swansont Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 You are making me laugh now Excerpt from your link." A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003". Now here is a excerpt from the link im about to provide. “oth poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing, wildfire’s are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity. " Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/u-n-climate-report-glosses-over-15-years-without-global-warming/#ixzz2g9vztyCu Are these anomolies? I think not! Really we could use some global warming. Lots of growth, water, food, warm temperatures, can keep a tan. Sounds much better than the"reality" and emprical evidence showing otherwise to your consensus. I will stick to observable recorded evidence than Global Warming Theory. As actual is observable. While some scientists agreeing to a view based off of faulty computer models is definitely debatable! How does that in any way rebut the fact that >95% of scientists in the field agree that AGW is a thing? Good Luck trying to get some believers! This isn't about belief, and since the vast majority of the scientists are already "on our side" getting more would actually be a problem.
jduff Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 How does that in any way rebut the fact that >95% of scientists in the field agree that AGW is a thing? Now you are making things up. Proof of 95% of scientists in the field agree? Following the same suit as the Global Warming Scientists? Making things up then calling it fact? 95% of scientists agree the earth is round too! Does not matter! What does matter is real empiracal evidence to support the claim. Not faulty unproven and broken Climate Models which have been shown to be false over and over again. This isn't about belief, and since the vast majority of the scientists are already "on our side" getting more would actually be a problem. Once again, another assumption, as well as a misdirection. Now here is a list with credentials of scientists who differ from your view. By the way, this is just a sampling as it comes from wikpedia. Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society %5B10%5D Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences%5B11%5D Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing%5B12%5D Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU%5B13%5D Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London%5B14%5D Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences%5B17%5D Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics%5B18%5D%5B19%5D Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa%5B20%5D Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland%5B21%5D David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester%5B22%5D Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University%5B23%5D William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University%5B24%5D William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University%5B25%5D William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology%5B26%5D David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware%5B27%5D Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa%5B28%5D Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.%5B29%5D%5B30%5D Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.%5B31%5D Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University%5B32%5D%5B33%5D Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo%5B34%5D Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia%5B35%5D%5B36%5D%5B37%5D Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics%5B38%5D Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville%5B39%5D Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center%5B40%5D Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa%5B41%5D Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks%5B42%5D Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris)%5B43%5D Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University%5B44%5D John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC%5B45%5D%5B46%5D Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory%5B47%5D Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology%5B48%5D David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma%5B49%5D Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.%5B50%5D Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists%5B51%5D you can find this list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming Then you have this http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/ At least if you are going to give a argument. Back it up! Otherwise it can be viewed as lying or deception. The same practice the IPCC has been doing for the past 5 years. Like I said, you have shown nothing to support your claims. While all anyone has to do is google the empirical evidence of the past 15 years for mine!
John Cuthber Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 If I counted correctly that's 35 scientists who believe mankind is not responsible for global warming. Swansont's contention is that something like 95 % of scientists don't agree with that opinion. That's about 1 in 20. Your "evidence" is a refutation as long as there are no more than 20 times 35 scientists in the world. Otherwise it's just a list of names. A different list would be the authors of the IPCC's latest report. There are about 600 of them. So, I can easily cite a group that suggests that Swansont's position is reasonable. Incidentally, would you like me to check up on the credentials of those 35? how many of their wiki pages include stuff like ". Tennekes objected to the increase of computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes supported this decision by referring to biblical texts."? 1
jduff Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 (edited) If I counted correctly that's 35 scientists who believe mankind is not responsible for global warming. Swansont's contention is that something like 95 % of scientists don't agree with that opinion. That's about 1 in 20. Your "evidence" is a refutation as long as there are no more than 20 times 35 scientists in the world. Otherwise it's just a list of names. A different list would be the authors of the IPCC's latest report. There are about 600 of them. So, I can easily cite a group that suggests that Swansont's position is reasonable. Incidentally, would you like me to check up on the credentials of those 35? how many of their wiki pages include stuff like ". Tennekes objected to the increase of computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes supported this decision by referring to biblical texts."? Really? You actually cannot defend your position other than trying to defame other scientists in the community who oppose your view. Thats a shameful action on your part. It is one thing to debate with evidence(which none of you have shown any). But quite another to attack people who are not even in this conversation. Talk about low character. If you are going to attack someone. You had better make sure they are present to do such. you did not look at the other link provided, I will give you a link with a report. http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf as I stated, the wiki was a sampling. This report is a bit more in-depth. Also I still have to see the hard evidence of 95% of scientists in the field agree with global warming. I am providing evidence. But as of yet, those of you arguing have provided no names, no anything. Other than empty jargon and a report from 2003. Also consider this new report: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ Just a quote for you! MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’Have a good day! AND WHERES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Edited September 28, 2013 by jduff
EdEarl Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 The Consensus Project says they have examined 3,896 peer reviewed papers with 97% consensus that "Global warming is happening, and we are the cause." Who contributed to The Consensus Project?The Consensus Project was a citizen-science effort that took over a year from beginning of the project until submission of the paper to the journal Environmental Research Letters. 24 volunteers contributed to the rating of the papers. Half of the raters completed 97.4% of the ratings. All of the major contributors to the project are named as co-authors or thanked by name in the Acknowledgements of the full paper. In order to invite scientists to self-rate the level of endorsement of their own papers, 40 volunteers helped collect over 8,000 scientists’ emails. A total of 1,200 scientists responded to the invitation with over 2,000 papers each receiving a rating from the paper’s author. It was very important to the volunteers at The Consensus Project that our published paper be freely available to the public (unfortunately, many peer-reviewed papers are hidden behind a pay-wall). For this reason, we chose the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters, which charged a $1,600 fee to enable the paper to be open-access. This fee was crowd-funded by donations from Skeptical Science readers. The funds were raised in 9 hours. The importance of raising awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change cannot be overstated. Typically, the general public think around 50% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. The Consensus Project has shown that the reality is 97%. To help “close the consensus gap”, the website TheConsensusProject.com was created pro-bono by the New York-based design and advertising agency, SJI Associates.
doG Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 I dont really believe in man made climate change other than erosion caused by populace and farming. Really? You think this planet can be occupied by a primate species with a population of more than 7,000,000,000 and not have any more effect on the environment than erosion? Mankind certainly contributes to climate change, only the magnitude of that contribution is debatable. One thing is not debatable though, the magnitude of mankinds pollution of the environment that we depend on for life. We're not just pissing in our bathwater, we've consumed an overdose of laxative so that we can make it toxic to life as we know it. As a whole we're proving to be a very irresponsible species on our host planet.
jduff Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 (edited) Talk about another piece of false claims. A little frustrating, but here we go again. Will help the reader undestand why this report is "FALSE". First the claim. Claim: 97% of papers published on Global Warming agree Global Warming is man-made. Reality: That is 97% of the almost 4k papers made by 1200 respondents who were involved in the project. That is not a 97% of the papers peer reviewed world wide or a consensus among the the global scientific community. Rather they are peer reviewed papers by those involved with the project The premise is both misleading and dishonest. Which as of late has been the usual norm IPCC and most global warming activists. This supposed fact" 97% of papers published on Global Warming agree Global Warming is man-made"is scientifically FALSE! Continuation, using the reports own data. of the 8000 scientists only 1200 responded to paticipate in the project. That leaves 6800 who said no, not interested, or disagree with the premise. That is just among those scientists contacted. Next, the peer reviewed papers themselves. A excuse of a pay wall does not articulate fact. As far as any reader is concerned a paper could be a picture of Micky Mouse holding a lit match. The reality is without actual support to the claim of AGW. It is still just hear-say. Which is not Empirical evidence. Regardless of how much or how many supposed papers that validate the claim. If they are not observable, they are not evidence. I do not understand why some here cannot use logic or articulate to dispose a fudged fake advertisement such as the "Consensus Project" is. I guess people buy into anything if it suits his or her beliefs or agenda! Very embarassing if you believe that project! Really? You think this planet can be occupied by a primate species with a population of more than 7,000,000,000 and not have any more effect on the environment than erosion? Mankind certainly contributes to climate change, only the magnitude of that contribution is debatable. One thing is not debatable though, the magnitude of mankinds pollution of the environment that we depend on for life. We're not just pissing in our bathwater, we've consumed an overdose of laxative so that we can make it toxic to life as we know it. As a whole we're proving to be a very irresponsible species on our host planet. I agree, I never said that mankind does not contribute to the pollution and erosion that takes place in the world. You should perhaps read my article again. As I believe you may have missed some of the other things said in it. Edited September 28, 2013 by jduff
EdEarl Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 Talk about another piece of false claims. A little frustrating, but here we go again. Will help the reader undestand why this report is "FALSE". First the claim. Claim: 97% of papers published on Global Warming agree Global Warming is man-made. Reality: That is 97% of the almost 4k papers made by 1200 respondents who were involved in the project. That is not a 97% of the papers peer reviewed world wide or a consensus among the the global scientific community. Rather they are peer reviewed papers by those involved with the project The premise is both misleading and dishonest. Which as of late has been the usual norm IPCC and most global warming activists. This supposed fact" 97% of papers published on Global Warming agree Global Warming is man-made"is scientifically FALSE! Continuation, using the reports own data. of the 8000 scientists only 1200 responded to paticipate in the project. That leaves 6800 who said no, not interested, or disagree with the premise. That is just among those scientists contacted. Next, the peer reviewed papers themselves. A excuse of a pay wall does not articulate fact. As far as any reader is concerned a paper could be a picture of Micky Mouse holding a lit match. The reality is without actual support to the claim of AGW. It is still just hear-say. Which is not Empirical evidence. Regardless of how much or how many supposed papers that validate the claim. If they are not observable, they are not evidence. I do not understand why some here cannot use logic or articulate to dispose a fudged fake advertisement such as the "Consensus Project" is. I guess people buy into anything if it suits his or her beliefs or agenda! Very embarassing if you believe that project! Your characterization of the integrity of this project is incorrect IMO. The web site and its FAQ are available for everyone to read and judge for themselves; fortunately, they need no rely on your biases.
John Cuthber Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 If I counted correctly that's 35 scientists who believe mankind is not responsible for global warming. Swansont's contention is that something like 95 % of scientists don't agree with that opinion. That's about 1 in 20. Your "evidence" is a refutation as long as there are no more than 20 times 35 scientists in the world. Otherwise it's just a list of names. A different list would be the authors of the IPCC's latest report. There are about 600 of them. So, I can easily cite a group that suggests that Swansont's position is reasonable. Incidentally, would you like me to check up on the credentials of those 35? how many of their wiki pages include stuff like ". Tennekes objected to the increase of computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes supported this decision by referring to biblical texts."? Really? You actually cannot defend your position other than trying to defame other scientists in the community who oppose your view. Thats a shameful action on your part. It is one thing to debate with evidence(which none of you have shown any). But quite another to attack people who are not even in this conversation. Talk about low character. If you are going to attack someone. You had better make sure they are present to do such. you did not look at the other link provided, I will give you a link with a report. http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf as I stated, the wiki was a sampling. This report is a bit more in-depth. Also I still have to see the hard evidence of 95% of scientists in the field agree with global warming. I am providing evidence. But as of yet, those of you arguing have provided no names, no anything. Other than empty jargon and a report from 2003. Also consider this new report: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ Just a quote for you! MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’Have a good day! AND WHERES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Was this meant to be ironic? "Just a quote for you! MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’ Have a good day!" You quote someone who essentially just claims the ipcc report is rubbish- you don't offer any sort of evidence and then you say "AND WHERES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!" Good question. Where's the evidence that their report is wrong? Also re" Really? You actually cannot defend your position other than trying to defame other scientists in the community who oppose your view. " No, that's not wall I can do. I pointed out that one of your so called experts is a- shall we say - "questionable" witness. And he was the first one I looked up, so I don't know what the others are like. But the real point that you have missed is simple. No, I didn't just question the reliability of your "experts" I pointed out that , from a field of countless thousands of scientists, you can come up with a few dozen who support your belief and you pretend that those handful are enough to detract from the fact that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the world iw warming and we are at least partly responsible. You said I can't defend my position. Well saying that is obviously wrong. I had just defended it when you wrote that rant. Were you lying deliberately, or did you just not understand that your were obviously utterly wrong? Also, please learn to use the quote function correctly. As it stands you have falsely attributed some of your gibberish rant to me. 2
jduff Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 Was this meant to be ironic? "Just a quote for you! MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’ Have a good day!" You quote someone who essentially just claims the ipcc report is rubbish- you don't offer any sort of evidence and then you say "AND WHERES THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!" Good question. Where's the evidence that their report is wrong? Well before I give evidence, you still have to counter what I posted above this one. Disingenuous as the Your characterization of the integrity of this project is incorrect IMO. The web site and its FAQ are available for everyone to read and judge for themselves; fortunately, they need no rely on your biases. Its not bias, its logic. Something I believe many who support this have a lack of. As they cannot go past the hype. Its not bias, as many here as well as that site itself are placing fake or disingenuous information to the public. Perhaps if those advocates of Global Warming were honest instead of trying to cover /face. They would stop making junk science! Also re" Really? You actually cannot defend your position other than trying to defame other scientists in the community who oppose your view. " No, that's not wall I can do. I pointed out that one of your so called experts is a- shall we say - "questionable" witness. And he was the first one I looked up, so I don't know what the others are like. But the real point that you have missed is simple. No, I didn't just question the reliability of your "experts" I pointed out that , from a field of countless thousands of scientists, you can come up with a few dozen who support your belief and you pretend that those handful are enough to detract from the fact that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the world iw warming and we are at least partly responsible. You said I can't defend my position. Well saying that is obviously wrong. I had just defended it when you wrote that rant. Were you lying deliberately, or did you just not understand that your were obviously utterly wrong? Also, please learn to use the quote function correctly. As it stands you have falsely attributed some of your gibberish rant to me. Your characterization of the integrity of this project is incorrect IMO. The web site and its FAQ are available for everyone to read and judge for themselves; fortunately, they need no rely on your biases. Your opinion is just that, opinion. The reality is it is a junk science site. When a site lies from the beginning it can be no other than that. As shown in my post above. With shown evidence. The site remains a political /pseudoscience hack . I will be posting a nice you tube video to point it out.
EdEarl Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 (edited) Its not bias, its logic. Something I believe many who support this have a lack of. As they cannot go past the hype. Its not bias, as many here as well as that site itself are placing fake or disingenuous information to the public. jduff, Now you quote me and add your own statements in the post. That is dishonest, even though you put your statements in red, you do not identify them as yours. I said that people can read the website and make up their own mind whether they have done a good job. Your statements in color red, extracted into the above quote, conclude things the web site does not say. Whether the site is junk science or not, people may conclude for themselves. Edited September 28, 2013 by EdEarl
jduff Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 (edited) Now you quote me and add your own statements in the post. That is dishonest, even though you put your statements in red, you do not identify them as yours. All I said was that people can read the website and make up their own mind whether they have done a good job or not. Your statements in color red conclude things the web site does not say. Well Ed, if people follow the set of threads, they will know the words are from me. Especially when they look at your OP then mine after. I apoligize sincerely if that offended you. Ill place my name in front of each comment if you like. But really will not be here much longer. Nothing against you. But this subject has me a bit tainted.Besides, I really dont come to this site for the black/white debate. Have other things I came here for. My last thread concerning this subject. Edited September 28, 2013 by jduff
doG Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 (edited) Well Ed, if people follow the set of threads, they will know the words are from me. Especially when they look at your OP then mine after. I apoligize sincerely if that offended you. Ill place my name in front of each comment if you like. But really will not be here much longer. You're missing his point. You should not put your words inside your quotations of another members post. See how my comments are outside the part of my post that quotes you. There is no ambiguity on what you have said or what I have said. Well Ed, if people follow the set of threads, they will know the words are from me. Especially when they look at your OP then mine after. I apoligize sincerely if that offended you. Ill place my name in front of each comment if you like. But really will not be here much longer. When you do it like this then this part of the quote could be mistaken for their words instead of yours because some might think you have simply highlighted their words by coloring them. Edited September 28, 2013 by doG
swansont Posted September 28, 2013 Posted September 28, 2013 If I counted correctly that's 35 scientists who believe mankind is not responsible for global warming. Swansont's contention is that something like 95 % of scientists don't agree with that opinion. That's about 1 in 20. And only a half-dozen of that list identify as scientists in the field. Now you are making things up. Proof of 95% of scientists in the field agree? Following the same suit as the Global Warming Scientists? Making things up then calling it fact? 95% of scientists agree the earth is round too! Does not matter! What does matter is real empiracal evidence to support the claim. Not faulty unproven and broken Climate Models which have been shown to be false over and over again. My point was that your post did nothing to rebut iNow's point about the vast majority of the scientific work on the topic agreeing on AGW. For all of your denialist ranting about empirical evidence, you have not presented any that shows warming hasn't happened, or, if you agree it has happened but not anthropogenic, what the source of it is.
John Cuthber Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 Your opinion is just that, opinion. The reality is it is a junk science site. When a site lies from the beginning it can be no other than that. As shown in my post above. With shown evidence. The site remains a political /pseudoscience hack . I will be posting a nice you tube video to point it out. If you can't frame a decent argument as text here, then it also won't work as a video. Perhaps you can explain something for me. We know that there's roughly a third more CO2 in the air than there used to be. (The measurements way-back might be a little less precise than today's, but the general estimate would be pretty close to correct) We know that this additional CO2 is due to our burning of fossil fuels. (Essentially, we know this because we paid tax on those fuels so they were quite well documented, but the radiocarbon signature also shows that this additional CO2 is geologically ancient). We know that CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas"- it absorbs infrared radiation. We know that such IR absorbing gases will warm the earth. We know that the earth is warming. How do you come to the conclusion that we are not responsible for that warming? . 3
doG Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 We know that this additional CO2 is due to our burning of fossil fuels. (Essentially, we know this because we paid tax on those fuels so they were quite well documented, but the radiocarbon signature also shows that this additional CO2 is geologically ancient). . Adding to John's point is man's indirect contribution of methane which is 25 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Mankind farms livestock the world over to support the dietary needs of our exponentially growing population and that livestock emits a noticeable percentage of the methane in our atmosphere.
John Cuthber Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 Adding to John's point is man's indirect contribution of methane which is 25 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Mankind farms livestock the world over to support the dietary needs of our exponentially growing population and that livestock emits a noticeable percentage of the methane in our atmosphere. There's also the NF3, SF6 and a bunch of CFCs that are potent greenhouse gases for which we are entirely responsible. But even if you just look at CO2 the issue can be looked at as There were 3 blankets on the bed. We added a fourth. It's warmer in bed than it was. But I don't believe it's warmer because we put on another blanket. You really don't need a PhD in atmospheric physics to see the problem with that idea. 1
Phi for All Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 Your opinion is just that, opinion. The reality is it is a junk science site. When a site lies from the beginning it can be no other than that. As shown in my post above. With shown evidence. The site remains a political /pseudoscience hack . I will be posting a nice you tube video to point it out. ! Moderator Note Please use the quote and multiquote functions properly. Do NOT embed your replies in the quotes of others. It looks dishonest (though I'm sure you don't mean it that way) and it makes it very difficult to quote you back.
jduff Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 If you can't frame a decent argument as text here, then it also won't work as a video. Perhaps you can explain something for me. We know that there's roughly a third more CO2 in the air than there used to be. (The measurements way-back might be a little less precise than today's, but the general estimate would be pretty close to correct) We know that this additional CO2 is due to our burning of fossil fuels. (Essentially, we know this because we paid tax on those fuels so they were quite well documented, but the radiocarbon signature also shows that this additional CO2 is geologically ancient). We know that CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas"- it absorbs infrared radiation. We know that such IR absorbing gases will warm the earth. We know that the earth is warming. How do you come to the conclusion that we are not responsible for that warming? . LOL, man you guys sure come up with funny science! Enjoy! http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html Also http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html -4
swansont Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 They used "globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data". Is there a time lag between atmospheric increases and well-mixed oceanic increases? Does subtracting on a 12 month basis introduce any aliasing effect on the increase? Why analyze the increase? Isn't temperature said to correlate to CO2 levels, not changes in CO2 levels?
John Cuthber Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) OK, the first page cited starts with, "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 " which is wrong. As I already pointed out, you can carbon -date the CO2 that has been added to the air. It's old, soi its origin ie geological rather than oceanic. It also says "Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. " which is silly. The whole point about the greenhouse effect is that the sun warms the earth. The greenhouse stops the heat escaping. The second web page says things like "However, since the LWIR re-radiation from increasing 'greenhouse gases' is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface 'skin' of the oceans." which are unrealistic. Heating the surface of the ocean makes it hotter. It also makes the underlying water hotter by conduction. The only way it could promote evaporation would be by heating. Incidentally, that page also cites this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke#On_climate_change He doesn't support your ideas that people are not responsible for climate change. When you are citing people who don't agree with you in support of your ideas, it's probably time to find some better ideas. I'm glad you find science funny. There's not a lot of science in the pages you linked to- why is that? Anyway, rather than posting links to stuff that doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis, why don't you answer my question? Why don't you believe that the additional blanket we have put on is the reason we are hotter (and, yes- we are hotter- that's essentially the point Swansont is making)? Edited September 29, 2013 by John Cuthber
swansont Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 I hadn't read the second link when I posted. Yes, it seems that they are arguing that putting on a coat won't keep you warm when it's cold out, since the coat will be at a lower temperature than your body, and thus cannot transfer heat to you. And while that last part is true (2nd law of thermodynamics), it points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole process of why insulation works.
Acme Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) ... The second web page says things like "However, since the LWIR re-radiation from increasing 'greenhouse gases' is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface 'skin' of the oceans." which are unrealistic. Heating the surface of the ocean makes it hotter. It also makes the underlying water hotter by conduction. The only way it could promote evaporation would be by heating. ... The bolded & underlined sentence, whoever said it, is false. PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR: There is a paradox here about the fact that the pan evaporation rate's going down, an apparent paradox, but the global temperature's going up. NARRATOR: This was a puzzle. Most scientists reasoned that like a pan on the stove, turning up the global temperature should increase the rate at which water evaporated. But Roderick and Farquhar did some calculations and worked out that temperature was not the most important factor in pan evaporation. DR MICHAEL RODERICK: Well it turns out in fact that the key things for pan evaporation are the sunlight, the humidity and the wind. But really the sunlight is a really dominant term there. NARRATOR: They found that it was the energy of the photons hitting the surface, the actual sunlight, that kicks the water molecules out of the pan and into the atmosphere. And so they too reached an extraordinary conclusion. Source: Global Dimming Program Transcript Edited September 29, 2013 by Acme
John Cuthber Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) From this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heat_of_Vaporization_(Benzene%2BAcetone%2BMethanol%2BWater).png Near room temperature the heat of evaporation of water is about 44KJ/mole According to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_per_mole That's about 0.5 eV per molecule Which corresponds to a wavelength of about 2.4 microns But the radiation they are talking about has a wavelength in the range 8 to 14 microns. So it simply doesn't have enough energy to evaporate the water except if a bunch of photons are absorbed and their collective energy is used to drive the evaporation. That's called heating up. And I don't care who says otherwise, even if it's on the BBC, if the energy isn't there- it doesn't happen. Direct evaporation by shorter wavelength IR or visible light is possible- but that's not the range these guys are talking about. Edited September 29, 2013 by John Cuthber
Acme Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 ... And I don't care who says otherwise, even if it's on the BBC, if the energy isn't there- it doesn't happen. Direct evaporation by shorter wavelength IR or visible light is possible- but that's not the range these guys are talking about. My bad. I thought the theme was to be objective. Carry on then.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now