"Spinning the climate"

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Andre, Jul 12, 2008.

  1. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    The problem is that people begin to notice that the global warming bandwagon is grinding to a halt.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/10/do1004.xml

    People don't like being conned
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Yet, warming zealots have come up with a model linking global temperature and CO2 levels. You can build a greenhouse and see for yourself if CO2 levels have anything to do with greenhouse temperatures.

    Now, please tell me what evidences do YOU have supporting YOUR FAITH? You came up with a model saying that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures? You disproved 100+ years old scietific knowledge? You built a greenhouse to tast your Faith? What grounds do you base your FAITH? Church of HOLY LOCUST Bible? Share.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    What do I do if I don't want to be a fanatical denier (or accepter) of climate change?

    Is there a middle ground, or only room in either fanatical bunker?
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2008
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,070
    Every time you repost graphs as supporting your assertions when their lack of support for your assertions has been exactly and carefully pointed out to you before, and you have not explained or countered those observations.
     
  8. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Please be so kind to link or quote to those instances, so we could address those alleged omissions.

    Meanwhile, since the discussion is now towards honesty, why not check this out:

    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html

    Hit the "agree"' button to check their numbers:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2008
  9. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Every time I've seen you post a graph, it's claiming to support some idea, that turns out to be an idea you either can't or won't defend (at least with rational arguments).

    Please stop posting stuff like that last effort. Or the above, which although it appears to point to your willingness to do so, I'm confident that it actually means you have no such intention.

    How's that?
     
  10. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    A collosal unfounded strawman, I would say. Not backed by any evidence, since obviously there isn't any. The rhethoric should do it. But that has had its longest time. Truth is catching up fast now.

    It is miles beyound me how you can declare a graph plot of multiple open verifiable sources a lie, even with that other plot of a third source (UAH) showing exactly the same.
     
  11. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Listen, pal, here is little bit of sad news: you cannot put shit in atmosphere and expect nothing to happen and here is why:

    The atmosphere acts like a greenhouse trapping heat that would otherwise radiate away into space. Atmosphere acts like the glass of a hot house, because it lets through the heat radiation of the sun but retains significant % of the heat radiaton of planet's surface.

    While most of the atmospheric gases looks alike in that they are ‘colourless and invisible’, heat passed through them in very different ways. Gases like oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen appeared transparent to heat while water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane contain heat. Most importantly carbon dioxide absorbs more heat
    than the atmosphere itself.


    Most, most importantly atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane are measured in ppm (parts per million).

    Only ppm(s) stand between you and coldness of space. This is not an opinion, this is not a theory, this is science fact that even staff members of "Creation Science Institutes" don't dare to dispute. Only hundreds of ppm stands between you and icy death. That alone shows how sensitive is Planet's temperature to ppm(s) of only three gases. Planet's life support is extremely fragile, Life is extremely fragile because it can exist only in very narrow temperature range.

    Locust minded people, claiming that 50% CO2 jump from 200s into 300s ppm is not a big deal, just don't want to face the sad reality that 0 ppm = death; 200 ppm = life. In other words, each ppm weighs a lot, as far as Planet's temperature and your life are concerned.


    Whatever murky graphs you come up with cannot change sad truth every ppm counts .
     
  12. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Wow... you make it sound like Andre is the... Antichrist...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello dixonmassey, et al

    There is also atmospheric continuum absorption to be considered in the "green house gas" equation. Basically higher pressure areas will "hold" heat longer than lower pressure areas. This is just based on the fact that higher pressure areas have a higher probability of collision induced absorption of infrared radiation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    Not really Remember that those are merely hypotheses, falsified abundantly by reality, for instance:

    Miskolczi, F.M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary
    atmospheres, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
    Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40

    the online version seems to be off now:

    http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

    His ideas are based on earlier work, which basically show that the actual measurements of back radiation do not follow the models at all. But that's onlly one of many suppressed/ignored papers by the mindguards

    Let's recap a bit about this greenhouse effect.

    It is argued that the difference between Earth black body temperature of about 255 kelvin and the average global temperature of about 288 Kelvin is due to the greenhouse effect. See this

    Is this correct? Suppose (null hypothesis) that there were no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and that heat exchange was only possible by convection and conduction.

    So the sun would heat up the Earth surface, which would heat up the lowermost molecules of the atmosphere. Due to the expansion this air is lighter and would rise up, convection, transferring the heating to higher parts of the atmosphere, as it happens today. Because of the lapse rate/ temperature gradient, the expanding rising air cools but may remain above environment temperature, so that the upward convection may continue for a while, removing the energy away from the Earth surface.

    When the sun sets, the radiating Earth surface cools down, cooling the lower part of the atmosphere by conduction. But the contracting air is denser than the environment and there is no tendency for convection at all. The air becomes stable, cool below and warmer in the upper layers. This is known as an 'inversion'. Hence this warming of the atmosphere by conduction and convection is basically one way until there is a dynamic equilibrium in the energy exchange between the daytime convection and night conduction cooling of the lowermost layer.

    Hence it appears that we don't need greenhouse effect to heat the atmosphere to above the black body temperature, just an atmosphere, consequently not all, if any, of that 33 degrees difference between average atmosphere temperature and black body temperature is caused by greenhouse effect.

    But with the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it can radiate it's energy to the earth and space and hence it can cool again in that process. This means that greenhouse gasses also contribute to the cooling of the atmosphere, how much is uncertain, but one could just as easily assume: "the more greenhouse gasses, the more cooling".
     
  15. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Yeah, I have to admit to being unusually cranky when I wrote that(amongst other things, none of which were particularly nice to Andre). I thought about apologising for my behaviour but on reflection, the best I can do is reel back a bit and say he's dysfunctional and deluded. dangerous was taking it a bit far.

    That kind of steadfast, irrational, non-yielding standpoint does wind me up though.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,070
    How exactly does that happen ?

    And why doesn't the upper atmosphere similarly cool, at night ?
     
  17. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Look at begin 2005, mid 2000, and end months into 1997..
    Those points are about as low as the point you indicated (mid 2008).
    Still the trend is UNmistakingly upwards, at least from 1985-2008..
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2008
  18. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    That's all a matter of energy. Radiating bodies loose the energy which they emit.

    It does a little, but mainly because there is no water vapor anymore, leaving the radiative energy emission and absorption only to the remaining few CO2 molecules. Those can simply not work hard enough to transfer the energy of the abundant other molecules.
     
  19. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Hmmm...I could easily say about the AGW apostles... My religious link wasn't accidentally you know...

    It strikes me that most alarmists do react rather irrationally on different opinions.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,070
    Not if it's trapped, and re-emitted back to them. Say by CO2.

    So we have the basic scene set: bodies cool by radiating energy - the earth cools by emitting radiation into space.

    And something that prevents such radiation from traveling into space will cause the earth to remain warmer, or involve the trapped energy in other effects.
     
  21. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    You might also check this out:

    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all~tab=content~order=page

    Excerpts from the article

     

Share This Page