There actually is global warming caused by the sun. It's called natural global warming. Again you can't say that global warming doesn't exist because the sun can cause global warming.
It is now known that the hacked emails were taken out of context. There was no data manipulation. Just a media beat up aimed at misleading the Copenhagen climate summit. The same scientific body that campaigned against cigarettes causing cancer, also campaigned against the hole in the ozone layer and yes you guessed it has opposed global warming and climate change. Exxon has donated $25 million to climate denier groups since 1998.
Find out who stole those emails and why, then we'll finally start getting to the honest truth of this overblown and basically worthless story about the disease of denialism and its goalpost moving beliefs. In the meantime, try making helpful videos on the lies of anti-smoking proponents and the awesome health benefits of smoking 12 packs of cigarettes a day. Shouldn't be too hard.
@frededison Sounds to me that you have read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. In that book they trace a group of scientists that make a living out of falsifying science to deny the link between smoking and cancer, the hole in the ozone layer and clobal climate change. I do not know how those seudo-scientists can look themselves in the eye when shaving each day.
Oh, FFS you neo-cons are a sad paranoid bunch. You have been conned by the same lobbyists that tried to tell us that the ozone hole didnt exist, that tobacco smoke was harmless and that acid rain wasnt a problem - google "Merchants of doubt" for the full monty ... but u won't.
This video is a massive FAIL. U must be so embarrassed in your foil hat. NO major internation science institutes support your claim. ZIPPO, NIL. 3 independent investigations revealed no conspiracy. You are suckers.
@troubletr1 The hacked emails are most likely real, however the neo-conservative spin given to them was finely crafted & absolute rubbish. There is no conspiracy, except by the denialists. There are plenty of good commentators that will provide the correct reading - try Greenman3610 and Potholer54 for a rational perspective.
Wow, you have no idea how global warming works. What do you think global warming is? A giant conspiracy made by the government like 9-11 and the moon landing? You guys would make me laugh if the entire planet was at stake...
I've known about this story for a long time but it just shows that the Republicans have been right this whole time that global warming does not exist what so ever. The only problem is that people still believe in it for some reason?
I'm not climatologist, so I don't want to comment on whether global warming is real or not. But I'm smart enough to realize that people like Al Gore are capitalizing on the theory of global warming and ramming it up our ***es. What's going on in America today is truly disturbing. How we haven't all imploded into ourselves from black holes where our reasoning centers should be is beyond me. XD
Jesse Jackson race baiting? The same man that marched with Martin Luther King for equality and peace & not to mention is a reverend. But you say nothing about teabaggers who are waiving racist signs calling congress dems the N word or F word and spitting on them? Also are saying to carry your guns and inciting violence against Dems offices all over the U.S. You Sir are a douchebag Global warming is fact based & if you don't understand that then you don't understand how the world works; idiot.
@jaymeez You compare spitting & some words to the Violence & hate speech that the Left Econuts have done? There have been constant Death threats against most of the political figures on the right for years. TeaParty people have been beaten, FINGER BIT OFF. All left rallies incite violence, burning, smash windows, threaten people. Why do you think they wear masks like in Pittsburgh & Copenhagen?
@Texmurphy51 death threats from the left, the left incites violence, burning/window smashing? Can you give specific examples that the left has done these things since you conveniently left them out. This all sounds like the teabaggers & the right as a whole & you are just turning things on their head and blaming the left for things the right has done. You are a lier & the true definition of a douchebag.
@Texmurphy51 Oh btw the guy who got his finger bit off isn't a victim he attacked the guy & punched him twice in the face before he was retaliated on (search finger bit off & watch the interview) also it is only claimed the guy that did the biting is from the left but he has never been caught. It is all hearsay & goes to show you believe hearsay and not facts. Global Warning based on facts; guy who got finger bit off and acts like a victim is @ fault.... your a sad sad person with a pea brain
@jaymeez The guy bitten was 65yrs old, biter was twice his size. Look at EVER protest or ralley of the left. It has ended in violence. The DC Teaparty was totally peaceful. No burning cars, no clash with police, no garbage left behind. I come from the 60s and I know what its all about. Weather Underground, Marxist Radicals, buts fucking heads, burn shit, social change through subverting the system. I was around it
@Texmurphy51 regardless of his age he attacked the other man first & got his finger bit off when his punch landed in that man's mouth (this is directly from the 65 year old's interview; didn't you watch it?) You are very general again in your accusations and are truly a Fox News watching Bitch that doesn't know how to turn on your own brain or you just choose to believe the b.s. Blindly following the racist leaders of your party. The saying "Ignorance is bliss" defines you to a T.
@jaymeez I am surpised you actually saw this story since only Fox News carries the TeaPart stories. If you actually saw it you know that the 65 year old man was attacked by the man who went out of his way to come across the street & start a fight. During the fight the old man got his finger bit off. We recently had the G8 in pittsburgh & if not for the riot troops the city would have been destroyed. These are bused in, organized, funded protestors Unlike the teaparty grass roots.
@Texmurphy51 Okay you misinformed buffoon, if you look at the response I gave you 2 weeks ago it asks if you even saw the interview yourself. If you did you would have seen the 65 year old man admit to striking the other person first & he hit him twice (the second punch being the one that landed in the victims mouth & thus his finger was biten ~direct quote from the 65 year old himself~) This shows your a blatant lier & to say the Tea party is grass roots is an absolute failure on your part.
Some people want to impose a Tax because the earth is warming due to a made up side effect of having a civilization, What is this side effect? It's Co2, It's a heavier than air gass, when it's put into the atmosphere it falls like a blanket over the earth and becomes asorbed by forrests and every other plant life. our co2 output is greatly out numberd by the absorption of co2 and co2 is greatly out numberd by other atmospheric gases Like nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere!
It seems to me that you are so vehemently against global warming not for any scientific reason, but because it would force at least minimal government intervention to offset its effects if it existed. I say this because in spite of the vast majority of scientists who believe in man-made climate change, you consistently assert that you "know it's a fraud." Even thinking skeptically, I never cast aside the opinion of a majority of experts as "fraud" just because they disagree with my views.
Yes, I have to wonder, when the anti-GW people are SO intense, closed-minded, juvenile, and use bad language, ALL-CAPS, and don't capitalize the first word.
A survey was sent to 3,146 scientists, 75 were climatologests. The consensus was overwelming for man made global warming. The problem is that the survey was Not sent to scientists know to oppose global warming. This was a hand picked group instead of a true cross section. Those opposing warming are not published & not hired by NASA or East Anglia. No scientists are being payed to find data against global warming, so what do you think the others will find??
You can literally google a number of studies which show that there is a vast majority of people who see global warming as a man-made phenomenon. There are professors and researchers who do not believe in global warming and they are represented in the study. They are free to publish materials (and do), just as the mainstream scientists are.
The difference is that the scientists who disagree with the idea that there exists man-made climate change are few in number and often not the dimwits which the vast, vast majority of global warming deniers show themselves to be
@Grn0a Dispite the Media saturation telling people Warming is real, recent Gallup pole 3/11/10 shows (48 percent) think that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, 35 percent say it not happening, While only 52 percent of Scientists say its real. Would you publish a paper that is rejected by peer review & make you ridiculed by the media as a Denier? Go to one of the "Climate Crock of the Week" videos & site one of the Scientists who publish against warming. See what happens.
Wow, because a majority of people who have no scientific background whatsoever don't think something is real, it must be a lie, right? That's why evolution and whatever science people don't like are just wrong, because science is based on a majority vote of non-scientists, isn't it?
Actually, the source you cite is a study which was sent to doctors and those whose disciplines were not in any way related to climate or geology, so it's not particularly relevant.
And what's funny is that you think scientists and researchers against global warming wouldn't publish anything, but they do. People like Engle Friis-Christensen publish articles against the idea of global warming without any damage to their academic careers.
You simply invent a conspiracy against your position because so few scientists with any knowledge in the field agree with you, which makes your view more of a religion than legitimate science.
@Grn0a I am saying scientist say they are not published in main stream papers because of peer review rejection. If you site articles from other sources in youtube videos, posters say they are not "Real" science but religion like you said. As for their career look at the shit Richard Lindzen has taken. He is rejected not by his science but every other made up scandel that can be thrown at him.
@Grn0a part 2 Any Scientist that speaks up has a target on his back. Worst is the envior groups, now you want Religion just look at them. I think the NASA emails speak even more than the others in that they admit that statistically they do Not have enough data to determine climate change but would require 50 to 75 years worth. This shows how much Warmers are pushing this based on belief rather than Facts.
Here again you've made the error of leaning towards a conspiracy theory. There are two possibilities based on what you've said of Lindzen: either his papers have been rejected by peer review for presenting flawed or disproven science (as peer review should work) or there is a conspiracy of climatologists to prevent his papers from being published. The simpler and more reasonable answer is that his science just isn't very good--unless there's solid evidence to disprove this, Occam's Razor applies
I think you exaggerate with the idea of "targeting" people: science is supposed to aggressively target poorly-supported ideas. If people are endorsing ideas they can't support, why should they be given a pass?
Herein lies the problem as I see it with your argument: you assume global warming is unscientific and create a world where the scientists involved are part of some effort to "cover up the truth," but you don't actually substantiate this.
@Grn0a Ok ... Part 1 Lindzen was an example becaue he has been attacked on a personal level. Let me ask you this... how many peer review papers have been published that go against the Global Warming model? You have acceptence of papers like Melting Himalayan glaciers, which turns out to be completely wrong. It met no scrutiny because it fit the template. The GW science is Not unscientific, thats why they parse the data & facts so carfully.
@Grn0a Part 2 Recent NASA emails say that its a crapshoot because the data sample is too small, (need 50 to 75 yrs). How long do you think you would work for James Hansen if you buck the system? He is a Warmer & only wants data to support it. Even as we see cooling & ice returning over the last few years we see quickly constructed theories & told to ignore the anomaly. Well if it was a spike in warming it sure would Not be an anomaly.
I couldn't find anything about these e-mails, so unless you can provide a link, I'm going to ignore them (given the propensity of people to make things up against global warming).
The "cooling" is a result of the sun being at the low end of a cycle that lasts for several years, so although the temperatures are cooler than the few years before, for example, they are still above average for the sun's position.
These anomalies are not given great importance because scientists understand them but don't see them as strong arguments against their theory, not because they want to cover them up.
Issues like the Himalayan glaciers were incorrect based on the rate of melting, not on the fact that they were melting.
@Grn0a Cooling is also due to water vapor on the earth, a natural process not taken into account by the models. This, the sun & return of Arctic Ice are things not predicted by the model but are now being explained. Monday morning quarterbacking to make it fit the Warming templet. If you want links I will send them Personal, this new filter will not allow me to post.
@Texmurphy51 "& return of Arctic Ice are things not predicted by the model but are now being explained"
The Arctic Ice has not returned. About the time you originally posted your comment, the Arctic was experiencing the least Ice cover for a Northern Hemisphere winter on record.
The template to which you previously referred was recent global warming after~1880, now you seem to be redefining "that template" to mean the Milankovitch cycle from 18000 yrs ago. The warming trend from 18000 years ago till 10000 yrs ago hardly seems relevant to the present. The last 10000 yrs has been relatively stable; that rise cycle has ended.Comparing this cycle with previous milankovitch cycles there is no reason to suspect that it should start to rise again.
@RasPesher If you look at the long term 100K yr cycles, and those within, we should reach the highest world temperatures then go into an ice age. World temps had higher peaks then now. The last 10K years are as stable as each other post ice age before it. There was also 12-14 times more CO2 in our atmosphere at one time but the temperatures were no higher than now. Water Vapor is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 lags behind temp, that is known.
@Texmurphy51 In the last 10K yrs there has not been any evidence to emerged that suggests we are currently going into an ice age. For all we know it could stay stable for another 10K years if we look after the environment.
@Texmurphy51 "CO2 lags behind temp, that is known" - NOT TRUE
Currently CO2 is leading temperature. Also during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)greenhouse gases led temperature. One explanation for the PETM is that a volcanic eruption released large quantities of CO2 driving temperatures up.
@RasPesher The CO2 does lag temperature, that has been accepted by the scientific community.
The idea that it is "leading temperature" is what they are trying to prove now. However, there has not been enough sampling time to show this,(admitted by Phil Jones). Since the CO2 lag is 800 years, a sample of less than 100yrs cannot show a Statistically Significant trend. This is why all the number fudging.
We are told volcanoes dont warm because they create particulates as well as CO2. Net cooling
The explanation is not important, the fact is that the PETM is an example of Greenhouse gases leading Temperature. FACT!
Tex said, "Since the CO2 lag is 800 years..."
You're suffering from dysnumerica again. When the CO2 level in the atmosphere starts to rise at a faster rate in about 1960 and the temperature reacts by increasing at a faster rate in about 1970; that is a ten year lead NOT a 800 year lag.
@Texmurphy51 "Since the CO2 lag is 800 years, a sample of less than 100yrs cannot show a Statistically Significant trend" - Incorrect
Statistically significant just means that you have a 95% confidence that what is observed represents a trend rather than noise. The trend is in a single quantity; not two different quantities. Referring to lag means that you are befuddled.
@Texmurphy51 "What exactly are you 95% confident in" - What are you talking about????
1) We were talking about what Phil Jones had said (remember your bungled quote).
2) I simply defined what "statistically significant" means (a term that you used although without understanding).
3) Your claim that we need to take "CO2 lag" into account when measuring temperature is rediculous. Personally I use a thermometer to measure temperature. You should try it some time, you'd be less confused.
@Texmurphy51 "YOU assume Climate requires a 5% figure"
You alleged that Phil Jones said "not statistically significant" but he actually said, "not significant at the 95% significance level". I was not assuming anything other than interpreting what you said. For your statement not to be a lie, you must have assumed that "not significant at the 95% significance level" is equivalent to "not statistically significant."
@Texmurphy51 "DTR widen by a full 1°C during those three days"
The DTR from the weather forcast for the next 6 days in Sydney is 7°,9°,8°,8°,6° & 6°C. The natural range being 3°C. 1°C is well below the noise level. Unless further analysis can be done to reduce this noise, 1°C is not statistically significant.
btw further analysis has been done on the post 1995 Global temperatures. Phil Jones was wrong, post 1995 there has been statistically significant global warming. Reason "noise" aint noise!
Yes if you can determine the cause of the "noise" then the noise is not truely noise. If the noise is caused by the la nina/el nino cycle then that can be factored in and eliminated, so too for the solar cycle etc.
@RasPesher sez "1°C is not statistically significant."
Well the funny thing was that the Warmers claimed that it WAS a factor, because they thought it was proof of Global Warming. The Travis team seemed to think it was a Significant change & I think they know more than YOU do.
Temp has change .7C/100yrs, well below the nature range of the past. This makes .7C no more signicant than the 1C.
You see the logic works both ways.
Here is the question, How much warming proves that its man made?
@Texmurphy51 I fully understand that the contrails show that changes in the atmosphere affect temperatures. However your attemp to say that 50 years of data collected from 80% of the globe is statistically insignificant yet three days of data collected only from America is, is plain rediculous. You apply a totally different standard whenever it suits you. You seem to think that statistical significance is an opinion. It is not. It is derived from empirical data.
@Texmurphy51 You Asked, "How much warming proves that its man made?"
This question demonstrates that you have no idea what you've been talking about for the last month or so. The temperature does not prove what changed it. By measuring the electromagnetic energy spectrum radiated from the Earth we can deduce that the reduction is due to CO2 and methane. Since more energy is being retained we know that the Earth is heating up. The rise in measured temps is conformation of what we already know.
@Texmurphy51 "water vapor that is the major controling factor. CO2 is along for the ride" - WRONG
It is true that water vapour has a large effect in temporal terms but its effect is only short term. If I boiled water in a zillion kettles around the globe thus increasing the moisture in the atmosphere after a few weeks the increase will have found its way back to Earth in the form of snow or rain. The CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere, stays there for a hundred years or more.
The increase in CO2 is more permanent. Even though its effect is small in absolute terms, the temperature increase so caused will in turn raise the moisture content in the atmosphere thus further raising the temperature. In this way CO2 controls H2O levels in the atmosphere. Extra CO2 leads to a more permanent increase in H2O vapor in the atmosphere. Hence CO2 CONTROLS H2O.
@Texmurphy51 "Ha Ha what a proof.Clouds are ever present, look at any satelite photo. It is a self regulating system.More sunlight creates more clouds, more clouds reflect sunlight,More moisture creates snow, snow reflects sunlight.Reflected sunlight lowers temp."
Good point you've just RULED WATER VAPOUR OUT as the "major controlling factor" of the recent temperature rise; negating your position.
@Texmurphy51 "Your assuming that MAN put all the xtra CO2 there, not proven"
So far we've looked at all your alternate possibilities except perhaps space aliens. Do you really think that space aliens put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere?
Let's face it we've been able to eliminate all the alternate sources. We've looked at the isotope evidence etc. And we know how much Carbon is being burnt.
The EVIDENCE IS OVER WHELMING, It's not an assumption.
@Texmurphy51 CO2 - "Why did we have 14 times what is there now in the past with no mankind?
Over the last 500 million years for which we have records we have primarily seen the CO2 level reduce. The atmospheric level of CO2 has oscillated but at the expense of the oceanic CO2 level. So CO2 has been disappearing not coming, well that was until the industrial revolution. Since then it has been building up in BOTH the atmosphere and the ocean. The recent build up is DUE TO BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
@Texmurphy51 "Where did the xtra CO2 come from before man existed?"
I thought we had discussed this adnausium. Volcanic activity initially put the CO2 into the atmosphere. As the Earth is cooling over time volcanic activity has fallen. Less and less CO2 had been going into the atmosphere and the CO2 level had been falling. Well that was until the industrial revolution. Interestingly the build up of CO2 since the Industrial revolution MATCHES THE SALES RECORDS OF FOSSIL FUELS.
@RasPesher Your Volcano theory is interesting but it is just that. You have to show massive activity during these specific times in history & explain where the CO2 went after that, plus why didnt the earth go into a heating phase with 14X more CO2 than now. Why didnt CO2 drive the climate then as you claim it does now?
The CO2 increase only matches FF sales for a short period of time. History shows EVERY warming phase has the same rise in CO2 as now. Look at the graphs.
@Texmurphy51 "Why didnt CO2 drive the climate then as you claim it does now?"
Rather than use my volcano theory, I'll use yours, "volcanos don't warm because they create particulates as well as CO2. Net cooling" So according to you the Earth would not have gone into a cooling phase back when CO2 levels were much higher than they are now because the extra CO2 would have been balanced by particulates. I suspect that the volcanos may have also released albedo gases plus the sun output was lower.
@Texmurphy51 "History shows EVERY warming phase has the same rise in CO2 as now. Look at the graphs"
WRONG again. I looked at the graphs produced from the ice core data and found that the CO2 level is much much higher now than any of the recent ice age/interglacial cycles from those records. You must have been looking at the graph upside down to think that. Just to clarfify 290 ppm is much much less than 390 ppm.
@RasPesher Look back further. You will see that each interglacial period has variation in temp & CO2 going up and down but each temp/CO2 peak is higher than the next, then leads to an Ice Age. It happens every time.
That is what Warmers do is to narrow the view to just recent history. When you look at the big picture you will see that much higher CO2 levels have never lead to warming. The reasoning that the sun was less bright is bogus because a few percent cant explain no warming.
@Texmurphy51 "When you look at the big picture you will see that much higher CO2 levels have never lead to warming" - FALSE again
The higher levels of CO2 in the past were at a time when global temperatures were 14 deg F higher than they are today. 14 deg F is a lot of warming. We are currently worried about a few degrees of warming.
Actually, there is global warming caused by the sun, it's called natural global warming. So don't say that global warming doesn't exist, it can come from the sun.
@patsrule213 In 2010 the Sun went through a solar minimum. If temperature is primarily driven by the sun, the global average temperature for that year should have been at a corresponding minimum, but it wasn't. 2010 was a record or near record year.
The last 300 consecutive months have all been above the former average temperature determined from the last century. Yes, we have experienced global warming but it is not caused by a change in the output of the Sun.
@Texmurphy51 "That is what Warmers do is to narrow the view to just recent history"
Sorry but I was responding to your comment. Trouble is there was no time in history that makes your claim correct. Furthermore going back to a time when CO2 was much higher than it is today does not yield "the same rise in CO2 as now" (certainly not for each and "every warming phase").
Go here, look at about 330Kyrs ago & all the other peaks. You will see our peaking temp CO2 has happend before. If you look further into the past the same thing shows
@RasPesher The claim of lower solar levels is an attempt to explain the discrepency by not true. Even the outside estimate of %5 lower output cannot explain the difference.
525Million yrs ago CO2 was 7000 ppm, 25M yr later CO2 dropped to 4000ppm with NO CHANGE IN TEMP.
50M yr later the CO2 was still 4000ppm yet the temp dropped 10C. Now Solar variance was 1% max during this time so how is this possible? A 57% crop in CO2 causes no temp change but NO change & we get a 10C drop.
@Texmurphy51 "525Million yrs ago CO2 was 7000 ppm, 25M yr later CO2 dropped to 4000ppm with no change in temp" - RUBBERY FIGURES
You seem to be quoting the GEOCARB III estimate for CO2. These figures have an accuracy of +/- 50% so CO2 could have fallen from 14000ppm to 2000ppm or risen from 3500ppm to 6000ppm or could have remained constant. So no change in temp could be compatible. But it gets worse, Royer et al 2004 has temps fall by 6C from 510mya to 450mya.
In addition how was that 5% solar output determined?
Examinations of ancient tree rings and other data show temperatures declined starting in the 13th Century, bottomed out at 2 degrees below the long-term average during the 17th Century, and did not climb back to previous levels until the late 19th Century. So a small change in solar can change our climate. Since solar has been increasing is this not an explanation of our small warming? .7C since 1900
@Texmurphy51 "In addition how was that 5% (4 - 5%) solar output determined?"
Astronomy my dear texmurphy, astronomy! The Sun is expanding. Its plasma is getting hotter and winning out against its own gravity. In 2 billion years it will have grown so large that it will swallow the Earth. The Sun will eventually turn into a Red Giant Star. However in a 100 or a 1000 year period this growth is virtually unnoticeable. It does not explain the rise in temp since 1900.
Aren't we Smart, however its called Astrophysics & your WRONG, it is not what came up with the 5% figure you speak of. The "Solar Model" was "Calibrated", geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence. It was made to fit the idea of modern Global Warming. The Astrophysics figure is lower than 5%.
Even at 5% in the past, it does not explain how the temperatures remained essentially constanstant with a drop of CO2 from 7000ppm to 3000 ppm.
When you have figures that are only 50% accurate, a 50% decrease is nothing. Furthermore your initial argument required that the solar radiation output and the atmosphere be equivalent to today. We know that it isn't. We know that the volcanic activity was much higher than today. The gases emitted from volcano to volcano would have varied considerably. The atmosphere would have been quite volatile depending on which volcano was erupting at the time.
... yet you say a small level change in modern CO2 will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
Funny how the CO2 was 280ppm headed into the last ice age, then as the planet cooled the CO2 came down to 200ppm. If CO2 drives temp, why the ice age?
Warmers hate it but when 911 cause jets to be grounded, the lack of contrails created clearer skies, causing increased temps. This shows that water vapor is the controling greenhouse gas, not CO2. Water & ice stabilize the earths temp.
@Texmurphy51 "the lack of contrails ... causing increased temps. This shows that water vapor is the controling greenhouse gas"
HA HA HA. If true, that would be evidence that H2O was NOT a greenhouse gas. You got that back to front. However here you are arguing that a few planes in the air cause ANTHROPIC global cooling! That contradicts your claim that all climate change is natural. This is why it is not a good idea to be a GW denier. Their arguments contradict one another.
@Texmurphy51 " If CO2 drives temp, why the ice age?"
This is a strawman because no one is argueing that CO2 initiates most changes. Once initiated then CO2 amplifies the change (often after a delay). However Carbon sequestation is believed to have initiated the Cambrian ice age. In that instance CO2 did initiated the change. The most recent ice age was probably initiated by the milankovitch cycle. However greenhouse gases also initiated the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum 55mya.
@RasPesher I didnt say CO2 initiates most changes. That is totally incorrect & you know it. Historically CO2 lags behind temp by about 900 yrs. You can try & spin the data however you want but since CO2 does NOT initiate anything.
You are ignoring the stable temps I indicated dispite the CO2 level change from 7000ppm to 3000ppm. How is this possible if CO2 is a greenhouse gas? No matter if the sun was 4% less there should have been a temp change, NOT stable climate. Your model fails
@Texmurphy51 I was just looking at two antarctic core samples. The Taylor Dome and the Law Dome ice cores. The graph showed a 400 year difference between them. This shows that it takes hundreds of years to lock the air samples into the ice. Suppose it took 600 yrs to lock the air into the Law Dome ice and 1000 yrs to lock the air into the Taylor Dome, this would explain the 400 yr difference. It would also explain your 600 - 1000 yr lag. In other words the LAG MAY BE ILLUSORY.
You do realise that the data had been smoothed out over 50 million year periods. I am not surprised that it would appear stable. If you go look at the Royer (2004) CO2 data you'll see a closer match to the temperature graph. In fact for much of the period from 450 mya to 250 mya CO2 leads the temperature change. Sort of kills off the CO2 always lags temp conjecture.
@RasPesher The CO2 lag is accepted Science, look it up. Thats why its hard to explain current conditions as being CO2 as a leading indicator.
The POINT of saying temp was stable over the 50Myrs was to show that the Solar increase did not change the temp. Of course there were variations within that time but thats true of all earths history.
The temp vs CO2 of the past cannot be explained by current Warmer models. It does not fit so you IGNORE it.
What is accepted is that, if the water temperature is raised, CO2 is released. The problem is that the effect is immediate. The science tells us that their is no lag. So we KNOW that the lag shown in the geographic record is an apparent lag NOT A REAL LAG. The accepted science is that ice core samples do not give the resolutuion you are looking for. You can't use ice core data to support your claim. I just gave hard evidence that demonstrates this.
@Texmurphy51 "The POINT of saying temp was stable over the 50Myrs was to show that the Solar increase did not change the temp" - WRONG - "there were variations"
I just looked at a graph of Temperature over the last 500Myrs (Royer et al, 2004) and never was there a period of time when the temperature did not change over a 50Myr period. Furthermore to make your point, not only would you need to show that the temperature was constant but also that the CO2 levels were constant.
@Texmurphy51 "The temp vs CO2 of the past cannot be explained by current Warmer models" - WRONG
Of course we can explain the graph. Problem is that almost any model can be used to explain the graph from 500mya. The data is so inaccurate that it's useless for your purpose. The only thing that we should use this data for is to conclude that the Sun was not as hot as it is today and that there was probably more volcanic activity.
@RasPesher If the data is "so inaccurate" then why do Warmers use past data to confirm their theories?
The data is from Ice Cores that Warmer theories use to calibrate their models.
You cant say the Sun was not as hot if the Data is inaccurate. You cant have it both ways.
Even if the data was not accurate, were talking about a HUGE amount of CO2 having no effect, under a sun that was a mere 3% less powerfull. That figure is NOT the one that Astrophysics,(not Astronomers) come up with.
@Texmurphy51 "If the data is 'so inaccurate' then why..." - WRONG
The ice core samples do not got back to the Cambrian; not even close. You are not talking about the same dataset. Saying that one dataset is inaccurate does not imply that another dataset is inaccurate. Had you looked at the graph for the Cambrian you should have noticed that the error bars around the data meant that it was little better than having no data at all.
@Texmurphy51 "That figure is NOT the one that Astrophysics,(not Astronomers) come up with"
Astrophysics is a branch of Astronomy. Whether a university calls its department Astrophysics or Astronomy usually depends on the history of the university.
Many websites say that the Sun was 35% less radiant 4.5Billion yrs ago. This figure could not have come from "geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence" but must come from astronomy/astrophysics.
If we assume that the Suns radiance increased in a linear fashion we'd get your figure of 3% less during the Cambrian. Problem is that the Sun is not changing in a linear way, for 4 billion years it has been a shrinking ball of gas. In the next 2 billion years it is going to swell up so much that it is going to swallow up the Earth. Given this, I'd say that the 4-5% quoted by scientists is reasonable. (This is the check that I did before quoting their figure).
@Texmurphy51 "You cant say the Sun was not as hot if the Data is inaccurate"
Yes I can. You're refering to a different dataset. One is from Astronomy and the other is called Geocarb III. They have known about the life cycle of stars at least since the 50s and probably well before. You can't claim that the life cycle of stars was manipulated to support Global warming because the consensus on Global warming did not emerge until the 60s.
@Texmurphy51 The main objection that I have with your use of the Cambrian is that the volcanic activity was very much greater than more recent times, so not only do we have poor data on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but we have little knowledge on the concentration of other more reflective gases too. It is far better to look to more recent times such as the last occassion that the CO2 level was about 400ppm when other gases in the atmosphere were closer to todays concentrations.
The last time CO2 reached 400 ppm was between 20 and 25 mya. Sea levels were 25-40 m (80-130 ft.) higher than today. The associated temperatures were about 3-6 °C (5-11 °F) higher than today.
Currently the Earth's response to our current CO2 level is transitory in that if the CO2 level was to be held constant, the temperature would continue to rise for many centuries to come. Don't forget to add in the extra radiance from the Sun of 0.2% that has occured over the last 20 million years.
@Texmurphy51 "Can you show me where how you know the data from the Cambrian is poor?"
If you google "How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change" you'll find a graph of Geocarb III data with the error margin shaded. You'll find that for some values the error shading is up to 80% of the value. That is why I claim your data is poor.
Even with the poor accuracy of the data, you'll find that it can be explained if you look at the next graph on that same page (ie How Jo Nova doesn't get ...).
@Texmurphy51 "I dont think volcanic activity is a plasuable explanation"
Where do you think that the CO2 came from? If the CO2 was the result of oceanic outgasing, the temp would have to be so high that you would not even be pursuing this line of argument.
"If volcanic activity was high as you claim then there would have been a drastic global cooling effect"
This is another reason why your line of argument is futile. There may have been a drastic cooling effect to counter the extra CO2.
I know the CO2 came from volcanoes.Your taking my words out of context. the volcanic explanation of YOURS was to block sunlight. I know you understand my meaning but your intentionally trying to twist my words.
Your speculation as to the cooling effect of particulates is the same as Carl Sagan & others proposed in the 70s, Nuclear Winter. Dispite Warmers trying to play this down as the "Media" running wild with the story. There were major scientists behind this theory.
@Texmurphy51 "Your speculation as to the cooling effect of particulates"
Actually I was quoting you. I was not speculating, and I did not even know that you specifically meant particulates. I thought that you could have been referring to an unspecified reflective gas like SO4. The problem I have with your argument is that you are claiming that the data doesn't support CO2 being one of the forcings on climate when you don't have a full data set to base your claim on.
I will say again, this temp stability was for 500K yrs. to say vocanoes pumped out just enough particles to maintain a stable temperature, while CO2 levels varied from 7000ppm to 3000ppm is idiotic.
The only plausable explanation is that CO2 did no control the temperature, something else did. CO2 may have risen & fallen with volcanic activity but it did little to change world temp.
Not enough data has been collected to show a Statistical Link between temp & CO2.
@Texmurphy51 "Not enough data has been collected to show a Statistical Link between temp & CO2"
When we look at the Ice core data we can see a very observable correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 650 k years. There is an obvious link. You're mad if you think that is not enough evidence. So if you are quoting Phil Jones, you're obviously taking his words out of context. Blind Freddy could see that.
@Texmurphy51 "That Ice core data shows the correlation is that CO2 LAGS Temperature by about 900years" TECHNICALLY INCORRECT
You should say that the air pockets containing the CO2 are found higher up in the ice column than the ice that they were originally trapped in. Over time as the ice compacted, the pockets of air were squeezed, percolating up through the ice. You are misinterpreting an offset in distance as if it was time.
Maybe an analogy will help with your understanding.
You jump onto a set of scales and find that you weight a couple of pounds more than you did the day before. You hop off the scales and note that the scales now read a couple of pounds. Have you really put on weight?
Just like the person on the scales, we note the calibration offset after we take the reading. We know from basic physics that CO2 is released as soon as the H2O temp rises, so we can use this fact to make our calibration.
@Texmurphy51 "Man Made Warming cannot be show Statistically"
We do not need to show it statistically. We can show it physically. The temperature as a 5 year moving average has been on an upward trend for the past 30 yrs; so we know that the globe is warming.
2nd we can measure the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and find that they have been going up too.
3rd, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is man made.
4th the basic science predicts that temp will rise with increasing levels of CO2.
@RasPesher You apparently do not understand the Science of Statistics. You cant show a Statistical upward trend for a 900year CO2 lag by only observing a 30 yr period unless there is a Drastic Change.
You 5 yr average is misleading snapshot. That is WEATHER, just as Warmers claim the recent very cold winters. Phil Jones himself admitted there has been a cooling trend since 1998.
Even if CO2 increase is man made there is no STATISTICAL proof that it is causing warming.
@Texmurphy51 "You cant show a Statistical upward trend"
Once again you have missed the point. We do not need to show global warming statistically. We can show it directly.
Weather variability concerns itself with the way energy moves around within the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surface. Global warming is the result of the difference between energy in and the energy emmitted from the Earth. Satellites have been recording the Energy emmitted from the Earth for the last 30 years....
The satellite data shows directly that the energy emmitted from the Earth has fallen over that 30 year period in the CO2 band and the CH4 band of frequencies. Over the same period energy in from the Sun has remained fairly constant. The result is net energy in. QED Global warming.
When I boil water in a kettle I do not need to take statistical samples of the temperature in the kettle over a 900 year period to know that the kettle is working, the notion is absurd.
@Texmurphy51 "Phil Jones himself admitted there has been a cooling trend since 1998"
Over 99% of the NET ENERGY into the Earth has gone into heating the Oceans not the atmosphere.
Jones dataset known as the HADcrut3 deals with land surface temperature only. His dataset does not monitor the Arctic. The Arctic has experienced very large heat gains in recent years. Those datasets that include the Arctic are a better guide to temperature increases. The Globe has not been cooling post-1998.
@RasPesher So does that mean suface temps do not count, cause thats what Warmers use as their examples.
Lets see about the Ocean Heat Content.
Once the graph was corrected for false data due to instrument problems,The Ocean Heat Content since 1950 has risen within natural variables. DONT PANIC.
Satelite data does not agree with measured Ocean Data,
@Texmurphy51 "..,The Ocean Heat Content since 1950 has RISEN within natural variables"
So we are in agreement that the OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING. The phrase "within natural variables" is meaningless as there was a time in the past when the Earth was a molten ball of rock devoid of ocean. Virtually any temperature may be said to be within natural variables.
Note: The Roy Spencer article deals with modelling, not the measured data itself and in no way supports your claim.
@Texmurphy51 "So does that mean suface temps do not count"
Yes surface temperatures are increasing too. However the increase in surface temperatures do not explain where all the extra energy is going; energy is literally pooring in onto the Earth. The specific heat of water is much higher than any other common substance. It is the specific heat of water that is causing the ocean temperature to lag the increase of CO2 and air temperatures by so much.
@RasPesher "surface temperatures do not explain where all the extra energy is going"
What extra energy? The measurements are all flawed, that why all the fudge factors for satellites & ground based measurements. If you looked at recent data satellite does NOT agree with buoy measurments.
If the heat continues to increase then how is it we have had a Decrease in worldwide ocean specific heat?
How long do we have to wait for a big increase in Ocean S.H.?
That is the beauty of looking at the radiation spectrum we can directly see that there is an energy imbalance. It performs a check on fabricated claims about fudge factors and flaws. We can see there has been a change in the last 30 years of energy radiated into space. They can measure that Ocean heat has penetrated deeper down. There is an increase in ocean temperatures that is moving like a wave downwards.
@RasPesher You make ilt sound so easy but the numbers dont add up. The satelite energy is flawed as well as ground based data, thats why fudge factors have to be used.
Your not addressing the FACT that there has been a decrease in ocean specific heat. The upper atmosphere has cooled.
No the equation is not that simple to measure when its the entire earth, if it was there would be NO argument.
Let me ask.. where are you getting this information for your clalims?
@Texmurphy51 "No the equation is not that simple to measure when its the entire earth"
By concentrating on electromagnetic radiation emmitted to find the power out and comparing it with the radiation emmitted 30 yrs ago we can work out the reduction in power emmitted. By adjusting this figure for albedo and irradiance change we can determine the net power increase since 1960 pooring into the Earth.
Note this method does not require any temp measurements, thus bypassing your quibbles.
@Texmurphy51 "Why do they have to run over 100 climate models if this prediction is so easy to make?"
Yes I agree that it is easy. So simple a child could understand. However I'm puting it forward as a quick check against the fabricated claims of the deniers. It is why I can be confident that their claims are bogus. On the other hand this quick method only tells us that Anthropogenic Global warming is happening, it wont model where the energy is going: land, ocean, air or ice.
@Texmurphy51 "30 years is Not enough of a time period to show man made warming"
If you own a kettle you will soon learn that you do not need to take statistical measurements for 30 years to work out that when you turn the kettle on, after a couple of minutes the water will boil.
@Texmurphy51 "Dont forget that we are talking about the ENTER (entire?) Earth her (here?) no (not?) just a few locations"
The reason we need to take so many temperature measurements is because the energy is constantly being transfered from upper atmosphere to lower atmosphere, to the oceans & vice versa & around the globe. On the otherhand the atmosphere when it comes to its composition is reasonably homogenous so when it comes to radiation measurements only a few measurements are required.
@Texmurphy51 "The satelite energy is flawed as well as ground based data"
The article by Roy Spencer that you quoted to support this allegation didn't even concern data measurement.
With hundreds of satellites taking various climate related data it is inevitable that at some stage some piece of equipment will fail, however that does not mean the data from satellites in general is flawed. However as I understand it the satellites are either working and they collect data, or not working.
@Texmurphy51 "Let me ask.. where are you getting this information for your clalims?"
If you google the following you should be able to find it:
"Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001)."
If you understand science at all, the graph will not need explaining.
@Texmurphy51 "Can this energy be shown to be responsible for the rise in temperature when compared to the amount controlled by water vapor"
The graph does not show any of the current rise in temperature being due to water vapor. The following analogy may help. Suppose a room has 6 windows; 4 representing the effect of water vapor and each covered by a thick blanket, one representing CO2 covered by a thin semi-transparent shade, and 1 always open. Extra blankets over H2O blankets has no effect.
@Texmurphy51 In the analogy heat was represented by light. The Earth emits blackbody radiation both in the day and night, so why would I need a nightime? Analogies are not always ment to mirror the real event in every aspect but just to highlight a point. The saying, "that you can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind. Analogies are often ment to remove the clutter of irrelevant details.
Remember analogies are not meant as a proof but only as an aid in understanding.
@Texmurphy51 "Your graph simply lumps all greenhouse gases together as a control"
The graph is the result of measurments taken from the atmosphere. The scientist did NOT lump all the greenhouse gases together as a control; it's the way they naturally occur. What the scientist did was to take measurements in the frequency domain that enables us to tease out the individual gases. Using this method the scientist has seperated the effect of each individual green house gas. CO2/CH4 are the culprets.
@Texmurphy51 The link to "climaterealists(dot)com/forum/viewtopic(dot)php?f=3&t=207," does not work. The article has been taken down. It was formerly posted on a forum and from what I could find there, I suspect that it was taken down because its errors were heavily exposed; but who knows? The oil company propaganda machine is now censoring the forum so eventually they might put it back up.
@Texmurphy51 "If the oil companies were that powerful they would directly censor the agencies spreading Warming propaganda"
Fox News commentators are prohobited from mentioning global temperatures. You need to follow the money trail to understand the way the censorship works. The book, "the Merchants of Doubt," follows the pseudo-scientific organisations that make their money from powerful lobby groups such as the tobacco companies and the oil companies.
Cont..The climaterealists post is back up & gone is the message stating that they were not going to let real climate scientists post on the climaterealists forum. I guess they are just no longer allowed on.
The post concludes that CO2 does not trap heat because after catching it it lets it go again. HA HA. They also assumes that because of the low rainfall in deserts, the desert air contains no H2O vapor. In Australia the same air that passes over the desert releases water in the form of rain on the Great Dividing Range. Where do they think the rain comes from?
Note: Deserts are only 1/15th of the Earth's surface.
Another error the forum post makes is that they fail to realise that CO2 and H2O absorption spectrum overlap. So instead of CO2 just blocking 8% of the IR window it would block about 20% in the absence of water vapor. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was to increase this could go as high as 40%. Don't forget that desert air still contains significant levels of water vapor.
Another assumption the explanation makes is that if a CO2 molecule re-emits a photon then that photon has a 50% chance of escaping from the Earth. It could be re-absorbed by another CO2 molecule and converted to vibrational heat and not re-emitted.
Note: Because space is a vacuum the only way heat can escape is in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Particle kinetic energy (heat) is trapped.
@RasPesher Ha Ha , there explanation makes more sense than your window analogy.
They simply say that the IR window is open to release heat, water has more control.
I dont think your getting the point. As I stated before you simply are assuming that MORE energy is trapped than radiates back into space. You have no way of proving that via satelite & ground readings because they Dont Agree. The data must be massaged to get to your conclusion.
The .7C increase over 100yrs is well within normal
@Texmurphy51 "that via satelite & ground readings because they Dont Agree"
The ground equipment does not measure the radiation exiting the Earth's atmosphere. How can it? You have been caught red handed fabricating evidence. However in your defence you are simply repeating the religious mantra of the deniers. The deniers arguments can't stand up to the evidence. As for equipment needing to be calibrated, even my bathroom scales has a thumbwheel, to zero the scale before use.
@Texmurphy51 "the IRwindow is open to release heat, water has more control"
You are ommitting a very important detail.They were only talking about deserts. Deserts only cover 1/15th of the Earth's surface & therefore R not typical. The claims made in the forum post did not include measurements of emissions to space; so their report is not supported. It's probable that the data I had did NOT come from a desert region, but the data proved that at whatever location it was WATER HAD NO CONTROL.
Cont.. This is not to say that at another location, such as a desert, that water may have some control. I was not, and am not trying to argue that water is not an important GH factor, but for 14/15ths of the Earth's surface the H2O IR window is firmly slammed shut.
Another reason for deserts having low overnight temperatures is that the land has a lower specific heat than water; most deserts are inland. Camels are in no way unique. Even animals that live near the sea where it's warm have fur.
@Texmurphy51 "As I stated before you simply are assuming that MORE energy is trapped than radiates back into space" - YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN.
MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT AN ASSUMPTION. Unfortunately we have another case where your head is firmly planted up your assumptions. The only reason that the deniers have to AVOID the evidence is because their explanations are off in LA LA LAND.
@Texmurphy51 "I gave you a site with actual graphs/numbers and data"
Yes your site had graphs that they had copied from climate scientists. However those graphs did not support their main claim, that there was no water vapor in the atmosphere above deserts. Instead they used a CAMEL AS EMPIRiCAL EVIDENCE or more specifically the hair on the camel's back! Did you actually read the article or just glance at the pretty pictures? To top it off, the deniers admitted that they misquoted the figures!
All empirical measuring equiptment NEEDS TO BE CALIBRATED against National and International standards. The GW denier groups call the calibration process "fudging". So when I or a scientist says calibrate I would like you to understand that this means "fudge" in your vocabulary.
@Howtheworldworks
There actually is global warming caused by the sun. It's called natural global warming. Again you can't say that global warming doesn't exist because the sun can cause global warming.
patsrule213 2 months ago
look up this but put in DEBUNKED..... now who looks retarded?
TonPappa 9 months ago
It is now known that the hacked emails were taken out of context. There was no data manipulation. Just a media beat up aimed at misleading the Copenhagen climate summit. The same scientific body that campaigned against cigarettes causing cancer, also campaigned against the hole in the ozone layer and yes you guessed it has opposed global warming and climate change. Exxon has donated $25 million to climate denier groups since 1998.
RasPesher 10 months ago
Find out who stole those emails and why, then we'll finally start getting to the honest truth of this overblown and basically worthless story about the disease of denialism and its goalpost moving beliefs. In the meantime, try making helpful videos on the lies of anti-smoking proponents and the awesome health benefits of smoking 12 packs of cigarettes a day. Shouldn't be too hard.
frededison 10 months ago
@frededison Sounds to me that you have read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. In that book they trace a group of scientists that make a living out of falsifying science to deny the link between smoking and cancer, the hole in the ozone layer and clobal climate change. I do not know how those seudo-scientists can look themselves in the eye when shaving each day.
RasPesher 10 months ago
Oh, FFS you neo-cons are a sad paranoid bunch. You have been conned by the same lobbyists that tried to tell us that the ozone hole didnt exist, that tobacco smoke was harmless and that acid rain wasnt a problem - google "Merchants of doubt" for the full monty ... but u won't.
This video is a massive FAIL. U must be so embarrassed in your foil hat. NO major internation science institutes support your claim. ZIPPO, NIL. 3 independent investigations revealed no conspiracy. You are suckers.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds Sorry, I just realised that you beat me to it. I need not have mentioned the "Merchants of Doubt." Good comment.
RasPesher 10 months ago
hacker + emails = non relabel info
the info could have been modified or made up completely
troubletr1 1 year ago
@troubletr1 The hacked emails are most likely real, however the neo-conservative spin given to them was finely crafted & absolute rubbish. There is no conspiracy, except by the denialists. There are plenty of good commentators that will provide the correct reading - try Greenman3610 and Potholer54 for a rational perspective.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
Wow, you have no idea how global warming works. What do you think global warming is? A giant conspiracy made by the government like 9-11 and the moon landing? You guys would make me laugh if the entire planet was at stake...
FailBlob 1 year ago
I've known about this story for a long time but it just shows that the Republicans have been right this whole time that global warming does not exist what so ever. The only problem is that people still believe in it for some reason?
rogging1 1 year ago
I'm not climatologist, so I don't want to comment on whether global warming is real or not. But I'm smart enough to realize that people like Al Gore are capitalizing on the theory of global warming and ramming it up our ***es. What's going on in America today is truly disturbing. How we haven't all imploded into ourselves from black holes where our reasoning centers should be is beyond me. XD
TheShipOfTheseus 1 year ago
saw the emails, they mostly talk about 08
Kalahridudex 1 year ago
lol you really are a political pawn.
grendelee 1 year ago 4
Jesse Jackson race baiting? The same man that marched with Martin Luther King for equality and peace & not to mention is a reverend. But you say nothing about teabaggers who are waiving racist signs calling congress dems the N word or F word and spitting on them? Also are saying to carry your guns and inciting violence against Dems offices all over the U.S. You Sir are a douchebag Global warming is fact based & if you don't understand that then you don't understand how the world works; idiot.
jaymeez 1 year ago
@jaymeez You compare spitting & some words to the Violence & hate speech that the Left Econuts have done? There have been constant Death threats against most of the political figures on the right for years. TeaParty people have been beaten, FINGER BIT OFF. All left rallies incite violence, burning, smash windows, threaten people. Why do you think they wear masks like in Pittsburgh & Copenhagen?
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 death threats from the left, the left incites violence, burning/window smashing? Can you give specific examples that the left has done these things since you conveniently left them out. This all sounds like the teabaggers & the right as a whole & you are just turning things on their head and blaming the left for things the right has done. You are a lier & the true definition of a douchebag.
jaymeez 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Oh btw the guy who got his finger bit off isn't a victim he attacked the guy & punched him twice in the face before he was retaliated on (search finger bit off & watch the interview) also it is only claimed the guy that did the biting is from the left but he has never been caught. It is all hearsay & goes to show you believe hearsay and not facts. Global Warning based on facts; guy who got finger bit off and acts like a victim is @ fault.... your a sad sad person with a pea brain
jaymeez 1 year ago
@jaymeez The guy bitten was 65yrs old, biter was twice his size. Look at EVER protest or ralley of the left. It has ended in violence. The DC Teaparty was totally peaceful. No burning cars, no clash with police, no garbage left behind. I come from the 60s and I know what its all about. Weather Underground, Marxist Radicals, buts fucking heads, burn shit, social change through subverting the system. I was around it
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 regardless of his age he attacked the other man first & got his finger bit off when his punch landed in that man's mouth (this is directly from the 65 year old's interview; didn't you watch it?) You are very general again in your accusations and are truly a Fox News watching Bitch that doesn't know how to turn on your own brain or you just choose to believe the b.s. Blindly following the racist leaders of your party. The saying "Ignorance is bliss" defines you to a T.
jaymeez 1 year ago
@jaymeez I am surpised you actually saw this story since only Fox News carries the TeaPart stories. If you actually saw it you know that the 65 year old man was attacked by the man who went out of his way to come across the street & start a fight. During the fight the old man got his finger bit off. We recently had the G8 in pittsburgh & if not for the riot troops the city would have been destroyed. These are bused in, organized, funded protestors Unlike the teaparty grass roots.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Okay you misinformed buffoon, if you look at the response I gave you 2 weeks ago it asks if you even saw the interview yourself. If you did you would have seen the 65 year old man admit to striking the other person first & he hit him twice (the second punch being the one that landed in the victims mouth & thus his finger was biten ~direct quote from the 65 year old himself~) This shows your a blatant lier & to say the Tea party is grass roots is an absolute failure on your part.
jaymeez 1 year ago
Some people want to impose a Tax because the earth is warming due to a made up side effect of having a civilization, What is this side effect? It's Co2, It's a heavier than air gass, when it's put into the atmosphere it falls like a blanket over the earth and becomes asorbed by forrests and every other plant life. our co2 output is greatly out numberd by the absorption of co2 and co2 is greatly out numberd by other atmospheric gases Like nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99% of the atmosphere!
TheTempestSpark 2 years ago
It seems to me that you are so vehemently against global warming not for any scientific reason, but because it would force at least minimal government intervention to offset its effects if it existed. I say this because in spite of the vast majority of scientists who believe in man-made climate change, you consistently assert that you "know it's a fraud." Even thinking skeptically, I never cast aside the opinion of a majority of experts as "fraud" just because they disagree with my views.
Grn0a 2 years ago
Yes, I have to wonder, when the anti-GW people are SO intense, closed-minded, juvenile, and use bad language, ALL-CAPS, and don't capitalize the first word.
Gary1111001 1 year ago
A survey was sent to 3,146 scientists, 75 were climatologests. The consensus was overwelming for man made global warming. The problem is that the survey was Not sent to scientists know to oppose global warming. This was a hand picked group instead of a true cross section. Those opposing warming are not published & not hired by NASA or East Anglia. No scientists are being payed to find data against global warming, so what do you think the others will find??
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
You can literally google a number of studies which show that there is a vast majority of people who see global warming as a man-made phenomenon. There are professors and researchers who do not believe in global warming and they are represented in the study. They are free to publish materials (and do), just as the mainstream scientists are.
Grn0a 1 year ago
Comment removed
Grn0a 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The difference is that the scientists who disagree with the idea that there exists man-made climate change are few in number and often not the dimwits which the vast, vast majority of global warming deniers show themselves to be
Grn0a 1 year ago
@Grn0a Dispite the Media saturation telling people Warming is real, recent Gallup pole 3/11/10 shows (48 percent) think that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, 35 percent say it not happening, While only 52 percent of Scientists say its real. Would you publish a paper that is rejected by peer review & make you ridiculed by the media as a Denier? Go to one of the "Climate Crock of the Week" videos & site one of the Scientists who publish against warming. See what happens.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Wow, because a majority of people who have no scientific background whatsoever don't think something is real, it must be a lie, right? That's why evolution and whatever science people don't like are just wrong, because science is based on a majority vote of non-scientists, isn't it?
Actually, the source you cite is a study which was sent to doctors and those whose disciplines were not in any way related to climate or geology, so it's not particularly relevant.
Grn0a 1 year ago
And what's funny is that you think scientists and researchers against global warming wouldn't publish anything, but they do. People like Engle Friis-Christensen publish articles against the idea of global warming without any damage to their academic careers.
You simply invent a conspiracy against your position because so few scientists with any knowledge in the field agree with you, which makes your view more of a religion than legitimate science.
Grn0a 1 year ago
@Grn0a I am saying scientist say they are not published in main stream papers because of peer review rejection. If you site articles from other sources in youtube videos, posters say they are not "Real" science but religion like you said. As for their career look at the shit Richard Lindzen has taken. He is rejected not by his science but every other made up scandel that can be thrown at him.
Continued...
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Grn0a part 2 Any Scientist that speaks up has a target on his back. Worst is the envior groups, now you want Religion just look at them. I think the NASA emails speak even more than the others in that they admit that statistically they do Not have enough data to determine climate change but would require 50 to 75 years worth. This shows how much Warmers are pushing this based on belief rather than Facts.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Here again you've made the error of leaning towards a conspiracy theory. There are two possibilities based on what you've said of Lindzen: either his papers have been rejected by peer review for presenting flawed or disproven science (as peer review should work) or there is a conspiracy of climatologists to prevent his papers from being published. The simpler and more reasonable answer is that his science just isn't very good--unless there's solid evidence to disprove this, Occam's Razor applies
Grn0a 1 year ago
I think you exaggerate with the idea of "targeting" people: science is supposed to aggressively target poorly-supported ideas. If people are endorsing ideas they can't support, why should they be given a pass?
Herein lies the problem as I see it with your argument: you assume global warming is unscientific and create a world where the scientists involved are part of some effort to "cover up the truth," but you don't actually substantiate this.
Grn0a 1 year ago
@Grn0a Ok ... Part 1 Lindzen was an example becaue he has been attacked on a personal level. Let me ask you this... how many peer review papers have been published that go against the Global Warming model? You have acceptence of papers like Melting Himalayan glaciers, which turns out to be completely wrong. It met no scrutiny because it fit the template. The GW science is Not unscientific, thats why they parse the data & facts so carfully.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Grn0a Part 2 Recent NASA emails say that its a crapshoot because the data sample is too small, (need 50 to 75 yrs). How long do you think you would work for James Hansen if you buck the system? He is a Warmer & only wants data to support it. Even as we see cooling & ice returning over the last few years we see quickly constructed theories & told to ignore the anomaly. Well if it was a spike in warming it sure would Not be an anomaly.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
I couldn't find anything about these e-mails, so unless you can provide a link, I'm going to ignore them (given the propensity of people to make things up against global warming).
The "cooling" is a result of the sun being at the low end of a cycle that lasts for several years, so although the temperatures are cooler than the few years before, for example, they are still above average for the sun's position.
Grn0a 1 year ago
These anomalies are not given great importance because scientists understand them but don't see them as strong arguments against their theory, not because they want to cover them up.
Issues like the Himalayan glaciers were incorrect based on the rate of melting, not on the fact that they were melting.
Grn0a 1 year ago
@Grn0a Cooling is also due to water vapor on the earth, a natural process not taken into account by the models. This, the sun & return of Arctic Ice are things not predicted by the model but are now being explained. Monday morning quarterbacking to make it fit the Warming templet. If you want links I will send them Personal, this new filter will not allow me to post.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 "& return of Arctic Ice are things not predicted by the model but are now being explained"
The Arctic Ice has not returned. About the time you originally posted your comment, the Arctic was experiencing the least Ice cover for a Northern Hemisphere winter on record.
RasPesher 10 months ago
@RasPesher Ok so what.
Arctic Ice and Glaciers have been melting since the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 So you admit that it is NOT: "Monday morning quarterbacking to make it fit the Warming templet." Good that is progress.
RasPesher 10 months ago
@RasPesher Now if only the Warmers would LEARN from that templet. If only they would consider the past beyond the 1800s.
Let me ask you... are you computer climate models using this "templet" as part of their predictions?
If we have a year of many Hurricanes, its Global Warming, so say the computer models.
If we have a very cold winter, its "Just Weather".
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "that templet"
The template to which you previously referred was recent global warming after~1880, now you seem to be redefining "that template" to mean the Milankovitch cycle from 18000 yrs ago. The warming trend from 18000 years ago till 10000 yrs ago hardly seems relevant to the present. The last 10000 yrs has been relatively stable; that rise cycle has ended.Comparing this cycle with previous milankovitch cycles there is no reason to suspect that it should start to rise again.
RasPesher 10 months ago
@RasPesher If you look at the long term 100K yr cycles, and those within, we should reach the highest world temperatures then go into an ice age. World temps had higher peaks then now. The last 10K years are as stable as each other post ice age before it. There was also 12-14 times more CO2 in our atmosphere at one time but the temperatures were no higher than now. Water Vapor is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 lags behind temp, that is known.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You have argued that:
1) there is no global warming,
2) that there is global warming but that it is a part of a natural cycle and that there is nothing we can do about it,
3) that we are headed for the next ice age.
I'm guessing that your next argument will be
4) that we should burn more fossil fuels to prevent the next ice age!
All arguments which are inconsistent with one another, yet they do have one thing in common, they are all promoted by the oil industry.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 In the last 10K yrs there has not been any evidence to emerged that suggests we are currently going into an ice age. For all we know it could stay stable for another 10K years if we look after the environment.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "CO2 lags behind temp, that is known" - NOT TRUE
Currently CO2 is leading temperature. Also during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)greenhouse gases led temperature. One explanation for the PETM is that a volcanic eruption released large quantities of CO2 driving temperatures up.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher The CO2 does lag temperature, that has been accepted by the scientific community.
The idea that it is "leading temperature" is what they are trying to prove now. However, there has not been enough sampling time to show this,(admitted by Phil Jones). Since the CO2 lag is 800 years, a sample of less than 100yrs cannot show a Statistically Significant trend. This is why all the number fudging.
We are told volcanoes dont warm because they create particulates as well as CO2. Net cooling
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texmurphy51 " volcanoes dont warm"
The explanation is not important, the fact is that the PETM is an example of Greenhouse gases leading Temperature. FACT!
Tex said, "Since the CO2 lag is 800 years..."
You're suffering from dysnumerica again. When the CO2 level in the atmosphere starts to rise at a faster rate in about 1960 and the temperature reacts by increasing at a faster rate in about 1970; that is a ten year lead NOT a 800 year lag.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Since the CO2 lag is 800 years, a sample of less than 100yrs cannot show a Statistically Significant trend" - Incorrect
Statistically significant just means that you have a 95% confidence that what is observed represents a trend rather than noise. The trend is in a single quantity; not two different quantities. Referring to lag means that you are befuddled.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher The CO2 lag is FACT, this is admitted by Science.
First you have to take that into account in your 95% confidence. Have they?
There is a gradual upward trend in CO2 just because of the rise in temp, man excluded.
What exactly are you 95% confident in??? Is it rise in CO2 because thats for sure.
If it is CO2 causing rise in Temp then thats again an assumption that CO2 controls temp.
I say water vapor controls temp. Proof is no jet Contrails after 911 changed temp.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "What exactly are you 95% confident in" - What are you talking about????
1) We were talking about what Phil Jones had said (remember your bungled quote).
2) I simply defined what "statistically significant" means (a term that you used although without understanding).
3) Your claim that we need to take "CO2 lag" into account when measuring temperature is rediculous. Personally I use a thermometer to measure temperature. You should try it some time, you'd be less confused.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher You simply defined what you thought was the definition of Statisticaly Significant. (incorrectly)
The percentage of confidence varies with the experiment.
Levels fo Significance vary between 10% to .01%.
YOU assume Climate requires a 5% figure. I think some Scientists would argue because of the short term of collection of data & small variation.
I didnt say take CO2 lag to measure temp, I said the temp influences the CO2 lag, this adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Temp raises CO2
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "YOU assume Climate requires a 5% figure"
You alleged that Phil Jones said "not statistically significant" but he actually said, "not significant at the 95% significance level". I was not assuming anything other than interpreting what you said. For your statement not to be a lie, you must have assumed that "not significant at the 95% significance level" is equivalent to "not statistically significant."
WERE YOU LYING OR TELLING THE TRUTH?
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher "not significant at the 95% significance level". Phil said it was not significant.
That makes it even worse. Thats a poor level of significence & it didnt even meet that.
Warmers point to this 1995 quote & say, even if it is true, its too short a period of time.
Then they point to 1975 & say well this proves warming. I would say 1975 is also too short a period to make this claim.
I agree with warming, just not the cause.
Do you know of the 911 experiment?
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Tex said, "I agree with warming, just not the cause"
So I will defer the cause to you. You have previously correctly said, "CO2 & Sulfur THAT CHANGE CLIMATE"
However since it is warming, that just leaves CO2. Sulphate causes cooling.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher No that leaves water vapor that is the major controling factor. CO2 is along for the ride.
Just after 911 all air traffic was shut down & A team led by David J Travis found something interesting.
DTR widen by a full 1°C during those three days. This was buried by the Climate community because of its implications.
Think about it. It only took the contrails of jets to change temp over N. America that much.
This Proves clouds are the controling factor. Its a self regulating system.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "DTR widen by a full 1°C during those three days"
The DTR from the weather forcast for the next 6 days in Sydney is 7°,9°,8°,8°,6° & 6°C. The natural range being 3°C. 1°C is well below the noise level. Unless further analysis can be done to reduce this noise, 1°C is not statistically significant.
btw further analysis has been done on the post 1995 Global temperatures. Phil Jones was wrong, post 1995 there has been statistically significant global warming. Reason "noise" aint noise!
RasPesher 8 months ago
@Tex Cont.. " 'noise' aint noise!"
Yes if you can determine the cause of the "noise" then the noise is not truely noise. If the noise is caused by the la nina/el nino cycle then that can be factored in and eliminated, so too for the solar cycle etc.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher sez "1°C is not statistically significant."
Well the funny thing was that the Warmers claimed that it WAS a factor, because they thought it was proof of Global Warming. The Travis team seemed to think it was a Significant change & I think they know more than YOU do.
Temp has change .7C/100yrs, well below the nature range of the past. This makes .7C no more signicant than the 1C.
You see the logic works both ways.
Here is the question, How much warming proves that its man made?
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I fully understand that the contrails show that changes in the atmosphere affect temperatures. However your attemp to say that 50 years of data collected from 80% of the globe is statistically insignificant yet three days of data collected only from America is, is plain rediculous. You apply a totally different standard whenever it suits you. You seem to think that statistical significance is an opinion. It is not. It is derived from empirical data.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You Asked, "How much warming proves that its man made?"
This question demonstrates that you have no idea what you've been talking about for the last month or so. The temperature does not prove what changed it. By measuring the electromagnetic energy spectrum radiated from the Earth we can deduce that the reduction is due to CO2 and methane. Since more energy is being retained we know that the Earth is heating up. The rise in measured temps is conformation of what we already know.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "water vapor that is the major controling factor. CO2 is along for the ride" - WRONG
It is true that water vapour has a large effect in temporal terms but its effect is only short term. If I boiled water in a zillion kettles around the globe thus increasing the moisture in the atmosphere after a few weeks the increase will have found its way back to Earth in the form of snow or rain. The CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere, stays there for a hundred years or more.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@Tex Cont..
The increase in CO2 is more permanent. Even though its effect is small in absolute terms, the temperature increase so caused will in turn raise the moisture content in the atmosphere thus further raising the temperature. In this way CO2 controls H2O levels in the atmosphere. Extra CO2 leads to a more permanent increase in H2O vapor in the atmosphere. Hence CO2 CONTROLS H2O.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher "zillion kettles "
Ha Ha what a proof.
Clouds are ever present, look at any satelite photo. It is a self regulating system.
More sunlight creates more clouds, more clouds reflect sunlight,
More moisture creates snow, snow reflects sunlight.
Reflected sunlight lowers temp.
Your assuming that MAN put all the xtra CO2 there, NOT PROVEN,
Where did the xtra CO2 come from before man existed? How did it drop with temp?
CO2 is only 0.039% of the atmosphere
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Ha Ha what a proof.Clouds are ever present, look at any satelite photo. It is a self regulating system.More sunlight creates more clouds, more clouds reflect sunlight,More moisture creates snow, snow reflects sunlight.Reflected sunlight lowers temp."
Good point you've just RULED WATER VAPOUR OUT as the "major controlling factor" of the recent temperature rise; negating your position.
So, as I said before that leaves CO2.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Your assuming that MAN put all the xtra CO2 there, not proven"
So far we've looked at all your alternate possibilities except perhaps space aliens. Do you really think that space aliens put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere?
Let's face it we've been able to eliminate all the alternate sources. We've looked at the isotope evidence etc. And we know how much Carbon is being burnt.
The EVIDENCE IS OVER WHELMING, It's not an assumption.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher "extra CO2 into the atmosphere?"
I again say, where did the so called Extra CO2 come from in the past?
Why did we have 14 times what is there now in the past with no mankind?
Just because you find levels of CO2 up from 100 years ago, that does not mean....
1) All of it is from mankind
2) We are going to go into a uncontrolled warming.
You keep telling me about isotope evidence, etc, yet have not heard a word I said to dispute them.
You ignore facts that disprove warming;.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 CO2 - "Why did we have 14 times what is there now in the past with no mankind?
Over the last 500 million years for which we have records we have primarily seen the CO2 level reduce. The atmospheric level of CO2 has oscillated but at the expense of the oceanic CO2 level. So CO2 has been disappearing not coming, well that was until the industrial revolution. Since then it has been building up in BOTH the atmosphere and the ocean. The recent build up is DUE TO BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Where did the xtra CO2 come from before man existed?"
I thought we had discussed this adnausium. Volcanic activity initially put the CO2 into the atmosphere. As the Earth is cooling over time volcanic activity has fallen. Less and less CO2 had been going into the atmosphere and the CO2 level had been falling. Well that was until the industrial revolution. Interestingly the build up of CO2 since the Industrial revolution MATCHES THE SALES RECORDS OF FOSSIL FUELS.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher Your Volcano theory is interesting but it is just that. You have to show massive activity during these specific times in history & explain where the CO2 went after that, plus why didnt the earth go into a heating phase with 14X more CO2 than now. Why didnt CO2 drive the climate then as you claim it does now?
The CO2 increase only matches FF sales for a short period of time. History shows EVERY warming phase has the same rise in CO2 as now. Look at the graphs.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Why didnt CO2 drive the climate then as you claim it does now?"
Rather than use my volcano theory, I'll use yours, "volcanos don't warm because they create particulates as well as CO2. Net cooling" So according to you the Earth would not have gone into a cooling phase back when CO2 levels were much higher than they are now because the extra CO2 would have been balanced by particulates. I suspect that the volcanos may have also released albedo gases plus the sun output was lower.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "History shows EVERY warming phase has the same rise in CO2 as now. Look at the graphs"
WRONG again. I looked at the graphs produced from the ice core data and found that the CO2 level is much much higher now than any of the recent ice age/interglacial cycles from those records. You must have been looking at the graph upside down to think that. Just to clarfify 290 ppm is much much less than 390 ppm.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher Look back further. You will see that each interglacial period has variation in temp & CO2 going up and down but each temp/CO2 peak is higher than the next, then leads to an Ice Age. It happens every time.
That is what Warmers do is to narrow the view to just recent history. When you look at the big picture you will see that much higher CO2 levels have never lead to warming. The reasoning that the sun was less bright is bogus because a few percent cant explain no warming.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "When you look at the big picture you will see that much higher CO2 levels have never lead to warming" - FALSE again
The higher levels of CO2 in the past were at a time when global temperatures were 14 deg F higher than they are today. 14 deg F is a lot of warming. We are currently worried about a few degrees of warming.
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher
Actually, there is global warming caused by the sun, it's called natural global warming. So don't say that global warming doesn't exist, it can come from the sun.
patsrule213 2 months ago
@patsrule213 In 2010 the Sun went through a solar minimum. If temperature is primarily driven by the sun, the global average temperature for that year should have been at a corresponding minimum, but it wasn't. 2010 was a record or near record year.
The last 300 consecutive months have all been above the former average temperature determined from the last century. Yes, we have experienced global warming but it is not caused by a change in the output of the Sun.
RasPesher 2 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "That is what Warmers do is to narrow the view to just recent history"
Sorry but I was responding to your comment. Trouble is there was no time in history that makes your claim correct. Furthermore going back to a time when CO2 was much higher than it is today does not yield "the same rise in CO2 as now" (certainly not for each and "every warming phase").
THIS IS WHAT DENIERS DO, THEY INVENT HISTORY!
RasPesher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RasPesher "back to a time when CO2 was much higher than it is today does not yield "the same rise in CO2 as now" Really?
geocraftdot)com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs(dot)html, go here to see the last 400Kyrs, notice the temp & CO2 is as high as now in several spikes.
geocraft(dot)com/WVFossils/panorama/panorama11(dot)html
Go here, look at about 330Kyrs ago & all the other peaks. You will see our peaking temp CO2 has happend before. If you look further into the past the same thing shows
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "There was ... more CO2 in our atmosphere at one time but the temps were no higher than now"
1)The time was ~500 mya.The output of the Sun was 4%-5% less than it is today.
2)Currently 180 ppm of CO2 is typical during an ice age.
3)~440 mya carbon sequestration caused an iceage when CO2 levels dropped below 3000ppm.
4)Given that 7000ppm is 2.3 x 3000ppm and 390ppm is 2.2 x 180ppm, it is not surprising that temps back then were about the same as they are today.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher The claim of lower solar levels is an attempt to explain the discrepency by not true. Even the outside estimate of %5 lower output cannot explain the difference.
525Million yrs ago CO2 was 7000 ppm, 25M yr later CO2 dropped to 4000ppm with NO CHANGE IN TEMP.
50M yr later the CO2 was still 4000ppm yet the temp dropped 10C. Now Solar variance was 1% max during this time so how is this possible? A 57% crop in CO2 causes no temp change but NO change & we get a 10C drop.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "525Million yrs ago CO2 was 7000 ppm, 25M yr later CO2 dropped to 4000ppm with no change in temp" - RUBBERY FIGURES
You seem to be quoting the GEOCARB III estimate for CO2. These figures have an accuracy of +/- 50% so CO2 could have fallen from 14000ppm to 2000ppm or risen from 3500ppm to 6000ppm or could have remained constant. So no change in temp could be compatible. But it gets worse, Royer et al 2004 has temps fall by 6C from 510mya to 450mya.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Part 2
In addition how was that 5% solar output determined?
Examinations of ancient tree rings and other data show temperatures declined starting in the 13th Century, bottomed out at 2 degrees below the long-term average during the 17th Century, and did not climb back to previous levels until the late 19th Century. So a small change in solar can change our climate. Since solar has been increasing is this not an explanation of our small warming? .7C since 1900
CO2 a minimal factor.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "In addition how was that 5% (4 - 5%) solar output determined?"
Astronomy my dear texmurphy, astronomy! The Sun is expanding. Its plasma is getting hotter and winning out against its own gravity. In 2 billion years it will have grown so large that it will swallow the Earth. The Sun will eventually turn into a Red Giant Star. However in a 100 or a 1000 year period this growth is virtually unnoticeable. It does not explain the rise in temp since 1900.
CO2 is the criminal factor.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Part 1
Aren't we Smart, however its called Astrophysics & your WRONG, it is not what came up with the 5% figure you speak of. The "Solar Model" was "Calibrated", geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence. It was made to fit the idea of modern Global Warming. The Astrophysics figure is lower than 5%.
Even at 5% in the past, it does not explain how the temperatures remained essentially constanstant with a drop of CO2 from 7000ppm to 3000 ppm.
Thats over 50% decrease...
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Thats over 50% decrease..."
When you have figures that are only 50% accurate, a 50% decrease is nothing. Furthermore your initial argument required that the solar radiation output and the atmosphere be equivalent to today. We know that it isn't. We know that the volcanic activity was much higher than today. The gases emitted from volcano to volcano would have varied considerably. The atmosphere would have been quite volatile depending on which volcano was erupting at the time.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Part 2
... yet you say a small level change in modern CO2 will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
Funny how the CO2 was 280ppm headed into the last ice age, then as the planet cooled the CO2 came down to 200ppm. If CO2 drives temp, why the ice age?
Warmers hate it but when 911 cause jets to be grounded, the lack of contrails created clearer skies, causing increased temps. This shows that water vapor is the controling greenhouse gas, not CO2. Water & ice stabilize the earths temp.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "the lack of contrails ... causing increased temps. This shows that water vapor is the controling greenhouse gas"
HA HA HA. If true, that would be evidence that H2O was NOT a greenhouse gas. You got that back to front. However here you are arguing that a few planes in the air cause ANTHROPIC global cooling! That contradicts your claim that all climate change is natural. This is why it is not a good idea to be a GW denier. Their arguments contradict one another.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 " If CO2 drives temp, why the ice age?"
This is a strawman because no one is argueing that CO2 initiates most changes. Once initiated then CO2 amplifies the change (often after a delay). However Carbon sequestation is believed to have initiated the Cambrian ice age. In that instance CO2 did initiated the change. The most recent ice age was probably initiated by the milankovitch cycle. However greenhouse gases also initiated the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum 55mya.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher I didnt say CO2 initiates most changes. That is totally incorrect & you know it. Historically CO2 lags behind temp by about 900 yrs. You can try & spin the data however you want but since CO2 does NOT initiate anything.
You are ignoring the stable temps I indicated dispite the CO2 level change from 7000ppm to 3000ppm. How is this possible if CO2 is a greenhouse gas? No matter if the sun was 4% less there should have been a temp change, NOT stable climate. Your model fails
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I was just looking at two antarctic core samples. The Taylor Dome and the Law Dome ice cores. The graph showed a 400 year difference between them. This shows that it takes hundreds of years to lock the air samples into the ice. Suppose it took 600 yrs to lock the air into the Law Dome ice and 1000 yrs to lock the air into the Taylor Dome, this would explain the 400 yr difference. It would also explain your 600 - 1000 yr lag. In other words the LAG MAY BE ILLUSORY.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "I didnt say CO2 initiates most changes"
I did not say that you did. In fact I said that "no one is argueing that CO2 initiates MOST changes".
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "You are ignoring the stable temps"
You do realise that the data had been smoothed out over 50 million year periods. I am not surprised that it would appear stable. If you go look at the Royer (2004) CO2 data you'll see a closer match to the temperature graph. In fact for much of the period from 450 mya to 250 mya CO2 leads the temperature change. Sort of kills off the CO2 always lags temp conjecture.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher The CO2 lag is accepted Science, look it up. Thats why its hard to explain current conditions as being CO2 as a leading indicator.
The POINT of saying temp was stable over the 50Myrs was to show that the Solar increase did not change the temp. Of course there were variations within that time but thats true of all earths history.
The temp vs CO2 of the past cannot be explained by current Warmer models. It does not fit so you IGNORE it.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "The CO2 lag is accepted Science"
What is accepted is that, if the water temperature is raised, CO2 is released. The problem is that the effect is immediate. The science tells us that their is no lag. So we KNOW that the lag shown in the geographic record is an apparent lag NOT A REAL LAG. The accepted science is that ice core samples do not give the resolutuion you are looking for. You can't use ice core data to support your claim. I just gave hard evidence that demonstrates this.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "The POINT of saying temp was stable over the 50Myrs was to show that the Solar increase did not change the temp" - WRONG - "there were variations"
I just looked at a graph of Temperature over the last 500Myrs (Royer et al, 2004) and never was there a period of time when the temperature did not change over a 50Myr period. Furthermore to make your point, not only would you need to show that the temperature was constant but also that the CO2 levels were constant.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "The temp vs CO2 of the past cannot be explained by current Warmer models" - WRONG
Of course we can explain the graph. Problem is that almost any model can be used to explain the graph from 500mya. The data is so inaccurate that it's useless for your purpose. The only thing that we should use this data for is to conclude that the Sun was not as hot as it is today and that there was probably more volcanic activity.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher If the data is "so inaccurate" then why do Warmers use past data to confirm their theories?
The data is from Ice Cores that Warmer theories use to calibrate their models.
You cant say the Sun was not as hot if the Data is inaccurate. You cant have it both ways.
Even if the data was not accurate, were talking about a HUGE amount of CO2 having no effect, under a sun that was a mere 3% less powerfull. That figure is NOT the one that Astrophysics,(not Astronomers) come up with.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
Comment removed
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "If the data is 'so inaccurate' then why..." - WRONG
The ice core samples do not got back to the Cambrian; not even close. You are not talking about the same dataset. Saying that one dataset is inaccurate does not imply that another dataset is inaccurate. Had you looked at the graph for the Cambrian you should have noticed that the error bars around the data meant that it was little better than having no data at all.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "That figure is NOT the one that Astrophysics,(not Astronomers) come up with"
Astrophysics is a branch of Astronomy. Whether a university calls its department Astrophysics or Astronomy usually depends on the history of the university.
Many websites say that the Sun was 35% less radiant 4.5Billion yrs ago. This figure could not have come from "geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence" but must come from astronomy/astrophysics.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont...
If we assume that the Suns radiance increased in a linear fashion we'd get your figure of 3% less during the Cambrian. Problem is that the Sun is not changing in a linear way, for 4 billion years it has been a shrinking ball of gas. In the next 2 billion years it is going to swell up so much that it is going to swallow up the Earth. Given this, I'd say that the 4-5% quoted by scientists is reasonable. (This is the check that I did before quoting their figure).
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "You cant say the Sun was not as hot if the Data is inaccurate"
Yes I can. You're refering to a different dataset. One is from Astronomy and the other is called Geocarb III. They have known about the life cycle of stars at least since the 50s and probably well before. You can't claim that the life cycle of stars was manipulated to support Global warming because the consensus on Global warming did not emerge until the 60s.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 The main objection that I have with your use of the Cambrian is that the volcanic activity was very much greater than more recent times, so not only do we have poor data on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but we have little knowledge on the concentration of other more reflective gases too. It is far better to look to more recent times such as the last occassion that the CO2 level was about 400ppm when other gases in the atmosphere were closer to todays concentrations.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont...
The last time CO2 reached 400 ppm was between 20 and 25 mya. Sea levels were 25-40 m (80-130 ft.) higher than today. The associated temperatures were about 3-6 °C (5-11 °F) higher than today.
Currently the Earth's response to our current CO2 level is transitory in that if the CO2 level was to be held constant, the temperature would continue to rise for many centuries to come. Don't forget to add in the extra radiance from the Sun of 0.2% that has occured over the last 20 million years.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Can you show me where how you know the data from the Cambrian is poor?
Your using this poor data to give me the 5% figure for solar brightness so is that a guess?
Even with poor data the figures of CO2 are so drastic that it cant be explained by your model.
If volcanic activity was high as you claim then there would have been a drastic global cooling effect.
The effect lasted 1/2M Yrs, I dont think volcanic activity is a plasuable explanation for this.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Can you show me where how you know the data from the Cambrian is poor?"
If you google "How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change" you'll find a graph of Geocarb III data with the error margin shaded. You'll find that for some values the error shading is up to 80% of the value. That is why I claim your data is poor.
Even with the poor accuracy of the data, you'll find that it can be explained if you look at the next graph on that same page (ie How Jo Nova doesn't get ...).
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "I dont think volcanic activity is a plasuable explanation"
Where do you think that the CO2 came from? If the CO2 was the result of oceanic outgasing, the temp would have to be so high that you would not even be pursuing this line of argument.
"If volcanic activity was high as you claim then there would have been a drastic global cooling effect"
This is another reason why your line of argument is futile. There may have been a drastic cooling effect to counter the extra CO2.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Part 1
I know the CO2 came from volcanoes.Your taking my words out of context. the volcanic explanation of YOURS was to block sunlight. I know you understand my meaning but your intentionally trying to twist my words.
Your speculation as to the cooling effect of particulates is the same as Carl Sagan & others proposed in the 70s, Nuclear Winter. Dispite Warmers trying to play this down as the "Media" running wild with the story. There were major scientists behind this theory.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Your speculation as to the cooling effect of particulates"
Actually I was quoting you. I was not speculating, and I did not even know that you specifically meant particulates. I thought that you could have been referring to an unspecified reflective gas like SO4. The problem I have with your argument is that you are claiming that the data doesn't support CO2 being one of the forcings on climate when you don't have a full data set to base your claim on.
YOU'RE SPECULATING !!
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Part 2
I will say again, this temp stability was for 500K yrs. to say vocanoes pumped out just enough particles to maintain a stable temperature, while CO2 levels varied from 7000ppm to 3000ppm is idiotic.
The only plausable explanation is that CO2 did no control the temperature, something else did. CO2 may have risen & fallen with volcanic activity but it did little to change world temp.
Not enough data has been collected to show a Statistical Link between temp & CO2.
Sez Phil Jones
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Not enough data has been collected to show a Statistical Link between temp & CO2"
When we look at the Ice core data we can see a very observable correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 650 k years. There is an obvious link. You're mad if you think that is not enough evidence. So if you are quoting Phil Jones, you're obviously taking his words out of context. Blind Freddy could see that.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher How can you point to ice core data when you just told me that Old Data is not reliable?
That Ice core data shows the correlation is that CO2 LAGS Temperature by about 900years.
The statement of a Statistical Link I refer to is with current data.
Phil Jones was telling the truth, it was not out of context.
He was saying that Man Made Warming cannot be show Statistically using the data collected in current times.
The xperiment has not run long enough, thats a FACT
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "That Ice core data shows the correlation is that CO2 LAGS Temperature by about 900years" TECHNICALLY INCORRECT
You should say that the air pockets containing the CO2 are found higher up in the ice column than the ice that they were originally trapped in. Over time as the ice compacted, the pockets of air were squeezed, percolating up through the ice. You are misinterpreting an offset in distance as if it was time.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont..
Maybe an analogy will help with your understanding.
You jump onto a set of scales and find that you weight a couple of pounds more than you did the day before. You hop off the scales and note that the scales now read a couple of pounds. Have you really put on weight?
Just like the person on the scales, we note the calibration offset after we take the reading. We know from basic physics that CO2 is released as soon as the H2O temp rises, so we can use this fact to make our calibration.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Man Made Warming cannot be show Statistically"
We do not need to show it statistically. We can show it physically. The temperature as a 5 year moving average has been on an upward trend for the past 30 yrs; so we know that the globe is warming.
2nd we can measure the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and find that they have been going up too.
3rd, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is man made.
4th the basic science predicts that temp will rise with increasing levels of CO2.
QED
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher You apparently do not understand the Science of Statistics. You cant show a Statistical upward trend for a 900year CO2 lag by only observing a 30 yr period unless there is a Drastic Change.
You 5 yr average is misleading snapshot. That is WEATHER, just as Warmers claim the recent very cold winters. Phil Jones himself admitted there has been a cooling trend since 1998.
Even if CO2 increase is man made there is no STATISTICAL proof that it is causing warming.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "You cant show a Statistical upward trend"
Once again you have missed the point. We do not need to show global warming statistically. We can show it directly.
Weather variability concerns itself with the way energy moves around within the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surface. Global warming is the result of the difference between energy in and the energy emmitted from the Earth. Satellites have been recording the Energy emmitted from the Earth for the last 30 years....
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont...Energy in, energy out:
The satellite data shows directly that the energy emmitted from the Earth has fallen over that 30 year period in the CO2 band and the CH4 band of frequencies. Over the same period energy in from the Sun has remained fairly constant. The result is net energy in. QED Global warming.
When I boil water in a kettle I do not need to take statistical samples of the temperature in the kettle over a 900 year period to know that the kettle is working, the notion is absurd.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher "Even if CO2 increase is man made there is no STATISTICAL proof that it is causing warming"
Once again we do not need to prove this by statistical means, we can do it directly with satellite measurement of electromagnetic light emmission.
GLOBALL WARMING = ENERGY IN - ENERGY OUT
ENERGY IN = energy in from the Sun which is MEASURED by satellites before the light enters the Earths atmosphere.
ENERGY OUT = black body radiation emmitted by the Earth which we can DIRECTLY MEASURE.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Phil Jones himself admitted there has been a cooling trend since 1998"
Over 99% of the NET ENERGY into the Earth has gone into heating the Oceans not the atmosphere.
Jones dataset known as the HADcrut3 deals with land surface temperature only. His dataset does not monitor the Arctic. The Arctic has experienced very large heat gains in recent years. Those datasets that include the Arctic are a better guide to temperature increases. The Globe has not been cooling post-1998.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher So does that mean suface temps do not count, cause thats what Warmers use as their examples.
Lets see about the Ocean Heat Content.
Once the graph was corrected for false data due to instrument problems,The Ocean Heat Content since 1950 has risen within natural variables. DONT PANIC.
Satelite data does not agree with measured Ocean Data,
See this to understand
tallbloke.wordpress(dot)com/2011/02/11/dr-roy-spencer-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "..,The Ocean Heat Content since 1950 has RISEN within natural variables"
So we are in agreement that the OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING. The phrase "within natural variables" is meaningless as there was a time in the past when the Earth was a molten ball of rock devoid of ocean. Virtually any temperature may be said to be within natural variables.
Note: The Roy Spencer article deals with modelling, not the measured data itself and in no way supports your claim.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "So does that mean suface temps do not count"
Yes surface temperatures are increasing too. However the increase in surface temperatures do not explain where all the extra energy is going; energy is literally pooring in onto the Earth. The specific heat of water is much higher than any other common substance. It is the specific heat of water that is causing the ocean temperature to lag the increase of CO2 and air temperatures by so much.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher "surface temperatures do not explain where all the extra energy is going"
What extra energy? The measurements are all flawed, that why all the fudge factors for satellites & ground based measurements. If you looked at recent data satellite does NOT agree with buoy measurments.
If the heat continues to increase then how is it we have had a Decrease in worldwide ocean specific heat?
How long do we have to wait for a big increase in Ocean S.H.?
Been very little increase since 1950s
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "What extra energy?"
EXTRA ENERGY = ENERGY IN - ENERGY OUT
That is the beauty of looking at the radiation spectrum we can directly see that there is an energy imbalance. It performs a check on fabricated claims about fudge factors and flaws. We can see there has been a change in the last 30 years of energy radiated into space. They can measure that Ocean heat has penetrated deeper down. There is an increase in ocean temperatures that is moving like a wave downwards.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher You make ilt sound so easy but the numbers dont add up. The satelite energy is flawed as well as ground based data, thats why fudge factors have to be used.
Your not addressing the FACT that there has been a decrease in ocean specific heat. The upper atmosphere has cooled.
No the equation is not that simple to measure when its the entire earth, if it was there would be NO argument.
Let me ask.. where are you getting this information for your clalims?
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "No the equation is not that simple to measure when its the entire earth"
By concentrating on electromagnetic radiation emmitted to find the power out and comparing it with the radiation emmitted 30 yrs ago we can work out the reduction in power emmitted. By adjusting this figure for albedo and irradiance change we can determine the net power increase since 1960 pooring into the Earth.
Note this method does not require any temp measurements, thus bypassing your quibbles.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Where are you getting your information for how much radiation was emitted 30 years ago?
Dont forget that we are talking about the ENTER Earth her no just a few locations.
In addition, 30 years is Not enough of a time period to show man made warming as a Statical Trend with the small increase we are talking about.
Why do they have to run over 100 climate models if this prediction is so easy to make?
Non of them work and are constantly being tweaked.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Why do they have to run over 100 climate models if this prediction is so easy to make?"
Yes I agree that it is easy. So simple a child could understand. However I'm puting it forward as a quick check against the fabricated claims of the deniers. It is why I can be confident that their claims are bogus. On the other hand this quick method only tells us that Anthropogenic Global warming is happening, it wont model where the energy is going: land, ocean, air or ice.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "30 years is Not enough of a time period to show man made warming"
If you own a kettle you will soon learn that you do not need to take statistical measurements for 30 years to work out that when you turn the kettle on, after a couple of minutes the water will boil.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Dont forget that we are talking about the ENTER (entire?) Earth her (here?) no (not?) just a few locations"
The reason we need to take so many temperature measurements is because the energy is constantly being transfered from upper atmosphere to lower atmosphere, to the oceans & vice versa & around the globe. On the otherhand the atmosphere when it comes to its composition is reasonably homogenous so when it comes to radiation measurements only a few measurements are required.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "The satelite energy is flawed as well as ground based data"
The article by Roy Spencer that you quoted to support this allegation didn't even concern data measurement.
With hundreds of satellites taking various climate related data it is inevitable that at some stage some piece of equipment will fail, however that does not mean the data from satellites in general is flawed. However as I understand it the satellites are either working and they collect data, or not working.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher your ignoring my last post asking about your equation.
Dont forget that we are talking about the ENTER Earth her no just a few locations.
In addition, 30 years is Not enough of a time period to show man made warming as a Statical Trend with the small increase we are talking about.
If we look into the past I can find a 30yr period with greater temperature increase than the last 30 yrs.
Warmers see short term changes as "weather" when its cooling how about that?
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
Comment removed
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Let me ask.. where are you getting this information for your clalims?"
If you google the following you should be able to find it:
"Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001)."
If you understand science at all, the graph will not need explaining.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Ok Mr Science here is the Real question.
I understand this shows accumulation of heat,
How much heat energy, percentage wise, does CO2 represent as part of the whole?
Can this energy be shown to be responsible for the rise in temperature when compared to the amount controlled by water vapor.
You notice they show Greenhouse Gasses, water vapor is the major controling gas, why do we assume CO2 is doing this?
I think if you dig deeper you will find a different explanation than CO2
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Can this energy be shown to be responsible for the rise in temperature when compared to the amount controlled by water vapor"
The graph does not show any of the current rise in temperature being due to water vapor. The following analogy may help. Suppose a room has 6 windows; 4 representing the effect of water vapor and each covered by a thick blanket, one representing CO2 covered by a thin semi-transparent shade, and 1 always open. Extra blankets over H2O blankets has no effect.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont..
An extra thin semi-transparent shade over the CO2 shade will have a significant effect in reducing light coming into the room.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Your analogy is invalid since it has no means of heat escape unless your mean the 1 window. There is no Nightime in your room either
You didnt answer my original question. How much energy, percentage wise does CO2 represent as the whole?
Your graph simply lumps all greenhouse gases together as a control.
Go here for an explanation of how it works.
climaterealists(dot)com/forum/viewtopic(dot)php?f=3&t=207
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 In the analogy heat was represented by light. The Earth emits blackbody radiation both in the day and night, so why would I need a nightime? Analogies are not always ment to mirror the real event in every aspect but just to highlight a point. The saying, "that you can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind. Analogies are often ment to remove the clutter of irrelevant details.
Remember analogies are not meant as a proof but only as an aid in understanding.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Your graph simply lumps all greenhouse gases together as a control"
The graph is the result of measurments taken from the atmosphere. The scientist did NOT lump all the greenhouse gases together as a control; it's the way they naturally occur. What the scientist did was to take measurements in the frequency domain that enables us to tease out the individual gases. Using this method the scientist has seperated the effect of each individual green house gas. CO2/CH4 are the culprets.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 The link to "climaterealists(dot)com/forum/viewtopic(dot)php?f=3&t=207," does not work. The article has been taken down. It was formerly posted on a forum and from what I could find there, I suspect that it was taken down because its errors were heavily exposed; but who knows? The oil company propaganda machine is now censoring the forum so eventually they might put it back up.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher The link is still there, I tried it. I am going to send it directly to you so I dont have to modify it in this post.
If the oil companies were that powerful they would directly censor the agencies spreading Warming propaganda.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "If the oil companies were that powerful they would directly censor the agencies spreading Warming propaganda"
Fox News commentators are prohobited from mentioning global temperatures. You need to follow the money trail to understand the way the censorship works. The book, "the Merchants of Doubt," follows the pseudo-scientific organisations that make their money from powerful lobby groups such as the tobacco companies and the oil companies.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont..The climaterealists post is back up & gone is the message stating that they were not going to let real climate scientists post on the climaterealists forum. I guess they are just no longer allowed on.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Comment removed
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 RE: Climate realists forum/GHG Explanation?
The post concludes that CO2 does not trap heat because after catching it it lets it go again. HA HA. They also assumes that because of the low rainfall in deserts, the desert air contains no H2O vapor. In Australia the same air that passes over the desert releases water in the form of rain on the Great Dividing Range. Where do they think the rain comes from?
Note: Deserts are only 1/15th of the Earth's surface.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont.. (RE: Climate realists forum/GHG Explanation?)
Another error the forum post makes is that they fail to realise that CO2 and H2O absorption spectrum overlap. So instead of CO2 just blocking 8% of the IR window it would block about 20% in the absence of water vapor. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was to increase this could go as high as 40%. Don't forget that desert air still contains significant levels of water vapor.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont.. (RE: Climate realists forum/GHG Explanation?)
Another assumption the explanation makes is that if a CO2 molecule re-emits a photon then that photon has a 50% chance of escaping from the Earth. It could be re-absorbed by another CO2 molecule and converted to vibrational heat and not re-emitted.
Note: Because space is a vacuum the only way heat can escape is in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Particle kinetic energy (heat) is trapped.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher Ha Ha , there explanation makes more sense than your window analogy.
They simply say that the IR window is open to release heat, water has more control.
I dont think your getting the point. As I stated before you simply are assuming that MORE energy is trapped than radiates back into space. You have no way of proving that via satelite & ground readings because they Dont Agree. The data must be massaged to get to your conclusion.
The .7C increase over 100yrs is well within normal
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "that via satelite & ground readings because they Dont Agree"
The ground equipment does not measure the radiation exiting the Earth's atmosphere. How can it? You have been caught red handed fabricating evidence. However in your defence you are simply repeating the religious mantra of the deniers. The deniers arguments can't stand up to the evidence. As for equipment needing to be calibrated, even my bathroom scales has a thumbwheel, to zero the scale before use.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "the IRwindow is open to release heat, water has more control"
You are ommitting a very important detail.They were only talking about deserts. Deserts only cover 1/15th of the Earth's surface & therefore R not typical. The claims made in the forum post did not include measurements of emissions to space; so their report is not supported. It's probable that the data I had did NOT come from a desert region, but the data proved that at whatever location it was WATER HAD NO CONTROL.
RasPesher 9 months ago
Cont.. This is not to say that at another location, such as a desert, that water may have some control. I was not, and am not trying to argue that water is not an important GH factor, but for 14/15ths of the Earth's surface the H2O IR window is firmly slammed shut.
Another reason for deserts having low overnight temperatures is that the land has a lower specific heat than water; most deserts are inland. Camels are in no way unique. Even animals that live near the sea where it's warm have fur.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "The data must be massaged to get to your conclusion" - YOU'RE WRONG.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "As I stated before you simply are assuming that MORE energy is trapped than radiates back into space" - YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN.
MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT AN ASSUMPTION. Unfortunately we have another case where your head is firmly planted up your assumptions. The only reason that the deniers have to AVOID the evidence is because their explanations are off in LA LA LAND.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher "MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT AN ASSUMPTION"
Ha Ha, the site you pointed me to had NO measurments.
I again tell you that your satelite measurements do not agree with land/ocean based. The only way they add up is ignoring some data & fudging other.
Point me to actual hard data that can support your claim, otherwise you parroting Warmers propaganda.
I gave you a site with actual graphs/numbers and data.
Show me the same.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "I gave you a site with actual graphs/numbers and data"
Yes your site had graphs that they had copied from climate scientists. However those graphs did not support their main claim, that there was no water vapor in the atmosphere above deserts. Instead they used a CAMEL AS EMPIRiCAL EVIDENCE or more specifically the hair on the camel's back! Did you actually read the article or just glance at the pretty pictures? To top it off, the deniers admitted that they misquoted the figures!
RasPesher 9 months ago
At Texmurphy Cont..
All empirical measuring equiptment NEEDS TO BE CALIBRATED against National and International standards. The GW denier groups call the calibration process "fudging". So when I or a scientist says calibrate I would like you to understand that this means "fudge" in your vocabulary.
HOW DO YOU CALIBRATE A CAMEL?
RasPesher <