evidence that this movement is shown to be an obvious malevolent and repulsive fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is the evidence that goes contrary to all this? No-ones got it and they are all bullshitting about it. Now about this new study which this Frenchman has failed to link. Here we see no attention to inward absorption whatsoever. Thats a total gyp right there. Only outwards absorption is even so much as considered. Only looking at one side of the income statement. This despite the fact that two out of the three spectra that CO2 absorbs are not relevant to outward absorption and ought to be more relevant to blocking inwards absorption for a planet at our current temperature. What we see in the study is nothing new at all. What did we EXPECT from such a study? WHAT WOULD WE HAVE EXPECTED IN ADVANCE FROM SUCH A STUDY? If there is more of some gasses we would expect them to be absorbing a little more of the outwards radiation (and the inwards radiation too for that matter). Did we find this? Yes we did, big deal. And if the oceans have accumulated more heat energy since 1970 we would expect the amount that these gasses are absorbing to be greater again to reflect this accumulated heat energy. Did we find this? Yes we did big deal. But did we find anything to contradict the actual hypotheses we are trying to refute or add credence to? Now we didn't. So the science-fraud remains the same. -
GMB at 13:51 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Look Phillipe. If the oceans had accumulated greater heat and were radiating out greater heat....... Its obvious that this in itself would give the result that you see. For Petes sakes man. Its like you cannot seem to grasp the obvious.
Prev 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 Next
