Is global warming even real?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Ilikeponies579, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    I am personally convinced it's man made but I wonder had we more data on the weather of the other planets if we could convince the outliers. Since their primary refutation is that the sun is causing climate change, perhaps if they saw another planet in the solar system was cooling that might shut them down for good?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I don't think that would do it. They would note other differences; and there is already more than a decade of very accurate satellite monitoring of solar intensity arriving at earth, which they ignore.

    What is happening is that Earth's atmosphere if growing less transparent to the Earth's IR radiation escaping into space. This must in the long run equal the solar energy being absorbed. When it is not, as now, the average temperature of the earth must increase. When earth is hotter, more radiation leaves the surface but a smaller fraction of it makes it thru the less transparent atmosphere.

    That is the "new way" to make the net IR escaping still equal to solar absorption. Unfortunately it still is not - the IR escaping is much less. The difference is mainly heating the oceans.* When they are no longer storing that difference, then the surface temperature, EVEN WITH NO MORE REDUCTIONS IN THE IR TRANPARNCY OF THE AIR**, the temperature will need to rise more so that the IR escaping is equal to the solar absorption.

    * Unfortunately the warmer the oceans get, the more water is evaporated into the air. H2O is the strongest green house gas of the common ones, like CO2, CH4 so we are already in a positive feed-back system. (There are 33 others that I will not mention, except for the new serious one in next post.)

    ** If you think that mankind will cease adding more green house gases to the air - stop making the air less transparent for IR , please contact me - I have a bridge in Brooklynn, I'll sell you cheap.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2014
    cosmictotem likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    In photo below, you can see a section of the "plug" that has floated free of the under sea ridge. As Greenland's ice and artic tundra melt, more of the floating ice will break free. As the "plug" collapses more Antarctic ice now on land will flow into the ocean - accelerating the raising ocean levels - that is positive feed back 34.
    This extra 10+ foot "unstoppable" sea rise is NOT in IPCC reports. The Wilkes Basin region was considered to be stable. Original Caption is below photo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Original Caption was: A portion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, called Wilkes Land, flowing into the ocean.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    I wish I had more time but I dont.

    Billy says (quotes from live science post #23)

    I focus on this:

    The team studied the shape of the land beneath the ice sheet and created computer simulations of ice dynamics.

    And

    They wanted to see how the ice behavior would change if water temperatures were to increase at the rate projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Finally:

    The simulations suggest that the greatest rate of sea level rise produced by this event would be about 0.02 inches (0.5 millimeters) per year

    Now my quote:
    Long said, “We’ve gotten worse … We don’t know, any more, with any more precision. We know with less precision how much warming will occur for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. That means we can say we want to reduce by 20 percent or 80 percent and therefore, we’ll keep it under two degrees. We don’t know that.”

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-l...mate-scientist-ipcc-predictions-getting-worse
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,009
    Your source states that it's mission is "Exposing and combating liberal media bias".
    So we can safely ignore everything from that source as being biased. Finding a scientist that disagrees with global warming is meaningless. You can get few 1000 scientists together and 1 or 2 will think that crop circles are made by aliens. I would probably not go with those 1 or 2 agains the thousands unless there was some compelling data, but if there was compelling data there would not just be a few that accepted it.
     
    cosmictotem likes this.
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes most carefully supported predictions use computer simulations. Boeing "flies" every plane it designs thru extreme weather and icing conditions before the first piece of its skin in cut.

    None the less, their prediction of instability risk for the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is being confirm by the photo of post 23. The "plug" that was locked to the undersea ridge and thus blocking the flow of the glacier behind it is now partially free - flowing into the icy ocean in a self accelerating feed-back process.

    All the ice weight that was being supported by the under water ridge, is now being supported by ocean water That is admitted a tiny rise in the sea level; but not only is land based glacier following to displace 100% of its weight with associated sea level rise on unknown time scale of 10+ feet globally, that zero or less Centigrade H2O will warm and expand. A larger part of the rise in sea level is not just due to more H2O in the ocean, but the expansion with temperature of the H2O that has been there since the last ice age ended.

    BTW I'm not much of a "fan" of the IPCC's predictions. They have too frequently be grossly underestimating the speed with which disaster is coming. For example suggested in first few reports that the artic ocean would not be "ice free" at the end of summer until a few decades into the 2200s. Then began to include some positive feed back effects than moved the date for that to "about 2075." Well it may happen before 2020 at present rate of melting. Perhaps Greenland will not be ice free until 2075. AFAIK, the IPCC still thinks the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is stable and of no concern for many decades. - does not known it is already starting to collapse.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2014
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,529
    An icker, a glimmer, a faint spark of rationality intelligence, and reason
    perhaps, even the beginning of wisdom?
    Thanks for posting.
     
  11. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,823
    No need to get angry at him. There are plenty of hotheads on the internet; most of us prefer people who post with intelligence rather than emotion.
     
  13. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
  15. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
  17. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,009
    Yep, from that source. I don't get my science from the popular press anyway, and certainly not one that comes right out and say they are biased.
     
  18. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Interestingly enough I did a search on the same report and came up with this:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rctica-sea-level-rise-climate-change-science/

    I dont believe the IPCC reports cast tea leaves errr... model predictions 400 - 800 years from now.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,472
    You do understand what he is saying we don't know, right?

    He is pointing out that the IPCC is almost certainly erring by underestimating the effects of the CO2 boost - that the IPCC is being falsely reassuring, and not alarmist enough about the possibilities.

    So you accept the alarmist stuff, rather than the IPCC stuff, as more believable? That's what you just said.
     
  20. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    By he, do you mean Billy? and if so, why are you quoting Jane Long?

    No. Of course I dont accept the alarmist stuff. But I do agree the IPCC models have failed. And I do agree we dont know.
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Global warming is real, if you only consider the past 100 years. It is like saying we have students from 4 feet to seven feet tall in the school, but we will only look at the students from 6 feet and 7 feet. Based on this, we can conclude the student body is over six feet tall. This is true, based on that narrow data set. But it is misleading because it fails to use the entire data base.

    Normally in science the preponderance of the evidence rules. We have proof that the earth naturally warms and cools and has done so many times in its long past. A good example is the cooling leading to the ice age followed by the warming from the last ice age, when most of the glaciers melted. This all happened without man. This type of data are the students from 4 feet to 6 feet, that are left out so the average height is 6 feet.

    Manmade global warming has never occurred in the history of the earth. It is as unprecedented as landing a man on Jupiter. However, to some they assume this is proven. I would like to see the pro-man made crowd disprove all natural options before using partial data to prove their man on Jupiter by want appears to be footprints.

    If we assume the weather models are good, but the conclusions in terms of events are coming out as predicted, except after the fact, then other variables are at work, more than likely connected to natural.
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    We can't ignore it, but it should raise red flags. It's the poor content of the source that indicates we should reject it.
     
  23. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    rejection is always whole.
    accepting a little of the whole, is not rejection.
     

Share This Page