The slick trick behind global frauding

[DesertFox]

In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.

That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science.

In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.

More (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_slick_trick_behind_global.html)

[MaximumSam]

It's pretty simpe stuff, really. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing. This is proven beyond all doubt. It is very likely that man is the cause of this, considering the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere can account for this increase. Further, there is a large amount of evidence that global temperatures are increasing. There is also a large amount of evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels in an atmosphere lead to more retained heat and warmer temperatures.

Furthermore, to deny global warming, you essentially have to believe that all this extra carbon dioxide has no effect on anything.

[BuckeyeMike]

:icon133:

[RogerFGay]

The Simple Undeniable Science of Global Darkening
<O:p</O:p
I collected data on local darkness from one hour before dusk to dusk. An odd result is that it became darker. This might not have gotten my attention, except that there was a very clear trend. The darkness curve did not go up and down as if some stochastic process was at work. It just got darker and darker with every measurement, providing a very clear trend.
<O:p</O:p
Thinking this might be only a local result, I checked with friends in different parts of the world. Sure enough, no matter where they were, similar measurements gave similar results, clear trends toward darkness.
<O:p</O:p
The most alarming data came from historical records of measurements at the North Pole. Within the last year, daylight had disappeared completely, with darkness at pole for around six months.
<O:p</O:p
It appears as though the pole has given us a dire warning. It has fallen into darkness, and that darkness is traveling south. If this trend continues, the earth will be completely dark within a year. Spot measurements confirm the trend.
<O:p</O:p
The consequences will be enormous. All plant life will die and the earth will turn into a frozen asteroid. We will all die.
<O:p</O:p
We must act immediately. No amount of spending or adjustment to use of resources is too much. Everything is at stake. All resources must be aimed directly at controlling the relationship between the sun and the earth.

[RogerFGay]

..., to deny global warming, you essentially have to believe that all this extra carbon dioxide has no effect on anything.

"The same lack of rational science is happening in many legislatures across the nation with regard to AGW. Scaring the voters means greater political influence and power."

Source (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c9de84ce-ca3c-486c-90bd-3d6609274fc5)

"The challenge facing mankind described by Michael Crichton would also include distinguishing between good science, and political agendas, especially dangerous agendas. There are crucial differences. The current furor over anthropogenic (AGW) global warming is a manifestation of an environmental agenda found in many issues for the last forty years."

[DoctorDoom]

Again the lawyer tries to convince us that he's a scientist. He must have watched "Inconvenient Truth" again.

It's pretty simpe stuff, really.Simpe, perhaps. Simple, no,

Carbon dioxide levels are increasing. This is proven beyond all doubt.Yes, it has been increasing. It is nowhere near the level that is has been in the past, but it IS increasing.

It is very likely that man is the cause of this, considering the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere can account for this increase.And? It's still a minuscule percentage of total mass of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Still, if you are a true believer in Gorebull Warming, you would evince your commitment by slitting your throat to spare the world the 800 pounds of CO₂ that you exhale each year.

Further, there is a large amount of evidence that global temperatures are increasing.Why has there been no observable increase in the last ten years despite the increasing CO₂?

There is also a large amount of evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels in an atmosphere lead to more retained heat and warmer temperatures.The "evidence" is computer models that were created to prove that predetermined conclusion. You are aware of course that the effect of CO₂ is NOT linear. Ergo doubling the amount of CO₂ will NOT double its effect. It is exponential. Ergo, if an increase of X PPM results in an increase of Y degrees, it will require a doubling of X to achieve the next increase of Y.

E.g., if an increase of 100 PPM causes a temperature increase of 1°, it will require a 200 PPM increase to cause another 1°, and 400 PPM for the next 1°,

Calculating the actual temperature increase

So, what is the actual increase? Interestingly enough, that is easy to estimate--and without resorting to complex computer models.

Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO₂ will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.

Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO₂ increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO₂ and the observed temperature increase:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Science/co2-equations.gif

This shows that doubling CO₂ over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer.

If we want to include other greenhouse gases, such as methane, in the calculation, we need to use the "effective" CO₂ concentrations instead. These effective CO₂ numbers are less solid than the CO₂-only numbers, but the best estimates are that effective CO₂ increased from 305 to about 450 ppm during the 20th century[12]. Using these numbers, k becomes 0.6823 and the predicted ?T becomes 1.02 degrees.

These estimates assume that the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide is causal in nature. Therefore, the 1.85 degree estimate should also be regarded as an upper limit.Cold Facts on Global Warming (http://brneurosci.org/CO₂.html)

Therefore, the strident alarmist bullshit by the Gorebots is bad science.

Furthermore, to deny global warming, you essentially have to believe that all this extra carbon dioxide has no effect on anything.The denial, Mr. Science Guy, is that MAN is causing the global warming that has apparently peaked.

Questions for the braindead Gorebots:

1. Are you aware the actual temperature vs CO₂ graphs make abundantly clear that increases in CO₂ LAG increases in temperature by 800 years?

2. Are you aware that the reason that the lying sack of shit, AlBore, deliberately spaced the two lines by a substantial distance, and deliberately omitted graph lines, is to avoid having his viewers see the correlation that blows apart the asshole's junk-science religion?

3. Inasmuch as Earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is now, WTF makes you think that our present climate status is ideal or even normal?

4. Fact: every adult human being exhales about 1 kilogram of CO2 each day, or 365 kilograms/year. That's about 800 pounds.

According to the World POPClock Projection (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html), the total population of the World, projected to 04/18/08 at 21:58 GMT (EST+5) is 6,662,188,402

6,662,188,402 x 800 = 5,329,750,721,600 pounds or 2,664,875,361 tons of CO2 annually. Kids obviously exhale somewhat less, but that's immaterial for the purpose of this detailed scientific analysis. And IAC they're made up for by doggies and kitties and fuzzy bunnies.

According to the EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html), "6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (are) produced each year ..." That's about 6,724,100,000 tons.

Assuming that the EIA omitted breathing as a source of "anthropogenic carbon dioxide", the total would be 9,388,975,361 tons, of which our our exhaling amounts to about 28.5%.

How many billions of people are you willing to kill to reduce ACO₂?

5. It is proven that increased CO₂ levels enhance plant growth? Why do you want to starve the plants for the sake of a brazen, shameless liar's unfathomably ignorant mythology?

[Naturalized-Texan]

It's pretty simpe stuff, really. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing. This is proven beyond all doubt. It is very likely that man is the cause of this, considering the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere can account for this increase.

Further, there is a large amount of evidence that global temperatures are increasing.
Well, CO2 levels have been increasing, but CO2 levels were also increasing from 1940 to 1980 when global temperatures dropped so much that there was panic in the scientific community about an impending ice age.

Also, about two-thirds of the warming in the past 100 years occurred prior to 1940, before the great postwar population and industrial boom and before there was any significant increase in CO2 levels.

Also CO2 levels increased from 1998 through 2006, but global temperatures remained constant. CO2 levels continued to increase in 2007, yet global temperatures declined by 0.6oC, wiping out 100 years of warming.

There is also a large amount of evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels in an atmosphere lead to more retained heat and warmer temperatures.
There is no such evidence.

Furthermore, to deny global warming, you essentially have to believe that all this extra carbon dioxide has no effect on anything.
There is no evidence that an increase in such a minuscule atmospheric gas like CO2 can affect global temperatures. Those claims are nothing more than supposition and speculation based on invalid climate models.

We know from ice core samples over thousands of years that increases in CO2 levels FOLLOWED increases in global temperatures by 400-800 years, not the other way around as AlGore falsely claims.

[Neil Peart]

It's pretty simpe stuff, really. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing. This is proven beyond all doubt. It is very likely that man is the cause of this, considering the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere can account for this increase. Further, there is a large amount of evidence that global temperatures are increasing. There is also a large amount of evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels in an atmosphere lead to more retained heat and warmer temperatures.

Furthermore, to deny global warming, you essentially have to believe that all this extra carbon dioxide has no effect on anything.http://newscoma.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/manbearpig_sketch.jpg

Excelsior!

[Kathekon]

Wow. Lot's of detailed, logical, factual argument.

I thought conservatives were small town folk who, when confronted by stuff they don't like, just get bitter, cling to prayer for a while then shoot sumthin'..... Appears to be more book learning here than an alarmist would expect to find.

Here is a neat graph from The Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/real-climate-tries-to-spin-pielke-a-curious-lesson-2/)

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/gmt_testnoextra.jpg

What is means is that there is only a 5% statistical chance that the IPCC predictions about climate can still be right. A couple of more non-hot years and the operant IPCC model will be officially, mathematically, indisputably bogus. We have had ZERO warming since 1998 despite rising CO2. It's gotta get hot real soon or the entire AGW thing crashes and burns.

[DoctorDoom]

An example of the Gorebian lies:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/GoreLie.jpg

As noted in post #6, point 4, there is a a considerable distance between the CO₂ graph on top and the temperature graph on the bottom. There are no vertical gradations to use to compare the timing. There is no scale for the temperature on the left. It uses Mann's totally discredited "hockey stick". And the scale of years is so broad that an 800-year lag of CO₂ would be lost in the noise.

Combine that deceptive use of graphics with AlBore screeching his mindless, gloom-and-doom junk science, and the people are unlikely to see the facts.

Gore is a shameless liar and hypocrite. He needs to be thoroughly and unarguably exposed.

[DeclinetoState]

http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/DVA/DVA006/017-0195.gif

[RogerFGay]

It's pretty simpe stuff, really. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing. This is proven beyond all doubt. ... blah, blah, blah, Al Gore, blah .... .

OK. So, there have been several posts in detail. But here it is at the same simple level. The truth is that the correlation between CO2 and average earth temperature is very, very poor; i.e. occassionally the two go up and down together but not enough to interpret as anything other then coincidence during periods when the correlation temporarily does look good.

But there is a correlation that lasts and lasts and lasts; still looks good even when CO2 is going up while "journalists" are panicing over temperature drops. It's solar data. Heat and other effects from the sun are not constant. So if you want a simple explanation that actually matches scientific data, here ya go:

The sun heats the earth.

[sunsettommy]

OK. So, there have been several posts in detail. But here it is at the same simple level. The truth is that the correlation between CO2 and average earth temperature is very, very poor; i.e. occassionally the two go up and down together but not enough to interpret as anything other then coincidence during periods when the correlation temporarily does look good.

But there is a correlation that lasts and lasts and lasts; still looks good even when CO2 is going up while "journalists" are panicing over temperature drops. It's solar data. Heat and other effects from the sun are not constant. So if you want a simple explanation that actually matches scientific data, here ya go:

The sun heats the earth.


Be careful.

CO2 is a good PROXY for sustained temperature changes.

Meaning that when the temperature goes up.The CO2 follows behind.When the temperature goes down.The CO2 follows behind.

Often by a few centuries.

:biggrin:

[RogerFGay]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=2283&stc=1&d=1208617653

[sunsettommy]

Maximum Sam writes,


It's pretty simpe stuff, really. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing. This is proven beyond all doubt. It is very likely that man is the cause of this, considering the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere can account for this increase.


It is not really that simple Sam.

There are considerable problems with using a certain way of measuring the atmosphere CO2 levels.We agree that it is increasing only because the few tainted CO2 measuring devices show increases.

However I doubt you know that the 280 ppm set point at year 1880 is a contrived set point.There are evidences of a much larger range of yearly CO2 changes in the atmosphere in the 1800's and 1900's.

Todays yearly changes are suspiciously smooth.

Mankind contributes about 2.5% of the yearly CO2 emissions.Nature the other 97.5%.Meaning that we emit very little of the total amount.Meaning we add so little warming effect to the atmosphere.


Further, there is a large amount of evidence that global temperatures are increasing. There is also a large amount of evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels in an atmosphere lead to more retained heat and warmer temperatures.

There is no dispute that there is a warming trend since around 1850.But not since year 2001.The last time there was a distinct warming trend.

Mauna Loa untill recently shows a stepped yearly increase in CO2 atmosphere levels.Despite this there has been no worldwide temperature increase trend since 2001.1998 remains the last peak point.A peak that is actually a very strong el-nino event.

With no warming trend even during 2 moderate el-nino's so far in this decade.With no major volcano eruption and only the recent strong la-nina in the last 7 years.It begs the question,

Why no more warming going on for 7+ years all the while the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are going up? What is stopping the warming trend?

I am going to post a quote from this link.That will show just how minor a warming greenhouse gas it really is.It seems that only select "climatologists" and AGW believers do not know this elementary information:

"Let's look at a real result, below - the absorption spectrum for pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a black body spectrum as the source. This is part of the so-called "greenhouse effect"
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/CO2%20Absorption%20Spectrum.jpg
As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth. In reality the two peaks at the left lie in a range where there is very little energy in the black body spectrum, and could be discarded without much change in the outcome, but we'll leave them in just to be generous.

We know that pure carbon dioxide in laboratory experiments absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. The absorption distance of the two smaller peaks of shorter wavelength have not yet been measured ( that we can find in the literature), but extrapolation suggests an absorption path length in the neighborhood of no more than 300 meters. This means that CO2 in the lab does whatever it's going to do in a relatively short distance."

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Jim_Peden

CO2 only absorbs at best 8% of the OUTGOING IR.It is actually a lot less.

At least 92% of the OUTGOING IR goes right on my unfettered by CO2.

It has a tiny spot in the IR part of the spectrum.Yet this greenhouse gas gets people foaming at the mouth.Predicting all kinds of dire consequences from a slight increase of a slight insignificant greenhouse gas.

Ignorance on display.

:rotflmbo:

Furthermore, to deny global warming, you essentially have to believe that all this extra carbon dioxide has no effect on anything.

Most climate realists accept a warming trend since 1850.Most also accept that there has been NO warming since 2001.

CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas.With little additional warming factor.

It does have a much greater effect in plant growth.Climate Realists have long noted that.Something you AGWer's ignore or belittle.Despite the much better documented science supporting it.Than the mythical apocalysic blovations over a minor warm forcing gas.

What about this hot ball in the sky? Have you wondered if it can cause warming or cooling cycles?

When will you people grow up and face the facts?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

When will you people grow up and face the facts?

Facts? FACTS? They don't need no steenking facts tommy! They have the media and King Gore to tell them what to believe! They can't be bothered by research, or questions, let alone FACTS, why they're just "Inconvenient Truth(s)"! :smirk:

[sunsettommy]

Facts? FACTS? They don't need no steenking facts tommy! They have the media and King Gore to tell them what to believe! They can't be bothered by research, or questions, let alone FACTS, why they're just "Inconvenient Truth(s)"! :smirk:

That is right since only losers follow losers.

"god" of losers Al Gore is a fitting symbol of what followers expect in the future.A future paved by the deaths of millions of innocent people in the poor nations of the world.A trail of blood and tears is all that will result from their blindness of worshipping a false "god".

Facts are inconvenient to them because they do not have to think.Not when their "god" a failed divinity student and sporting a D- in science.Tells them what to believe.

[MaximumSam]

Mankind contributes about 2.5% of the yearly CO2 emissions.Nature the other 97.5%.Meaning that we emit very little of the total amount.Meaning we add so little warming effect to the atmosphere.

That's not particularly important. Clearly, there are natural emissions of carbon dioxide. These are offset by things that absorb carbon dioxide, such as plants, oceans, etc. The issue is the extra carbon dioxide that we emit that isn't absorbed by the environment, and instead rests in the atmosphere. We know this is happening.

Why no more warming going on for 7+ years all the while the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are going up? What is stopping the warming trend?


http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/TempSmall.gif

This graph, and all others I've seen like it, do not reflect a straight line in temperatures, but rather a staggered one. A decrease in warming over a short period of time doesn't seem to say anything at this time. I'm no climatologist, so I won't venture a guess as to why. However, it doesn't seem particularly important at this time. If another decade passes with no warming, it would seem more significant.

It has a tiny spot in the IR part of the spectrum.Yet this greenhouse gas gets people foaming at the mouth.Predicting all kinds of dire consequences from a slight increase of a slight insignificant greenhouse gas.rease of a slight insignificant greenhouse gas.

I don't find that article particularly convincing. Is it arguing that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? Or that carbon dioxide isn't a significant greenhouse gas? Neither make much sense, and it seems he just picks and chooses evidence instead of presenting something that makes sense. If CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, then why does the evidence suggest it is?

[DesertFox]

CO2's a greenhouse gas. Mankind's contribution to CO2 atmospheric levels is nugatory. Even more to the point, and as Bjorn Lomborg points out, whatever we do to cut back on CO2 emissions won't be worth the disastrous tradeoff. Cutting waaay back on CO2 emissions would wreak havoc with the world economy and buy just six years of relief by the year 2100.

IOW: By 2106 rather than 2100, all the effects would occur anyway because of the natural influences that vastly outweigh human contributions to GW.

That simply is not worth the price, Sam. Better to adapt to any change, which could well be global cooling rather than warming.

[MaximumSam]

CO2's a greenhouse gas. Mankind's contribution to CO2 atmospheric levels is nugatory. Even more to the point, and as Bjorn Lomborg points out, whatever we do to cut back on CO2 emissions won't be worth the disastrous tradeoff. Cutting waaay back on CO2 emissions would wreak havoc with the world economy and buy just six years of relief by the year 2100.

IOW: By 2106 rather than 2100, all the effects would occur anyway because of the natural influences that vastly outweigh human contributions to GW.

That simply is not worth the price, Sam. Better to adapt to any change, which could well be global cooling rather than warming.

I would disagree that mankind's contributions are small. One graph had CO2 levels rising 20 percent since 1958. That is not a small percentage. It is also consistent with the amount of CO2 that man releases into the atmosphere.

Also, I haven't read any of Lomborg's books, but I agree with his basic premise, tat many claims are exaggerated, and cost/benefit analysis needs to be done. However, I disagree with two conclusions. One, that reducing CO2 emissions would be catastrophic to the economy, and two, that we know what the result of gloabal warming would be. There is a possibility, perhaps remote, that gobal warming could be catastrophic. Therefore, it needs to be addressed.

[MaximumSam]

CO2 does not "rest" in the atmosphere.They cycle out of it in a short time.


Whatever the cycle is, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over time. Thus, whether individual molecules cycle out is irrelevant.

I see that you chose the very worse source for temperature data.But it will not matter because you failed to get my point.By the way the chart is now over 3+ years out of date.

You need to present a graph, or something, to illustrate your point. What I said was that the trend was not significant at this time, given that it is consistent with the temperature increasing over time.

No counterpoints at all.Just empty words.It is obvious that you have no idea how stupid this anti-CO2 fearmongering really is.Since it is not a threat to the planet at all.

Eh, whatever you presented, it wasn't convincing. It needs to be presented in context - perhaps a similar article about water vapor for comparison. Then the article would make a lot more sense. It's difficult to counterpoint something that doesn't really have a point to begin with. Carbon dioxide has a miniscule part in the greenhouse effect? Then why is it referred to as a greenhouse gas, and why do climatologists believe it is one of the main greenhouse gases?

In other words, present a stronger case. I'm intrigued by the idea that CO2 isn't an important greenhouse gas, but one article which plainly says it is leaving out all the math and science doesn't do much for me. I can't see how they are arriving to their figures.

[DoctorDoom]

If CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, then why does the evidence suggest it is?CO2 IS an acknowledged "greenhouse gas", but the bullshit surrounding it is indefensible. Lying assholes with a brazenly leftist political agenda are inventing "evidence" to support their shameless mythology.

The liars ignore the saturation effect cited earlier (Post #6) that demonstrates that doubling CO2 does NOT double the "greenhouse" effect.

The liars screech that we must reduce CO2 emissions by 80% (and one moron demanded a 100% reduction), fully aware that the only way that could be achieved is to kill every man, woman and child on the planet (sparing themsewlves, of course, since they are above mere mortals).

Re your meaningless graph, presented apart from any other data, it has no merit.

Tell us, Mr. Science Guy, how this official temperature-recording station is presenting an accurate record.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Science/TempMonitor.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/USHCN-Orland.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/USHCN-Marysville.jpg

Does the graph on the lower one look familiar to you, Mr. Science Guy?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/CRN-Rating-534.png

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."surfacestations.org (http://surfacestations.org/)

A quick survey of a few randomly chosen temperature stations revealed the stations frequently fell short of the rules established for proper maintenance. As a meteorologist concerned about the accuracy of climate data, Watts has made it his goal to collect photographs and site information for all 1,221 official weather stations maintained by the USHCN.

Through his own efforts and those of citizen volunteers who photograph weather stations and take meticulous notes on the sites, Watts is one-third of the way toward meeting his goal.

What he has discovered is that far more stations fail to meet prescribed standards than are properly maintained. Using a scale from 1 to 5, by which stations that are properly maintained receive a rating of 1 and stations that are severely compromised by artificial temperature signatures (being located adjacent to an artificial heating source, such as a building, rooftop, parking lot, or concrete surface, for example) receive a 5, Watts reports fully 70 percent of official temperature stations receive a 4 or 5 rating, and only 4 percent receive a 1.

Next to Trash Burners, BBQs

Some of the most egregious shortcomings include heat-emitting air conditioning compressors being located directly adjacent to a sensor; vehicles parked next to sensors head-in; heat-generating electronics, electrical components, and light bulbs being placed in the sensor shelters within inches of the sensor; barbeques and trash-burning barrels placed next to temperature sensors; sensors being located in the middle of large expanses of asphalt and concrete; and sensors in heat traps on roofs or next to buildings--all in violation of NOAA standards for temperature measurement.

Each of these violations results in temperature sensors reporting warmer temperatures than are actually the case.

[snip]

Another artificial warming signal discovered by Watts is that before 1970 temperature stations were housed in whitewashed, slatted boxes. Since 1970, however, temperature station boxes have been painted with semi-gloss latex. Latex paint absorbs more heat than whitewash, and the change to latex paint at official temperature stations may account for half of the U.S. warming reported since 1970.Meteorologist Documents Warming Bias in U.S. Temperature Stations (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22203)

Just WTF do you EXPECT those 87% of the Class 3-5 stations to report, Mr. Science Guy?

[sunsettommy]

Sam writes:


That's not particularly important. Clearly, there are natural emissions of carbon dioxide. These are offset by things that absorb carbon dioxide, such as plants, oceans, etc. The issue is the extra carbon dioxide that we emit that isn't absorbed by the environment, and instead rests in the atmosphere. We know this is happening.



CO2 does not "rest" in the atmosphere.They cycle out of it in a short time.

According to the IPCC numbers.CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years.

So actually it is not a big deal.It is irrational to be so worried over a molecule that is so gosh darn beneficial to life.

You need to realize that we are near the very bottom historically in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This graph, and all others I've seen like it, do not reflect a straight line in temperatures, but rather a staggered one. A decrease in warming over a short period of time doesn't seem to say anything at this time. I'm no climatologist, so I won't venture a guess as to why. However, it doesn't seem particularly important at this time. If another decade passes with no warming, it would seem more significant.

LOL,

I see that you chose the very worse source for temperature data.But it will not matter because you failed to get my point.By the way the chart is now over 3+ years out of date.

The problem is that with all that increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100+ years.There has been NO ACCELERATING temperature increase at all.It has stopped since 2001 and going down a little.This despite all that atmospheric CO2 added since 1998.The last peak in temperature.That coupled with NO significant Volcanic eruption and other known cooling factors except for the Sun much lower activity.There were TWO El-Nina's that failed to promote warming.In the last 8 years.

That is why I asked this question.The one you did not answer.

"Why no more warming going on for 7+ years all the while the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are going up? What is stopping the warming trend?"


What is preventing warming? With all that additional CO increase in the atmosphere since year 2001.Why does it fail to keep the warming going?


When will you finally get the freaking obvious?


Then we come to this silliness.It is obvious that you have no idea what the hell this is since it is elementary knowledge:


I don't find that article particularly convincing. Is it arguing that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? Or that carbon dioxide isn't a significant greenhouse gas? Neither make much sense, and it seems he just picks and chooses evidence instead of presenting something that makes sense. If CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, then why does the evidence suggest it is?

Everything you wrote in that quote was clearly answered in the link.Where I got that quote from.

It is obvious that you are a poor reader.Never did he state that,CO2 is NOT a "greenhouse" gas.Never does he state that the "greenhouse" effect does not exist.He simple showed that CO2 has a very minor role in slowing down the outgoing IR by absorbing a few of them.

Once again I quote the portion you probably did not read.Since it is so blasted obvious:



"Let's look at a real result, below - the absorption spectrum for pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a black body spectrum as the source. This is part of the so-called "greenhouse effect"
my emphasis

I am sure you failed to understand why he writes "so-called".

Here is another quote from the link.You could not have read:

"In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present concentrations. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and calculations for Oxygen, or O<SUB>2</SUB> ( The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N<SUB>2</SUB>) which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math. You'll discover that they don't do very much either, leaving the principal greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best comments we've read on this subject:



<CENTER><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=681 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=679>Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
We can safely ballpark water vapor as being responsible for more than 95% of all the greenhouse effect, with oxygen and nitrogen playing a minor role and carbon dioxide being relatively insignificant... particularly the even smaller human-produced part."

How did you get it so wrong sammy?

:rotflmbo:

I have posted this Jim Peden link in a few places where plenty of AGW believers abound.The replies against it has been minimal since there is little they can do to rebute it factually.They instead whine over a small portion that has since been edited out to get them back to the main point.That CO2 "greenhouse" gas has a minimal warm forcing power.

The chart in the link is an accurate presentation of the minor role CO2 has in the INFRARED part of the spectrum.It absorbs in only 3 frequencies.That is a tiny slice of the IR window.Go look at the chart again and see how slender the 3 frequencies are in relation to the window itself.2 of them are partially outside the blackbody curve.Meaning they absorb very little of the OUTGOING IR.

Meaning that most of the IR goes right on by into outer space.

CO2 is obviously a miniscule "greenhouse" gas.A properly tagged as a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.

It is also not even the most common "greenhouse" gas anyway.Can you name another much much more abundant "greenhouse" gas than CO2?

To speak plainly.You did not post a rebuttal to the quote anyway.Just a bunch of empty B.S. I quote you, "I don't find that article particularly convincing."

and "Neither make much sense, and it seems he just picks and chooses evidence instead of presenting something that makes sense."

No counterpoints at all.Just empty words.It is obvious that you have no idea how stupid this anti-CO2 fearmongering really is.Since it is not a threat to the planet at all.

[sunsettommy]

From post #20 Sam writes:


I would disagree that mankind's contributions are small. One graph had CO2 levels rising 20 percent since 1958. That is not a small percentage. It is also consistent with the amount of CO2 that man releases into the atmosphere.


Gosh even after I already stated that it is around 2.5% of the yearly total.You still state it is not a small contribution.Sorry Sammy but that is simply a stupid thing to say.

You simply fail to realize that going from around 280 ppm to 380 ppm is a very very very tiny increase in the atmosphere.It is still a TRACE gas the whole time.With minimal warm forcing potential.

As compared to the last 500,000 million years.We are historically near the very bottom in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.Co2 is nearly absent from the atmosphere today.

It is amazing that you swallowed the CO2 fairy tale so deeply.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Sam, you should view and absorb the video and diligently study the peer-reviewed paper linked to at The Global Warming Myth - Dr Noah Robinson - Telecosm 2007 - Video (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=58310). You will find that they knock your blind parroting of trash science into a cocked hat. Especially damning to your trash science sources id the following graph that shows perfect correlation between changes in solar activity and global temperatures:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png

As shown in other threads in this forum, we are now entering a period of low solar activity (i.e., the Sun is cooling) that may very well portend a global cooling period similar to the global cooling period between 1940 and 1980 (see graph above).

[DoctorDoom]

Guys, Sam is trolling, as usual. He is as clueless as he seems to be. He argues just to argue.

[sunsettommy]

Sam writes:


Whatever the cycle is, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over time. Thus, whether individual molecules cycle out is irrelevant.


I have already accepted that there has been an increase of the super duper rare gas.

The problem you have is that they do not stay long in the atmosphere.

Here is a set of numbers that will quickly show how minimal CO2 is in the atmosphere.It is from my forum in a reply to a clueless woman.

"Surface Ocean contains about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2

Intermediate and deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of CO2

In contrast to the atmosphere containing about 750 GT of CO2

Vegetation,Soils and Detritus contains about 2,200 GT of CO2

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT C."

Mankind emits about 8.5 GT of CO2 per year.

The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years."

The IPCC backs it up,

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm


Still want to continue your delusion over a trace gas that occupies a tiny section of the IR window?

[sunsettommy]

Guys, Sam is trolling, as usual. He is as clueless as he seems to be. He argues just to argue.

That is ok since the lurkers are benefitting from it.

[DoctorDoom]

One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation.

This good news about carbon dioxide has been all but ignored in alarmist discussions about possible global climate changes. CO2-related benefits were barely mentioned at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June, where the rising level of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" was decried as the world's greatest environmental threat. The Rio Summit ended with the United States and over 150 other nations signing a Framework Convention on Climate Change, committing themselves to stabilizing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases at 1990 levels.

Indeed, the conventional wisdom in public policy circles is that carbon dioxide is a terrible pollutant that threatens the fate of the earth. Senator Albert Gore, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, calls for stiff "carbon taxes" on the burning of fossil fuels, and has written in his book Earth in the Balance that the process of "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants...is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world."Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants (http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html)

There are articles attempting to discredit this fact, but they are heavily biased toward the Gorebull Warming mythology.

[sunsettommy]

Sam writes:


You need to present a graph, or something, to illustrate your point. What I said was that the trend was not significant at this time, given that it is consistent with the temperature increasing over time.



Meaning that have not been following MSU,RSS,HadleyCrut3 and so on.

:rotflmbo:

It is plain that you have no idea how little you know.It is typical of AGW believers.

I will post one example to see if you will make a fool of yourself over it.It is the favorite source of temperature data of the IPCC:

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg

<img src="http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg" width="640" height="361" />


:roar:

[sunsettommy]

My words:


No counterpoints at all.Just empty words.It is obvious that you have no idea how stupid this anti-CO2 fearmongering really is.Since it is not a threat to the planet at all.


Sam incredibly replies:

Eh, whatever you presented, it wasn't convincing. It needs to be presented in context - perhaps a similar article about water vapor for comparison. Then the article would make a lot more sense. It's difficult to counterpoint something that doesn't really have a point to begin with. Carbon dioxide has a miniscule part in the greenhouse effect? Then why is it referred to as a greenhouse gas, and why do climatologists believe it is one of the main greenhouse gases?

In other words, present a stronger case. I'm intrigued by the idea that CO2 isn't an important greenhouse gas, but one article which plainly says it is leaving out all the math and science doesn't do much for me. I can't see how they are arriving to their figures.

Translation:

I have no factual counterpoint againt the link and the quotes lifted from it.Just continue to fight it with no understanding at all.

It is elementary knowledge that CO2 absorbs IR in 3 slender frequency bands.The 3 bands only occupies at best 8% of the entire IR part of the spectrum.

Jim Peden is actually being generous because Water Vapor absorbs some of the IR in the SAME FREQUENCY section as the main CO2 IR frequency.

Here is another link that shows all the "greenhouse" gases in the chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Then we have this in detail:

http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf


I gave you a credible argument with facts and you come back with NOTHING!

:rotflmbo::rotflmbo::rotflmbo:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Even GISS shows a drop of 0.75oC between Jan. 07 and Jan 08.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-jan08-520.png

[Naturalized-Texan]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

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.

[MaximumSam]

I have posted this Jim Peden link in a few places where plenty of AGW believers abound.The replies against it has been minimal since there is little they can do to rebute it factually.They instead whine over a small portion that has since been edited out to get them back to the main point.That CO2 "greenhouse" gas has a minimal warm forcing power.

Now I see why was getting confused about the article. Peden goes through great lengths about marbles and bottle caps and BB's trying to show that the IR photons won't actually hit any carbon dioxide (or a very small amount). However, while he acknowledges that the atmosphere is three dimensional, not two dimensional, he doesn't seem to realize the ramifications. If a photon is moving straight up through the atmosphere, it becomes more likely that it will hit a CO2 molecule, not less likely. After all his talk, he just multiplies the IR percentage absorbed by CO2 and the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, to get a really low number.

This makes no sense. First, he doesn't show whether any other molecules absorb this radiation, and second, he doesn't account for the fact that there is no one "layer" of CO2 molecules. There are millions of "layers."

To put it simply, his math doesn't add up.

Gosh even after I already stated that it is around 2.5% of the yearly total.You still state it is not a small contribution.Sorry Sammy but that is simply a stupid thing to say.

Again, it is mostly irrelevant the percentage of CO2 emitted by people. What is relevant is how much CO2 that is emitted that is not absorbed from the atmosphere. Human emissions have driven up the percentage in the atmosphere by a significant amount.

[DesertFox]

This thread and the prostitution thread reinforce my general observation that one is born liberal or conservative. One thinks what one thinks, accepting or rejecting arguments or logic or lies that reinforce or run counter to one's thinking. Few align their thinking with facts and reason and relatively few change their minds as they go thru life.

[DoctorDoom]

To put it simply, his math doesn't add up.Aside from being a lawyer, Sam the Sham had PhDs in biology, geology, meteorology and climatology. And now he has added to his growing list of degrees a PhD in mathematics. Not bad for a recent collij grajewit still under the waning influence of Teenage Omniscience Syndrome.

[Livia]

woooow 0-0
totally outa my league on this one guys lol

pretty much these are my views on global warming

1) global warming is a farce

2) anyone remember global cooling in the 70s??

andddd

3) al gore...wouldnt trust this guy wit my dead pet fish (need i say more??)

[sunsettommy]

Maximum confused Sam writes,

Now I see why was getting confused about the article. Peden goes through great lengths about marbles and bottle caps and BB's trying to show that the IR photons won't actually hit any carbon dioxide (or a very small amount). However, while he acknowledges that the atmosphere is three dimensional, not two dimensional, he doesn't seem to realize the ramifications. If a photon is moving straight up through the atmosphere, it becomes more likely that it will hit a CO2 molecule, not less likely. After all his talk, he just multiplies the IR percentage absorbed by CO2 and the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, to get a really low number.

LOL,

You still fail to get it because most of CO2 IR absorption range is in a relatively short distance from the planets surface.The concentration of CO2 falls off quickly because it is a "heavy" molecule.Meaning it will sink downward rather than upward.

Here is a relevant quote you read so poorly:

"We know that pure carbon dioxide in laboratory experiments absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. The absorption distance of the two smaller peaks of shorter wavelength have not yet been measured ( that we can find in the literature), but extrapolation suggests an absorption path length in the neighborhood of no more than 300 meters. This means that CO2 in the lab does whatever it's going to do in a relatively short distance."

Then we have this quote you read so poorly as well.

"Now, to finish this problem, we need to estimate a "capture cross section" - the probability that a particular CO2 molecule mixed in with everything else in the air will ever encounter one of the highly specific IR photons in the absorption spectrum. We'll assume the mixing is homogeneous, and set the geometry for capture based on the known percentage of CO2 in the air, which is 380 PPM. So based on this highly simplified picture, how much heat can our trace amounts of CO2 actually absorb? The math is simple: 8% ( or .08 ) x 380 PPM ( .000380 ) = .0000304, or about thirty millionths of the radiated heat.

Bear in mind, that's the maximum permissible absorption by all of the CO2 presently in our atmosphere. Man's percentage contribution is currently at only about 3% of that. Now, let's see what we can blame humans for, what the "man-made" contribution ( 3% of the total ) is. Again, multiply .0000304 x .03 = .000000912 ........."

He gave you the math and you still do not get it.

Now I will quote a part of your words:

If a photon is moving straight up through the atmosphere, it becomes more likely that it will hit a CO2 molecule, not less likely.

Jim Peden wrote:

"At the surface of the earth, this would mean a pure CO2 atmosphere would look like a bunch of bottle caps tacked up with a spacing of about 3-1/3 bottle caps apart, or 3.3 inches in between. But as we go higher and higher up into the air, the density starts to decrease, and the distance between bottle caps starts to increase, as well. At about 18,000 feet, the air is only half as dense so the distance between our bottle caps of pure CO2 is now seven inches apart."

You state the probability increases.He says the very opposite and shows the mathematics that are so simple a teenybopper would understand it.To show that it goes down.

It gets harder and harder to hit a CO2 molecule as you go up.Besides you forget they still absorb in the same 3 frequency bands no matter where they are in the atmosphere and that in the biggest frequency band.It is already absorbed to extinction.

Amazingly he writes this:

This makes no sense. First, he doesn't show whether any other molecules absorb this radiation, and second, he doesn't account for the fact that there is no one "layer" of CO2 molecules. There are millions of "layers."


Here is what Jim Peden stated:


"Since CO2 is a molecule, and thus not exactly an "Ideal Gas", it's still close enough for our approximation - but let's magnify the picture to the point where a CO2 molecule is the size of a bottle cap (let's call it one inch in diameter) tacked to the side of a barn. At the surface of the earth, this would mean a pure CO2 atmosphere would look like a bunch of bottle caps tacked up with a spacing of about 3-1/3 bottle caps apart, or 3.3 inches in between. But as we go higher and higher up into the air, the density starts to decrease, and the distance between bottle caps starts to increase, as well. At about 18,000 feet, the air is only half as dense so the distance between our bottle caps of pure CO2 is now seven inches apart.

Remember, we've been talking about an atmosphere that is 100% CO2 and nothing else. In reality, the current concentration of CO2 is only 380 parts per million, so now we have to paint our CO2 bottle caps red and mix them in with a lot more other gasses, which we should probably paint blue.

So, let's use our imagination and tack up a million one-inch bottle caps on the side of a really big building, with them all spaced 3.3 inches apart, and with only 380 of them being red and the rest all blue. If they're evenly mixed up ( like the wind mixes the atmosphere ) then the red bottle caps (representing CO2) now are going to be spaced 8,684 inches, or 723 feet apart. Now you know why we call CO2 a "trace gas" in the atmosphere." my emphasis

He never mentions layers at all.

YOU ARE A TERRIBLE READER!!!

Then this:

Again, it is mostly irrelevant the percentage of CO2 emitted by people. What is relevant is how much CO2 that is emitted that is not absorbed from the atmosphere. Human emissions have driven up the percentage in the atmosphere by a significant amount.

Still determined how stupidly ignorant you are.I will put you on the spot.

YOU tell us how many PPM per year we are adding to the atmosphere and how much increase per year is from the planet itself.

I have already given you the answer.So has Jim Peden.So has the IPCC.I posted them all in the open in this thread.

Now we will see if you have the brains to realize what a fool you are making of yourself here.

[sunsettommy]

Aside from being a lawyer, Sam the Sham had PhDs in biology, geology, meteorology and climatology. And now he has added to his growing list of degrees a PhD in mathematics. Not bad for a recent collij grajewit still under the waning influence of Teenage Omniscience Syndrome.

The guy is so clueless in what he is reading.The math in the link is simple to follow and understand.

He still fails to realize just how little our CO2 yearly emission rate is.Compared to the rest of nature.

Some people have a hard time understanding simple stuff.

[MaximumSam]

Some people have a hard time understanding simple stuff.

I'm fairly certain you have no idea what you are talking about. I keep raising questions about the article, and in response, you keep linking back to the article. If you understand it, explain it yourself. It's difficult to have an intelligent dialogue when you have nothing original to say, and can't add or explain anything.

For example:

You still fail to get it because most of CO2 IR absorption range is in a relatively short distance from the planets surface.The concentration of CO2 falls off quickly because it is a "heavy" molecule.Meaning it will sink downward rather than upward.

Perhaps, but so what. Therefore, the concentration closer to the ground is much higher than 380 ppm, and therefore, Peden's estimates are incorrect.

He gave you the math and you still do not get it

Yes, and I said his math is incorrect. Either address that or don't, but please don't put another link back to the same article.

You state the probability increases.He says the very opposite and shows the mathematics that are so simple a teenybopper would understand it.To show that it goes down.

I saw that, and he )and you) are completely wrong. As a photon travels upward through the atmosphere, the chance of hitting a CO2 molecule becomes more likely over distance, not less likely. Yes, there is less CO2. However, there are still millions of CO2 molecules at every meter, so while the density goes down, the odds of a photon avoiding said molecule goes down the longer the distance.

Ergo, in the bottle cap example, there may be 380 red botle caps per million. However, behind that, there are another 380 red bottle caps, and so on and so on for a billion layers of bottle caps.

He never mentions layers at all.


Yeah, I know that. That's why he is wrong.

YOU tell us how many PPM per year we are adding to the atmosphere and how much increase per year is from the planet itself.

I'm thinking all of the increase is due to man.

[sunsettommy]

I'm fairly certain you have no idea what you are talking about. I keep raising questions about the article, and in response, you keep linking back to the article. If you understand it, explain it yourself. It's difficult to have an intelligent dialogue when you have nothing original to say, and can't add or explain anything.


I keep answering them too.

Plus I gave you a few links to help you.

It is difficult not to laugh when you never make any factual counterpoints.Just a bunch of questions and statements that have been answered again and again.


Perhaps, but so what. Therefore, the concentration closer to the ground is much higher than 380 ppm, and therefore, Peden's estimates are incorrect.



:roar:

The 380 ppm are based on the assumption.That CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas.Mr.Peden did not state that but since you are a terrible reader I will no longer bother bringing it up again.


Yes, and I said his math is incorrect. Either address that or don't, but please don't put another link back to the same article.



Yup and ........... that is all you said.No factual counterpoints to back up your claim.Just that proofless line you write.

Plus it is HIS math you are disputing.Therefore YOU who must try to prove him wrong.The burden of providing an alternative explanation is on the person who disputes it.That is you fella.

It is only sensible to keep referring to the link since it is HIS math claims YOU are disputing.Stop being such a clod.

I saw that, and he )and you) are completely wrong. I saw that, and he )and you) are completely wrong. As a photon travels upward through the atmosphere, the chance of hitting a CO2 molecule becomes more likely over distance, not less likely. Yes, there is less CO2. However, there are still millions of CO2 molecules at every meter, so while the density goes down, the odds of a photon avoiding said molecule goes down the longer the distance. Yes, there is less CO2. However, there are still millions of CO2 molecules at every meter, so while the density goes down, the odds of a photon avoiding said molecule goes down the longer the distance.

LOL,

You of course just say so.With absolutely no factual explanation.:rotflmbo:

You contradicted yourself too:


I saw that, and he )and you) are completely wrong. As a photon travels upward through the atmosphere, the chance of hitting a CO2 molecule becomes more likely over distance, not less likely.


Then right after that you write:


Yes, there is less CO2.


The fact is that as you go up in altitude there are fewer CO2 molecules to encounter.The probablity of hitting one is less and less.Simply because there are fewer and fewer of them.This is so freaking simple.:rotflmbo:


Ergo, in the bottle cap example, there may be 380 red botle caps per million. However, behind that, there are another 380 red bottle caps, and so on and so on for a billion layers of bottle caps.


Are you really that stupidly clueless?

"Remember, we've been talking about an atmosphere that is 100% CO2 and nothing else"

Remember this line?

Now if you add the actual atmosphere.The density of CO2 zooms to a trace presence in the atmosphere.

For every 1,000,000 molecules in the atmosphere.Just 380 of them are CO2.

In a pure CO2 atmosphere.They would be from a few inches to a few more inches apart as you go upward.But when you add in the actual atmosphere.The distance between CO2 molecules increases to HUNDREDS OF FEET apart.

Did I state that you are a terrible reader?

Yeah, I know that. That's why he is wrong.


You never explained how he is wrong factually.:smirky:

I'm thinking all of the increase is due to man.

It is stupidy wrong.The IPCC differs from you.

But of course you can not prove it anyway,Hence your proofless line.

Did I state that you are cluelessly making a fool of yourself?

[MaximumSam]

Plus it is HIS math you are disputing.Therefore YOU who must try to prove him wrong.The burden of providing an alternative explanation is on the person who disputes it.That is you fella.

Actually, this is totally wrong. Proving something wrong doesn't require an alternative explanation. If you claim carbon dioxide was created by magic fairy dust, I don't have to prove what did create it to prove you wrong. Regardless, here is an alternative explanation. If a photon passes through a million particles on its way out of the atmosphere, the odds are it will hit 380 CO2 molecules. Not zero.

The fact is that as you go up in altitude there are fewer CO2 molecules to encounter.The probablity of hitting one is less and less.Simply because there are fewer and fewer of them.This is so freaking simple.

You are really having a hard time comprehending this. Let me see if I can simplify it. Imagine shooting a BB gun at botle caps. You have a 10 by 10 square board with a hundred spaces, and one space is red. You're job is not to hit the red square. Pretty easy, right? Now, behind this grid is another 10 by 10 grid, with one square being red. It's still pretty easy, right? Now, add up a billion such grids, each with one square that is red. The odds of you shooting the BB past all billion grids without hitting a red square is extremely, extremely small. Such is life in three dimensional space.

In a pure CO2 atmosphere.They would be from a few inches to a few more inches apart as you go upward.But when you add in the actual atmosphere.The distance between CO2 molecules increases to HUNDREDS OF FEET apart.

That's untrue. How could plants possibly survive if each CO2 molecule was hundreds of feet apart? That's silly. There trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of molecules in the atmosphere.

It is stupidy wrong.The IPCC differs from you.


Well, then prove it wrong. It should be easy.

[sunsettommy]

Since certain morons the world over failed to understand the simple but crude bottle cap on a barn anology.It was erased from the editorial.So that small brains can concentrate on the rest of the editorial.

:biggrin:

Now a new revision has taken place.In the link (provided below) the revised section was written by a consulting engineer.It was witten for his 15 year old son.To better able to comprehend and understand what it is about.Maybe a few morons now have a better chance to understand the obvious.

:smirky:


Note: In our original draft, we talked a bit about relative spacing geometry, to give the reader a feel for the distance between molecules in the atmosphere. We talked in (very crude) terms about tacking bottle caps up on a barn wall, and gave some spacing examples in 2 dimensions for a rough feel of the subject. One of our readers, Peter J. Morgan - a consulting engineer from New Zealand - undertook to re-write our simple ( and not technically accurate ) description for his 15 year old son. He was kind enough to send it to us, and we liked it so much we threw out our South Park estimate and substituted his work instead. Thanks, Peter!


Here is a snip here:


To give you a feeling for how little CO<SUB>2</SUB> there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10<SUP>-10</SUP> of a meter or 10<SUP>-7</SUP> of a mm). A molecule like CO<SUB>2</SUB> has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10<SUP>-7</SUP> mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 10<SUP>22</SUP> molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.


More along this line in the link:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

By the way Jim Peden comes with impressive credentials.


Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
my emphasis

:D

[DoctorDoom]

Sham, SST linked to an excellent, well-researched article, and your only "rebuttal" is that you disagree with it. Your qualifications for calling him wrong are? Quit while your credibility is still zero. It's heading into negative numbers.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The guy is so clueless in what he is reading.The math in the link is simple to follow and understand.

He still fails to realize just how little our CO2 yearly emission rate is.Compared to the rest of nature.

Some people have a hard time understanding simple stuff.
Sam also has great difficulty in comprehending the simple concepts clearly and eloquently presented by Dr. Thomas Sowell, so it's highly likely that he has a reading comprehension problem.

Or maybe he has been so brainwashed all of his life by liberal Big Lie Propaganda that when he has to confront the truth as presented by Dr. Sowell and real, non-political scientists, he finds it incomprehensible.

[MaximumSam]

Now a new revision has taken place.In the link (provided below) the revised section was written by a consulting engineer.It was witten for his 15 year old son.To better able to comprehend and understand what it is about.Maybe a few morons now have a better chance to understand the obvious.

LOL. So the guy admits he was wrong, and posts a new article with completely different results. Yet, this is somehow proof that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, for the article to have relevance, it needs to address how much heat is actually captured. He only gives a fraction, but doesn't give an actual number for what that fraction represents. Saying I'll give you half off a car tells you nothing if you don't know how much the car costs. Please add this in, then I'll address the article again.

[sunsettommy]

Maximum Sam writes this incorrect observation:

LOL. So the guy admits he was wrong, and posts a new article with completely different results. Yet, this is somehow proof that I don't know what I'm talking about.


You still failed to understand what he is talking about.It figures since it is becoming a habit for you.The changes are actually quite small.But you wouldn't know what they are.Because you think in (hint) 2 dimensions.While Peter J. Morgan thinks in (hint) 3 dimensions.

:noggin:


Note: In our original draft, we talked a bit about relative spacing geometry, to give the reader a feel for the distance between molecules in the atmosphere. We talked in (very crude) terms about tacking bottle caps up on a barn wall, and gave some spacing examples in 2 dimensions for a rough feel of the subject. One of our readers, Peter J. Morgan - a consulting engineer from New Zealand - undertook to re-write our simple ( and not technically accurate ) description for his 15 year old son. He was kind enough to send it to us, and we liked it so much we threw out our South Park estimate and substituted his work instead. Thanks, Peter!
my emphasis

If you really can read between the two versions you will notice that the differences are small.But since you are such a poor reader you will not divine what the differences are.:smirky:

I even doubt you know what the main difference is.:question:

Anyway, for the article to have relevance, it needs to address how much heat is actually captured. He only gives a fraction, but doesn't give an actual number for what that fraction represents. Saying I'll give you half off a car tells you nothing if you don't know how much the car costs. Please add this in, then I'll address the article again.

He gave you the relevant numbers.Once again for the reading impaired:


"Now, to finish this problem, we need to estimate a "capture cross section" - the probability that a particular CO2 molecule mixed in with everything else in the air will ever encounter one of the highly specific IR photons in the absorption spectrum. We'll assume the mixing is homogeneous, and set the geometry for capture based on the known percentage of CO2 in the air, which is 380 PPM. So based on this highly simplified picture, how much heat can our trace amounts of CO2 actually absorb? The math is simple: 8% ( or .08 ) x 380 PPM ( .000380 ) = .0000304, or about thirty millionths of the radiated heat.


Bear in mind, that's the maximum permissible absorption by all of the CO2 presently in our atmosphere. Man's percentage contribution is currently at only about 3% of that. Now, let's see what we can blame humans for, what the "man-made" contribution ( 3% of the total ) is. Again, multiply .0000304 x .03 = .000000912 ........."


Hint:The capture of outgoing IR by CO2 of the total outgoing IR is minimal.The rest of it is obvious.

Since you are brain impaired.The obvious rest of it will elude you.

This is you:

:question: :confused: :ooo: :flame:

It is funny that you like so many awstruck AGWer's get stuck in this part of the Editorial.That NO counterpoint is ever made against the main points in the Editorial.

That was why he had deleted that section.To get people to get back on the main points of the Editorial.That CO2 is not only a trace gas.It absorbs only a tiny amount of OUTGOING IR too.That mankinds emissions (though tiny) of CO2 adds negligible increase to the worlds temperature (which has not been increasing since 2001).

It exposes what is so wrong with AGW believers thinking.Snared by an accidential flypaper.:rotflmbo:

What about Co2 changes following temperature changes? That was discussed.You were silent on it.

What about the Dansgaard-Oeschger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event) cycles? That was discussed.You were silent on it.

What about those environmentalist lies? That was discussed.You were silent on it.

What about the "hockey stick" fraud? That was discussed.You were silent on it.

On and on that you would not discuss because you idiotically got stuck on a tiny section of the editorial.

:thumb:

Now if had bothered to read the entire EDITORIAL from the start.You would have come across this section:


What follows is a tale gleaned from many sources over what turned out to be an unreasonably long period of time. We'll be first examining a "worst case" scenario, using very simple math at first, in order to arrive in a ballpark that will tell us if we need to go further and pull out long strings of complicated equations, which we don't want to have to resort to because we're writing for the average layman who is not a rocket scientist. This is a valid scientific method despite its apparent simplicity, for if one can first determine that a person does not own a motorcycle, then you don't have to spend a lot of time calculating how likely he is to crash while riding it. Reducing it to the simplest of terms for the average person to understand was a daunting task. Below is an example of what "real" Climate Scientists have to deal with on a daily basis. Is it any wonder that the most popular majors in college are liberal arts?

my emphasis

The Editorial was generally written for the layman with little or no science background.Meaning you apparently.Since you still do not understand even the simplest explanations.

I understood the first time I read it.

:biggrin:

[sunsettommy]

Sham, SST linked to an excellent, well-researched article, and your only "rebuttal" is that you disagree with it. Your qualifications for calling him wrong are? Quit while your credibility is still zero. It's heading into negative numbers.

The man never tries to post his own counter to what Jim Peden writes.

He keeps asking me to do the work.

It is so dumb!

[sunsettommy]

Minimum Sam writes from post # 20:


I would disagree that mankind's contributions are small. One graph had CO2 levels rising 20 percent since 1958. That is not a small percentage. It is also consistent with the amount of CO2 that man releases into the atmosphere.


Sunsettommy from post # 24:

"Gosh even after I already stated that it is around 2.5% of the yearly total.You still state it is not a small contribution.Sorry Sammy but that is simply a stupid thing to say."

Sam writes:

Again, it is mostly irrelevant the percentage of CO2 emitted by people. What is relevant is how much CO2 that is emitted that is not absorbed from the atmosphere. Human emissions have driven up the percentage in the atmosphere by a significant amount.

My reply:

"Still determined how stupidly ignorant you are.I will put you on the spot.

YOU tell us how many PPM per year we are adding to the atmosphere and how much increase per year is from the planet itself.

I have already given you the answer.So has Jim Peden.So has the IPCC.I posted them all in the open in this thread.

Now we will see if you have the brains to realize what a fool you are making of yourself here."

Sam continues with this stupidity:


I'm thinking all of the increase is due to man.


He was replying to this part:

"YOU tell us how many PPM per year we are adding to the atmosphere and how much increase per year is from the planet itself. "

My reply:

"It is stupidy wrong.The IPCC differs from you.

But of course you can not prove it anyway,Hence your proofless line.

Did I state that you are cluelessly making a fool of yourself?"

Sam continues his pain:

Well, then prove it wrong. It should be easy.

He was replying to this:

"It is stupidy wrong.The IPCC differs from you."

That post # 43 on page 3.


I already proved it way back on page 2 and post # 27:


"Surface Ocean contains about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2

Intermediate and deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of CO2

In contrast to the atmosphere containing about 750 GT of CO2

Vegetation,Soils and Detritus contains about 2,200 GT of CO2

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT C."

Mankind emits about 8.5 GT of CO2 per year.

The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years."

The IPCC backs it up,

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm)



You are a terrible reader as usual..

Meanwhile when will you answer this question? From post # 38:

"Still determined how stupidly ignorant you are.I will put you on the spot.

YOU tell us how many PPM per year we are adding to the atmosphere and how much increase per year is from the planet itself.

I have already given you the answer.So has Jim Peden.So has the IPCC.I posted them all in the open in this thread.

Now we will see if you have the brains to realize what a fool you are making of yourself here."


I am still waiting sammy........................
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[DoctorDoom]

Sammy won't respond right away. He has to contact the Church of Gorebull Warming's equivalent of the Watchtower for what to say next.

[MaximumSam]

You still failed to understand what he is talking about.It figures since it is becoming a habit for you.The changes are actually quite small.But you wouldn't know what they are.Because you think in (hint) 2 dimensions.While Peter J. Morgan thinks in (hint) 3 dimensions.

Perhaps I do fail to understand. However, when one article says this:

Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

And the other says this:

Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
one-millionth of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that .000001 and .002 are two very different numbers. Further, without a base point - how much energy is actually being released through infrared radiation - they are just two numbers with little meaning. This is why I asked for clarification.

It is funny that you like so many awstruck AGWer's get stuck in this part of the Editorial.That NO counterpoint is ever made against the main points in the Editorial.

I'm making a pretty strong counterpoint right now, but you seem oblivious to it. Another counterpoint is that he doesn't seem to think it is necessary to actually go in the lab and figure out if his predictions match up with reality.

What about Co2 changes following temperature changes?

I think that makes sense. The temperature goes up, and many think this causes the ocean to release hold less CO2, and thus more goes into the atmosphere. That makes sense to me. The more interesting aspect is what happens once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, and whether that affects the global temperature and how. With the close relationship between the two, it certainly is plausible that it does affect the temperature.

The Editorial was generally written for the layman with little or no science background.Meaning you apparently.Since you still do not understand even the simplest explanations.


I understood the first time I read it.

Then why are you having such a tough time answering my questions about it?

YOU tell us how many PPM per year we are adding to the atmosphere and how much increase per year is from the planet itself.

I guess I am going to have to spell this out for you, since you don't understand it. Your own link explains it in detail, but apparently you don't read the articles you link to.

The land, atmosphere, and ocean hold and exchange a huge amount of carbon dioxide. No one is disputing this. compared to this huge number, man only emits a small fraction of the carbon that is found in the whole system.

However, the carbon that man emits is carbon that has been stored in geologic reserves (coal, oil, etc.) It is a new source of carbon that is now going into the system, and now must be accounted for in the system. It becomes part of the cycle. Because it obeys the laws of thermodynamics, it doesn't simply disappear, but must go somewhere. Some of it goes into the ocean, some in the land, and much of it stays in the atmosphere.

Compare it to a diet. Let's assume you eat 2000 calories a day, and you weigh about 200 pounds. Your weight is constant - it doesn't fluctuate. You consume and burn about the same number of calories every day. Now, let's say you get a craving for Mountain Dew, and you consume a can of Dew every day, adding about 200 calories per day to your diet. This is only a 10% increase in calories, but since you aren't burning these new calories, you gain weight.

Similarly, if you add carbon dioxide to a system, it doesn't simply disappear - it has to go somewhere. The carbon dioxide we emit is going into the atmosphere. We know this because the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and there has been no other increases in CO2 emission besides our own.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Sammy won't respond right away. He has to contact the Church of Gorebull Warming's equivalent of the Watchtower for what to say next.
Yeah! Devotees of the cult of Gorbull Warming are mindless robots who parrot the Big Lie Propaganda of the politically-motivated trash scientists who are totally dependent on the UN for their livelihood.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The questions that I asked earlier still remain unanswered:

Why did we experience about 35 years of global cooling between 1945 and 1980 while there were huge increases in the amount human-produced CO2?

Why did we have no measurable change in global temperatures between 1998 and 2006 while there were still huge increases in the amount human-produced CO2?

Why did global temperatures drop by at least 0.6oC (about 1.0oF) (wiping out more than100 years of warming) between January 2007 and January 2008 while there were still huge increases in the amount human-produced CO2?

[MaximumSam]

Why did we experience about 35 years of global cooling between 1945 and 1980 while there was a huge increase in the amount human-produced CO<SUB>2</SUB>?

Why did we have no measurable change in global temperatures between 1998 and 2006 while there were still huge increases in the amount human-produced CO<SUB>2</SUB>?

Why did global temperatures drop by at least 0.6<SUP>o</SUP>C (about 1.0<SUP>o</SUP>F) (wiping out more than100 years of warming) between January 2007 and January 2008 while there were still huge increases in the amount human-produced CO<SUB>2</SUB>?

Good questions, although it is difficult to say with any certainty. It seems plausible to me that temperatures don't rise and fall in perfect relation to anything, that they rise and fall quickly to get into a period of homeostasis, then stay in that range for a period of time, until conditions are such that a new temperature level is attained.

[sunsettommy]

Yawn,

You were given the numbers to do your own calculations.All that was left was the volume of the earths atmosphere to use.That would be easy to find.It will never happen because you are B.Sing us with your mock perfection whining over fractional math.Maths that J.Peden all along in a number of places in the Editorial said was approximate.

You have not once tried anything on your own.Not a single time have you actually made any postings with detailed rebuttal of the maths in the link.Just a bunch of "he is wrong" crap.

You are simply too slow and too lazy to figure it out.I think you are trying hard to be relevant when all you did is have a few of us think you are a troll.

The flypaper effect is still working even with the new 3 dimension revision.You continue to whine over the older version that has been replaced.

Meaning you are actually just full of hot air.

[sunsettommy]

Good questions, although it is difficult to say with any certainty. It seems plausible to me that temperatures don't rise and fall in perfect relation to anything, that they rise and fall quickly to get into a period of homeostasis, then stay in that range for a period of time, until conditions are such that a new temperature level is attained.

LOL,

That is a beautiful non answer.

So expected from you.

:thumb:

[MaximumSam]

Yawn,

You were given the numbers to do your own calculations.All that was left was the volume of the earths atmosphere to use.That would be easy to find.It will never happen because you are B.Sing us with your mock perfection whining over fractional math.Maths that J.Peden all along in a number of places in the Editorial said was approximate.

You have not once tried anything on your own.Not a single time have you actually made any postings with detailed rebuttal of the maths in the link.Just a bunch of "he is wrong" crap.

You are simply too slow and too lazy to figure it out.I think you are trying hard to be relevant when all you did is have a few of us think you are a troll.

The flypaper effect is still working even with the new 3 dimension revision.You continue to whine over the older version that has been replaced.

Meaning you are actually just full of hot air.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You need the total amount of IR radiated from the earth. The problem with basing all your information on one source is that you can't address any problems with the source, and since I'm not going to email the author and ask him, and you don't know, we might as well quit talking about that worthless article.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Good questions, although it is difficult to say with any certainty. It seems plausible to me that temperatures don't rise and fall in perfect relation to anything, that they rise and fall quickly to get into a period of homeostasis, then stay in that range for a period of time, until conditions are such that a new temperature level is attained.
As we have shown, there is a perfect correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. When solar activity increases, global temperatures also increase. When solar activity decreases, global temperatures also decrease.

Well, duh! There's the answer to those questions - the Sun causes global warming; the Sun causes global cooling.

Consequently, global warming and cooling are natural occurrences, so there is absolutely nothing that we humans can do to stop either of them.

Many atmospheric scientists have observed that solar activity is now declining - i.e., the Sun is cooling - and it's highly likely that we are entering a period of global cooling. That makes sense. The Earth warmed from about 1905 to about 1945; cooled from about 1945 to about 1980; warmed from 1980 to present. Consequently, it appears that the Earth is in 35-40-year cycles of warming and cooling, meaning that we are near the end of a warming cycle and are about to enter another cooling cycle.

As we have learned from history, people of the world have prospered during warming periods and have suffered during cooling periods. During the Medieval Warm Period from the 9th Century to the 14th Century, people of the world prospered. During the Little Ice Age from the 14th Century to the 19th Century, people of the world suffered. During the current warming period that will probably last until the 24th Century, the people of the world are prospering and will likely continue to do so as long as we ignore global warming hoaxers like AlGore.

Note: there is no contradiction between the previous 2 paragraphs. The 35-40-year warming and cooling cycles are minor cycles contained within the 500-year major warming and cooling cycles. Notably, both the major and minor cycles were/are caused by variations in solar activity.

[DoctorDoom]

... we might as well quit talking about that worthless article.Jim Peden:

Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Sam the Sham:

Nondescript lawyer and Web troll with no specific scientific training.


Who has the greater credibility? Let me think ...... er ...... umm ...... hold on now ...... ahhh ...... golly, this is a tough one ......

Sammy, quit while you're merely behind. Jeez! :rolleyes:

[MaximumSam]

As we have shown, there is a perfect correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. When solar activity increases, global temperatures also increase. When solar activity decreases, global temperatures also decrease.

Well, duh! There's the answer to those questions - the Sun causes global warming; the Sun causes global cooling.

Consequently, global warming and cooling are natural occurrences, so there is absolutely nothing that we humans can do to stop either of them.

Many atmospheric scientists have observed that solar activity is now declining - i.e., the Sun is cooling - and it's highly likely that we are entering a period of global cooling. That makes sense. The Earth warmed from about 1905 to about 1945; cooled from about 1945 to about 1980; warmed from 1980 to present. Consequently, it appears that the Earth is in 35-40-year cycles of warming and cooling, meaning that we are near the end of a warming cycle and are about to enter another cooling cycle.

As we have learned from history, people of the world have prospered during warming periods and have suffered during cooling periods. During the Medieval Warm Period from the 9th Century to the 14th Century, people of the world prospered. During the Little Ice Age from the 14th Century to the 19th Century, people of the world suffered. During the current warming period that will probably last until the 24th Century, the people of the world are prospering and will likely continue to do so as long as we ignore global warming hoaxers like AlGore.

Note: there is no contradiction between the previous 2 paragraphs. The 35-40-year warming and cooling cycles are minor cycles contained within the 500-year major warming and cooling cycles. Notably, both the major and minor cycles were/are caused by variations in solar activity.

It is entirely possible that the sun causes the warming and cooling. However, the fact remains that CO2 is increasing, the temperature is increasing, and there is good evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, the possibility that man is causing the warming is very strong.

[MaximumSam]

Jim Peden:

Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Sam the Sham:

Nondescript lawyer and Web troll with no specific scientific training.


Who has the greater credibility? Let me think ...... er ...... umm ...... hold on now ...... ahhh ...... golly, this is a tough one ......

Sammy, quit while you're merely behind. Jeez! :rolleyes:

Eh, I'm not going to bother to post the credentials of the hundreds of scientists who believe that global warming is an issue.

[sunsettommy]

Lazy Sam:


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You need the total amount of IR radiated from the earth. The problem with basing all your information on one source is that you can't address any problems with the source, and since I'm not going to email the author and ask him, and you don't know, we might as well quit talking about that worthless article.


You are too lazy.

It is so easy to find all the information you want.Since you are the creature who is objecting to the math.It is you who has to make the case that he is wrong.It is Jim Peden's math you are disputing.Not mine since I didn't post any.

Therefore it HIS math you dispute.I do not have to do anything to support it since it is already written by Jim Peden.I simply posted it.

See why you are being a fool in your replies?

The article was never debunked by you at all.You have not even discussed 95% of the Editorial.Just that one small area that makes you look dumb.Your slamming the entire Editorial without a single detailed rebuttal shows that you are a simpleminded troll.

You have yet to demonstrate that YOU can actually show in detail that he is wrong.

I really wish you would pony up.Or otherwise just go away.I hate it when peons like you make a categorical slam against a long editorial that has not once provided any detailed rational criticism against it.

All you offered against it is....... He is wrong.

Again why are you trying so hard to make a fool of yourself?

I already know the answer to how much estimated IR TOTAL is radiated.That is why I know you are making a fool of yourself.CO2 absorbs a tiny amount of OUTGOING IR.Peden's simple maths is credible.You never proved that it is not because you never posted in detail what is wrong.Just that ... he is wrong stupidity.

You are a worthless debater.A troll because you do not make an actual detailed counterpoint.

[Timberwolf]

Sam, you're so far out of your league...it's laughable.

Humanity contributes 1 molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every 5 years. Not a real large contribution.

Besides, CO2 is a NUTRIENT for green plants without which we would DIE. So, please pull yer head outta the environazi's nether regions...all you're getting is a crappy hairdo and ring around the collar.

[sunsettommy]

Eh, I'm not going to bother to post the credentials of the hundreds of scientists who believe that global warming is an issue.

Translation:

I am not goint to admit that I am a cave troll as compared to a highly regarded atmosphere scientist who has a number of awards to his name.

You might actually be surprised that Sunsettommy,DoctorDoom and N. Texian among others accept that there has been a small warming trend since the 1850's.

It is the stupid infatuation of a trace greenhouse gas being blamed for most of it.That we dispute.

[sunsettommy]

Sam, you're so far out of your league...it's laughable.

Humanity contributes 1 molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every 5 years. Not a real large contribution.

Besides, CO2 is a NUTRIENT for green plants without which we would DIE. So, please pull yer head outta the environazi's nether regions...all you're getting is a crappy hairdo and ring around the collar.

Be careful.He will complain that you did not give him all the numbers.And oh please do all the work tabulating it for him.

He does not know that at this point in earths history.We are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.About 95% of the time it was over 1000 ppm.

He is so ignorant.

[sunsettommy]

Minimal Sam:


It is entirely possible that the sun causes the warming and cooling. However, the fact remains that CO2 is increasing, the temperature is increasing, and there is good evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, the possibility that man is causing the warming is very strong.


Another splendid non answer.

There has been periods of cooling.The CO2 went up anyway.No warming trend since 2001.CO2 is going up anyway.

NT brought this up just a few postings ago.It apparently flew right over your head.

The last 3 solar minimums.There was a strong cooling trend.The last 3 maximums.A warming trend.

How old are you anyway?

[DoctorDoom]

He does not know that at this point in earths history.We are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.About 95% of the time it was over 1000 ppm.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Science/AncientCO2.png

And plants like it higher:

Carbon Dioxide Enhancement

The introduction of supplementary carbon dioxide into the greenhouse has been found to significantly increase the yields of greenhouse tomatoes and other vegetables. Supplementary carbon dioxide is most effective on days when the greenhouse has been shut up for several days with no ventilation. Maximum results can be achieved by injecting 1000-1500 ppm CO2 into the greenhouse using propane burners or other CO2 generators.Greenhouse Vegetable Production (http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/circ556.html)

[MaximumSam]

Lazy Sam:



You are too lazy.

It is so easy to find all the information you want.Since you are the creature who is objecting to the math.It is you who has to make the case that he is wrong.It is Jim Peden's math you are disputing.Not mine since I didn't post any.

Therefore it HIS math you dispute.I do not have to do anything to support it since it is already written by Jim Peden.I simply posted it.

See why you are being a fool in your replies?

The article was never debunked by you at all.You have not even discussed 95% of the Editorial.Just that one small area that makes you look dumb.Your slamming the entire Editorial without a single detailed rebuttal shows that you are a simpleminded troll.

You have yet to demonstrate that YOU can actually show in detail that he is wrong.

I really wish you would pony up.Or otherwise just go away.I hate it when peons like you make a categorical slam against a long editorial that has not once provided any detailed rational criticism against it.

All you offered against it is....... He is wrong.

Again why are you trying so hard to make a fool of yourself?

I already know the answer to how much estimated IR TOTAL is radiated.That is why I know you are making a fool of yourself.CO2 absorbs a tiny amount of OUTGOING IR.Peden's simple maths is credible.You never proved that it is not because you never posted in detail what is wrong.Just that ... he is wrong stupidity.

You are a worthless debater.A troll because you do not make an actual detailed counterpoint.

Once again, you can't even add any basic information other than what is in that bogus article. Also, you throw out a bunch of lame insults. The math makes no sense. I don't need to present some new mathematical scheme to calculate how much energy is absorbed by CO2 to show that his calculations make no sense. You still haven't addressed the fact that there are two wildly different numbers that he's arrived at. The article is worthless.

[MaximumSam]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Science/AncientCO2.png


And plants like it higher:

Greenhouse Vegetable Production (http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/circ556.html)

Plants definitely like more CO2. However, one issue is that we are defiitely interfering with the natural response of the ecosystem to more carbon, re: more trees and plants grow.

[RogerFGay]

DoctorDoom;

What's the source of the graph? I'd like to post a link to it in another forum - where I cannot post the image.

[sunsettommy]

Plants definitely like more CO2. However, one issue is that we are defiitely interfering with the natural response of the ecosystem to more carbon, re: more trees and plants grow.

DoctorDoom backed me up.

:biggrin:

It is obvious that you just got nailed here.The very fact that for most of history CO2 levels were far higher and the planet never had a run away warming trend.The very claim being offered by your eco-god Al and that idiot James Hansen.With far less CO2 today.

Your claim of interference was not supported at all.Just the usual factless lines you write.

[sunsettommy]

Sam:


Once again, you can't even add any basic information other than what is in that bogus article. Also, you throw out a bunch of lame insults. The math makes no sense. I don't need to present some new mathematical scheme to calculate how much energy is absorbed by CO2 to show that his calculations make no sense. You still haven't addressed the fact that there are two wildly different numbers that he's arrived at. The article is worthless.


You are freaking unbelievable!

The unus to disprove the math falls up on YOU!

The two different numbers claim is unbelievably stupid.Because he deleted the first number when he posted a better revision with a new number.

Since you never bothered to go beyond your own words: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that .000001 and .002 are two very different numbers.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to drop the older version and do the math on the newer version.

I did indeed explain why he had two different numbers.You have long proven to be a terrible reader with severe memory problems.

The tally,

No mathematical refutation.

No systematic counterpoint of the entire Editorial at all.

No discussion on the many different topics section of the editorial.

Yet you call it all bogus.With ZERO factual rebuttals to be read from you.Just unconvincing words such as "Bogus", "He is wrong", "The article is worthless" and other non refuting comments.

Not a pretty picture.

You have not at all posted a single detailed refutation of any part of the said Editorial.

You are just all wind and piss.

[sunsettommy]

It is so easy to find all the information you want.Since you are the creature who is objecting to the math.It is you who has to make the case that he is wrong.It is Jim Peden's math you are disputing.Not mine since I didn't post any.

Therefore it HIS math you dispute.I do not have to do anything to support it since it is already written by Jim Peden.I simply posted it.

See why you are being a fool in your replies?



Why not drop your stupid act with your two different numbers crap and just post a factual mathematical refutation of the CURRENT numbers and more?

So far you have not made any refutations of them.

I know it will not happen because you are a lazy trolling beast.

[RogerFGay]

Found a good one (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html).

[sunsettommy]

Found a good one (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html).

From the link:

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were theonly geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming. red bolding my emphasis

:rotflmb