Climate models are tested by running them against real world past measured climate. Since they work for the past, future predictions are also likely to be modelled correctly. See...
Räisänen, J. 2007. How reliable are climate models? Tellus A 59(1), 2-29.
"Nonetheless, models have skilfully simulated many large-scale aspects of observed climate changes, including but not limited to the evolution of the global mean surface air temperature in the 20th century."
With respect to the point below, NOTHING can predict climate in the future. All we ever have at our disposal are COMPUTER-MODELS, OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS - none of which have any meaning or significance whatsoever 50-100 years from now. Either of these methods can only describe or attempt to explain the HEAR and NOW. It's the same thing with WEATHER, which reflects the CLIMATE - IT'S A WORKS IN PROGRESS - nothing more and nothing less.
Computer-models are a very useful scientific tool, which nearly all scientists use to some extent or another. However, they are by no means reliable and accurate as far as the climate system is concerned. Computer-models need to be able to simulate the climate accurately with a complete understanding of the natural processes at play - of which there are thousands. Unfortunately, our understanding of these processes are not only incomplete, but in many respects even rudimentary.
LIES-Remember how Ross Perot said NAFTA and GATT was going to create a "Giant Sucking Sound" and all US JOBS will be gone-Al (the Gangster) GORE laughed at Ross Perot-But do you see any JOBS left in America Now-Don't Get Fooled Again-Vote for RON PAUL or starve in a FEMA Prison Camp. The United Nations is a Rothschild mechanism of Global Satanism.
I am neither for nor against man-made global warming because of the science suggesting that it is a real threat, and the science suggestion it is not a threat. In my personal opinion however I do believe that doing nothing could be suicide to modern civilization if the scientific evidence for climate change turns out to be true. We will need to change our means of powering the planet in the future anyway with our non-renewables running dry i.e. Coal, Oil and gas. Why not start now?
UN cost estimates this week to reduce the 24ppm of man-made atmospheric CO2 would be $76 TRILLION. With all vastly inaccurate climate models, the high probability of another solar minimum starting, the skewed NASA and NOAA temp data, the Climategate scandal, no rise of global temperature since 1995, ice core evidence proving CO2 rises is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE of natural global warming, recent record low winter temps., record snowfall in both hemispheres, etc., proves AGW is an expensive hoax.
The severity of the climate is currently out-forcasting the IPCC, which means, that the situation is currently worse than the worst IPCC prediction model. Before taking this one voice into consideration into your opinions, look at some real peer-reviewed literature about the truths on climate change, and read the IPCC report yourself. Leave climate science to the climatologists, not the astrophysicists. Get the facts. 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have been since 2000.
Years ago my professors tried to tell me it was all a sham. I didn't believe them at first because I had been beat to death with what the idiots in the media had to say about it. It took me years of research to determine on my own that it is completely a political issue and not a scientific one There is no data to support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. It's based on computer modeling, and as a meteorologist I know the physics break down in the models a matter of days, not decades.
LOOK neither computer models,or any other scientist can forsee the future. It only takes one big volcanoe to spoil the forecast. Fortune telling is for astrology. At present the globe is cooling , co2 levels are decreasing.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
why do things like this have to inspire so much hate in people? this is good, well documented observation and it speaks very fairly for an unpopular scientific belief. it's doesn't make any wild inferences or accusations for or against any ideology. why do they have to be wrong? why can't they just be a valid argument? you don't have to change your beliefs to accept something as worthwhile. lighten up, everyone. you're not dying tomorrow. not because of global warming anyway.
We should HELP the environment anyway. I think people want to prove global warming wrong so they can just use up more oil and coal without worrying about the consequences of there effect.
@Catoriesih No these people are scientists in search of the truth. Co2 is essential to life, plants use it to produce sugar hence we do not starve. Global cooling is much worse than warming.
@david222444 So... What is wrong with cleaning the earth anyway? The only thing we would be left with is more energy efficient vehicles and cleaner oxygen. We CAN find a better way but we don't want to.
@Catoriesih There is nothing at all wrong with cleaning the earth. Just be honest about the motives. There is no need to scarmonger with false assumptions of Global warming.
@Catoriesih The whole GW issue has never really been about GW. It has been completely about global redistribution of wealth. The Kyoto Protocol exempted all developing nations from CO2 restrictions and palced draconian restrictions on developed nations. Example was the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions to pre-1970 levels only for developed nations no reductions on China, India, or any 3rd world nation. Just imagine the havok this would wreak on the US or European economies.
This information is from The American Prospect. article from 2004.There studies were funded by:American Petroleum Institute & ExxonMobil.“Since its publication in 2003, the work of Soon and Legates has been embroiled in controversy over its scientific legitimacy.”“co-authored with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Baliunas” “White House pressured EPA scientists to delete a hockey-stick diagram and instead include a reference to the Soon and Baliunas work in a forthcoming EPA report.”
Talking 6min about a model climate change, that was a waist of time, no significant facts just regurgitation. This was uninformative and un-gratifying in every way. I would love to believe you but when you say someone is wrong then people will ask were is you're prof. And if someone sticks there neck out with a theory about what will happen in the next 20 years and have something intriguing and fact building evidence then I would rather listen to that then ALL the crap form the nej sayers.
This video was a the conclusion, recapping the information, of the show. From your comment, one can only infer that you have not viewed the first four videos.
@MDCBilge so you can only infer that...why don't you look these scientists up on the net. There scientific data is inconclusive and they are funded by Oil corporation, and one can infer that you have reply to my comment just because I pop the bio-dome bubble of some make believe theory with fact quotes that are all over the net.
Gamma radiation from Crab Nebula is increasing (per NASA), adding to formation of clouds (Svensmark). Coincide with cooling Europe and the US (Maine -49F) eastern seaboard snowfall (increased solar reflectivity?). Research the Priora Oscillation to get a picture of what occured about 5k years ago ...way before BP..
Listen to 2:20 through 2:45 on this video. She is absolutely right. There is a wide range of expected outcomes that we predict, chaotic systems are very hard to predict but there is still precision...this is no different than any other scientific estimate. Estimates and even measurements ALWAYS have ranges. This is actually a good thing, as it gives best and worst cases scenario. In science and especially engineering, you always plan for worst cased scenario. And we should do the same here.
Nils-Axel Mörner from Stockholm from the 3 &4 videos is a hack. Every single conclusion he comes to is baseless. He claims when sitting on the beach pointing to a wave height from several years ago, that the ocean is lowering. That was the silliest thing I have ever seen.That was obviously driftwood brought in on a storm ...also I checked out Wikipedia and he is a strong supporter of Dowsing...basically hes a psychic. Anyone with a basic understanding of science will see through his nonsense.
@nasukade What stronger hurricanes? Do you mean Katrina? What has happened since then? Not much of anything. Take a look at the hurricane seasons over the past 4 years.
So, you don't want anyone to study? do you want people to be ignorant? Why? So you can get the ignorant to believe anything and everything you say? Probably.
We humans are not causing the climate change. The other planets in our solar system are getting warmer too. Pluto, which is so far from the sun that no thermo radiation can reach, is even showing signs of a thaw. If all of the planets are warming then it is not caused by humans but from outside the solar system. An increasing amount of gamma radiation has been detected emanating from the galactic core. A coincidence that the Maya depicted a river spewing from that core & engulfing us in 2012?
.. The Maya even claimed this time will bring a change in consciousness or awareness. Did you know that gamma radiation is caused by a high powered electromagnetic field? Remember the study done on cell phones, and electromagnetic fields? EM radiation can cause neurological changes in the brain, research neurological effects of electromagnetic fields. Gamma rays can indeed cause a change in ones consciousness. Were the Maya right about that too? Then what else will they be right about?
@buisyman The Mayan were drove off or killed for gold by the Spaniards, in the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire led by Hernán Cortés. The descendants of the Maya still live in the mountains in South America.
@GateMessenger Correction Mr. GateMessenger. The descendants of the mayans do not live in the mountains of South America, they live in South East of Mexico which is in the North of the American Continent. Where did you learn geography?
If the scientific foundations of climate change and global warming do not agree, the science behind them itself must be biased. The general consensus that human beings are slowly cooking themselves to death in this blue, pot-belly stove with fossil fuels and other carbon-based materials is premature and ought to be studied with far more diligence before the scientific community concludes its findings. Without the existence of fact-based findings, theories will remain theories.
ifreeballit ! well done! well said. i agree with you IT IS BETTER TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE. I feel that this video is to comdemn each other. HELLO!! WAKE UP DEAR SCIENTIST YOUR JOB IS TO HELP MOTHER EARTH ! YOU DON'T GET PAID TO FIGHT EACH OTHER! You are wasting time, smart scientist spend time on now creation that help extinct animal or something. Spend the time to help poor /dying children on earth. BY FIGHTING EACH OTHER DON’T FEED HUNGRY CHILDERN IN THE SLUMB! “SMART PEOPLE” start thinking!
@titusoz Start thinking? Maybe you should do the same. They aren't fighting, it's called debating, ever heard of it? Real Scientist debating for Truth's Sake. That's what it's all about. Maybe you should start thinking a little and quit believing all these lies about Global Warming.
@Zulnic hi Zulnic, is this DEBATING FEEDING ANY CHILDERN in Haiti, hungry children and families in Africa????? Stop animal extinct animal??? i am thinking for the people around the world, i am not from AFRICA, but why should i care. HELLO BEAUSE I AM THINKING for these poor childern and animal. "Maybe you should start thinking a little and quit believing all these lies about Global Warming." did i say i am rooting for global warming? NO!!
@titusoz I know exactly how you feel, but there are people fighting for the hungry. Also, you want something to think about? How about instead of helping people in Haiti, and in Africa, that we start helping our own people? I'm not against helping other people, but in the past few years, poverty in America has gone way up. 22% of America's children are in poverty. And you think we should be helping Haiti and Africa, when we can't even help out own? Now that's something to think about.
@Zulnic Hi zulnic, again I said help poor children and people aroung the world ... Haiti is just an example. Help people around you be it our country or other country. They are te one that need help and debating of scientist is not helping anyone . The main point I am Posing is debating doesn't help feed and one or any help.
@titusoz I understand where you are coming from with helping feed the hungry, but it's almost as though you dislike Scientist debating on the Truth. Truth is, that these Scientist might not have had jobs if it wasn't for what they are doing. They don't just debate, they do research, without this research, we can't advance. Without advancement, we will never grow or learn. And this growing and learning will allow us to help more people. Without proper knowledge, you can't help people.
@Zulnic There are research that are good .. That have a positive out come . Example cure for new flu that in the end help human benefit . Thus research become a positive one . This debate have been in gray area . No out put . The large ice cap broke at green , 4 size of manhattan . That is the fact but are these scientist "incharge" of research doing anything no. All the do is blaming each other .. Debating of cause and responsibility , that are paid to research and help inthis issue.
They are doing the what causing it.. This is not positive out put . They should be giving solution. Educate people how to solve problem rather than "who to blame".
@titusoz and there lies the problem titusoz. See, most Scientist aren't really there to offer solutions. They are their to do research. They are their to provide Businesses with the information they need to provide solutions and new inventions. Yes some scientist provide solutions, but these scientist didn't go to school to provide solutions, that's for businesses to do. They went to school to research, which usually takes 8 years, a Ph.D.
@Zulnic Quote " This is distinct from philosophers, those who use logic toward a more comprehensive understanding of intangible aspects of reality that lack a direct connection to nature, focusing on the realm of thought itself. Scientists are also distinct from engineers, those who develop devices that serve practical purposes. " wikipedia definition of scientist. Why spend 8yr studying some thing that is nothing . Busniess to do ?
So scientist provide research for business .. So in te end who benefit ? The scientist and their business partner..? Does it benefit the poor ? That is why in states the rich are getting richer and poor people plunge deeper in to poverty . Not only in te states.. Is every where.
@titusoz oh really? the only ones getting richer are the government officials, while the rest of us is getting relatively poorer. But only the free enterprise system made us better off than we were 200 years ago, and still does. Somehow you rarely see a starving person in Western countries today, don't you?
@Zulnic all i said was "You are wasting time, smart scientist spend time on extinct animal or something. Spend the time to help poor /dying children on earth."
answer me Zulnic by debating for truth sake DOES IT FEED HUMAN? FEED HUNGRY CHILDERN IN SLAM? does it ? Still seeking the truth ? TRUTH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU "Every seven seconds, a child dies at the hand of a silent killer. Hunger. Right now, millions of children in Africa are at risk of starvation."
you know, either way.....ITS BETTER TO STAY ON THE SAFE SIDE AND STOP the emission CO2, because its unnatural, IT WILL NEVER HURT TO TRY AND KEEP EARTH THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE US! let it do its thing, we should not be an interruption, we should be aa benefit, just like any animal in this world, this beautiful circle of life. humans seem to have somewhat of interferance with this, from the view that ive gotten its HUMANS VS. WORLD itself . shouldnt we be a whole?................ill leet u ponder.
@ifreeballit The hurt is that global warming polices such as cap in trade will cost the economy many trillions in higher energy costs. People use energy to warm their homes in the winter and cool in the summer. Poor people are already having enough trouble buying heating oil etc. Our food is manufactured with energy and if food is more expensive and scarce then more starvation. we have enough people starving in the world already.
@ifreeballit So you say the bad effects of global warming are worth taking any measures to avoid. But you fail to see that man made global warming has almost no chance of happening and nearly no chance of negative effects. Also that the carbon taxing policies will almost certainly not slow down warming. But, what is certain is the terrible human costs of global warming policies. If human life has less value to you than making sure man doesn't use energy, then I see that as quite odd.
@ifreeballit Seriously? CO2 emissions are UNNATURAL? LoL, The world we live in produces the bulk of CO2 emissions. If you've done your research, we as humans have a very very small percentage of CO2 emissions, compared to the rest of the world. We also breath out CO2 lol. It's what trees use to produce Oxygen. I'm all for Green Tech, but using this Global Warming scam to promote it? I'm all for mankind advancing in tech and knowledge. I'll let ye ponder. :)
I am confused about what point John Christy is trying to make. I understand that the climate models are not perfect, but he seems to suggest there is a better way to predict climate change. How? Measurements alone don't make predictions, so what does he mean?
@TheSlowThinker he was saying climate models are not authoritative on their own because they only show the predictions of the theory, not the predictions of actuality. if their was a model as complex as the Earth and/or universe, then you could accurately predict the climate, but what would be the point? you would already know everything anyway,
Follow the money. Only researchers creating output that support AGW are getting huge funding. This has corrupted science, and that is the most tragic thing that has come out of the entire situation.
all the arguments in this rubbish have been discredited. every last one. moreover, the evidence of global warming is now stronger (three years on). this would take only a little research to discover, but watching a video is much more fun.
@OvoidCranium do something useful for once and find support for an argument against agw from this film. you should realise that you only need one. the key is it must be raised in this film (and tell me where) and you need to cite a source from peer-reviewed literature. and it must be anti-agw.
I am pointing out that apart from strawman, ad hominem, irrelevant waffle and now bald assertion you have nothing to offer and have not produced any valid arguments.
@OvoidCranium it's simple. i claimed there were no valid arguments in this film. you suggest that i am kidding. i suggest i am not. i ask you, very politely, to back up one argument in this film with some verifiable research from a decent source. it is seemingly not a onerous request. or, alternatively, acknowledge that the film doesn't contain valid arguments against agw.
@OvoidCranium do you think there are valid arguments in this film? do you think there is one valid argument in this film that goes against agw? please answer the question. if you can manage it.
@batteries76 What you are doing now is shifting the burden of proof you made the claim that:
""all the arguments in this rubbish have been discredited. every last one"
not just that there are no valid arguments you also made the claim that they have been discredited. That was a bald assertion a logical fallacy now shifting the burden of proof is also a logical fallacy.
When it comes to argument by fallacy I think you'd have to be a contender for the championship.
@OvoidCranium yep. there are too many of these fatuous claims out there to possibly counter them all in 500 characters, although i have countered many at various times. it is an invitation for someone who believes strongly in the content of this spurious production to attempt to engage on the issue and validate one of the claims it makes. it is a bald assertion, and if someone was willing they could prove me wrong. i know that won't be you because nothing you say is ever of any consequence.
@batteries76 " it is an invitation for someone who believes strongly in the content of this spurious production to attempt to engage on the issue and validate one of the claims it makes."
No it doesn't work like that you are shifting burden of proof and now waffling about it. "nothing you say is ever of any consequence."
There you go I've just told you that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy employed by someone who doesn't have the ability to present a coherent argument.
@OvoidCranium i'm not claiming that it is a perfect form of argument. however. the science is out - it supports agw. there are thousands of papers and organisations that are readily available to back this up. here i am suggesting that anyone is welcome to back up the claims that come from the other side. if you don't wish to do this then that's up to you. either way is fine by me - my expectations of you are rather low.
@batteries76 Shifting the burden of proof is not a valid argument nor are unsupported assertions and arguments ad populum (your latest). I will only keep on pointing this sort of thing out until you learn and start supporting your claims in a coherent manner. If you can.
@OvoidCranium sure. i have nothing more to say to you on this then. you seem to think that by keeping on in this way you are making a point of some sort and that inserting latin into your posts increases their value. my request was simple, take it or leave it. it's not proof of anything, nor did i say it was - it's a request. if people want to believe the contents of this film i ask that they look at the sources and back it up with some evidence. you won't, or can't, so you play word games.
@OvoidCranium here's my statement: "there is nothing of value about the science of global warming in this film that refutes the consensus opinion on agw." i've made it easy for you. you can agree, or you can disagree. if you disagree all you have to do is find one single argument in the film and show it to be correct and valuable. then i will be wrong, and you will be right. or you can agree.
@OvoidCranium correct. it's not an argument, it is a contention. it wasn't claimed to be an argument. you have made your choice - do whatever you like.
@batteries76 I'm sure it must tedious having the emptiness of your coments continually pointed out. Isn't it time you learnt something about the topic rather that mindlessly parroting the alarmist blogs?
@OvoidCranium how about this simple question: do you agree with this film? it'll go unanswered as well because you are a coward. i've given the parameters. take it or leave it - it's not hard. the only thing you have is blogs - the science sides with me. as your grand self-delusion grows you only sound more ridiculous and are further in a hole. either you support the poor journalism in this film or you don't. i've said my piece - i don't support it. you, as always, say nothing.
@OvoidCranium answer any of these three questions: do you agree with this film? (yes/no). did you call me a liar? (yes/no). what does your equation have to do with global warming? all are simple, or should be. failing to answer them does not show intelligence, it shows you are gutless - that you stand for nothing.
@batteries76 what I think of this film is irrelevant you made the claim it's rubbish you need to substantiate that.
Doc called you a liar. Did you forget? On the very last post to you. I agree with him that it's a waste of time arguing with liars, and also with people who cannot understand the arguments (or use strawman), use ad hominem, bald assertions then shift the burden of proof etc.
If you don't know what that equation has to do with warming of any sort you are out of your depth.
@OvoidCranium it's ok, i get it. you don't really have anything. it's so clear now. i say that i agree with the views of the scientists on the issue and that everything in this film says against it is false. you could pick any part to support your beliefs. the trouble is you don't know why you are against agw and as such you can't explain it so you hide behind some physics equations and hope you don't get caught out. but really you are just baffled.
I don't need anything you made the claim there is no valid argument in this film now prove it. It's not up to me what I think about it is irrelevant. You can keep trying to get a different response like some of the more idiotic journo's do but it won't get you anywhere.
@OvoidCranium any argument you have against the scientific current understand of global warming. any at all. one thing. i'll even accept that equation if you want to relate it to climate change. again - doc called me a liar, you agreed, therefore you think that i'm a liar. but you are so weak that you can't even stand behind the things you say. it's pathetic. and all i hear is wordplay. are you saying i didn't refute his claims? i await your non answer on the topic. keep running.
@batteries76 "i'll even accept that equation if you want to relate it to climate change."
It is actually fundamental to how hot (or cold) anything in an electro-magnetic radiation field source from a sphere can become when the only heat transfer mode available is radiation. You will note that there is no term for albedo which can account for change cloud cover and ice extent so changing those (and CO2 levels) can have no effect on the overall heat content of the planet.
@OvoidCranium i have said strongly what i stand for. yes, they are broad, but the science on this is broad. if you had any courage at all you could do one of two things: find a bit of the film you support and claim it, or find a bit of the broader science and disprove it. instead you weasel around playing word games. you are so desperate not to be caught out you stand for nothing and snipe. it's gutless.
@OvoidCranium yes. i nearly fell off my chair when i got home. ovoid, out of the blue, some words which actual relevance. just so we are clear before we get started, you are saying that human activity isn't the cause of global warming? just to be clear. that the secret instead is in this equation. correct? can't believe it: a real actual conversation with ovoid. half my luck.
I don't know about that my room would be a lot colder than it is without the heater going. This means we can and do affect microclimates clear enough so far? CO2 cannot affect the equilibrium temperature and hence the overall energy content in the planet since the heat capacity is constant. It does play a part in affecting the distribution of heat on the planet.
@OvoidCranium so i'm asking, are you saying that the total heat content of the planet remains the same? that we just see changes in temperature that appear to show that things are hotter? that no heat comes into or out of the earth's system? is that a fair representation?
@batteries76 "that no heat comes into or out of the earth's system?"
need to be careful making such statements energy is continually being exchanged the net growth of energy in the climate over a very long time is zero (probably cooling very slowly as the core cools but this is negligible). Every year because of eccentricity the earth moves towards and away from the sun so there will be a lag when it's gaining and again when it's losing never quite getting to equilibrium except on average.
@OvoidCranium why do you say the net growth is zero? two things. carbon dioxide (and methane and water vapour) traps energy, increasing the energy in the system. secondly, the erbe project was started specifically to measure the energy budget and look for a discrepancy. my understanding is they found one - the earth is taking on energy. this correlates to the data on temperature and ocean heat content. sun output is flat, and the scale is off for it to be milankovitch cycles. where is the error?
@batteries76 "the erbe project was started specifically to measure the energy budget and look for a discrepancy. my understanding is they found one "
the interferometers on those birds (and the ones on the ground) cannot measure what is absorbed the only way to find that out is with laboratory data re the einstein coefficients of the radiatively active species in the atmosphere, and temperature and concentration data as measured by radiosonde throughout the atmosphere. Satellites can't do it.
It's more accurate to say they distribute heat they share what they absorb in a matter of nano-seconds to help warm the atmosphere which once it reaches equilibrium with the surface will emit up and down (sideways components of emissions cancel) exactly what that absorb Kirchoff's law at work. This warm atmosphere with water vapour lift by convection to radiate at least 50% of what they have absorbed to space in first 6KM.
@OvoidCranium on the carbon dioxide this seems to be a quibble. the net result will be a retention of heat - regardless of the nomenclature. i'm not saying how much, or what warming an amount of co2 produces, but stating the effect. as to the measurements, we can presumably measure the energy entering the earth and also the energy leaving. the difference is the loss/gain. why would radiosonde be the only way?
@batteries76 "on the carbon dioxide this seems to be a quibble. the net result will be a retention of heat - regardless of the nomenclature"
It's no quibble according to Beer-Lambert law if you increase the concentration of an absorber you reduce the distance distance over which it absorbs not the amount it absorbs. Unless the distance is restricted as in a cuvette. The equation is tau (optical depth) = a * c * l where a is the absorption coefficient, c the concentration and l the distance.
@OvoidCranium my understanding is that the physics on this has been run and won. but fair enough. surely there is support for these ideas in the literature if it were true, although i'm not seeing it. i'm looking at beer-lambert and it seems to be that absorbance increases linearly with concentration. also, i don't think you've addressed why the erbe project can't do the job it was designed for. if they can measure the in and the out then they can measure the absorption.
@batteries76 "my understanding is that the physics on this has been run and won"
far from it there is even a mathematical error leading to a singularity in temperature at the surface AND has for some odd reason 2 boundary conditions for a first order differential equation that has been perpetuated for 80 years.
There is still much work to be done.
" absorbance increases linearly with concentration."
no the optical depth changes linearly with concentration AND path length get it right!!
@OvoidCranium listen ovoid. we can have this conversation here and that's fine. it's one thing to have an intelligent chat about some issues to do with the debate, it's another to snipe other conversations especially by going in to bat for some of the more spurious canards out there. you are a level ahead of most others so why go back into the mud? and i want to be completely clear: you are saying that an increase in the level of co2 will not increase the amount of energy in the earth's system?
@batteries76 "you are saying that an increase in the level of co2 will not increase the amount of energy in the earth's system?"
that is right because the change in heat capacity is negligible and the change in overall temperature (average is an equally bad term for an intensive property) cannot change by any means apart from the sun heating up or we change the orbit because they are the parameters that determine the intensity of light at TOA.
@OvoidCranium also, with regards your equation a variation gives the absorption as the product of the molar absorptivity, the absorption cross-section, and the concentration of the gas. holding the first two variables constant as you would when dealing with one substance and a known depth, and increasing the concentration would result in an increase in the absorption. regarding the cited paper, far more interesting would be their conclusion which would seem to directly contradict you.
@batteries76 in the end, these are just simple equations (although i don't think you have shown them to do what you need them to). more to the point is the wealth of literature that says that carbon dioxide does absorb energy and that an increase in the concentration will increase the amount of energy trapped in the "earth's system", for want of a better phrase. that last paper didn't do what you wanted so perhaps you can find one that does.
@batteries76 these equations work just fine when designing the WORKING instruments I have built. There is no argument that CO2 absorbs IR the problem is climate alarmists just won't accept it also emits.
Here from a text book by Grant Petty
s229. photobucket. com /albums /ee272 /JanPompe/?action=view¤t=PettyFig8-2-mod.jpg&newest=1
you can see where CO2 emits at 268C towards the surface in the bottom one.
@batteries76 try not to confuse yourself what you say is true for a sample in a cuvette as I mentioned earlier. In your earlier post you seem to have been confused optical depth and absorbance they are not the same. Recent work we have done on the atmospheric optical depth indicates that the global average optical depth is constant.
If the optical depth is constant then as concentration increases the path length must decrease remember the atmosphere is opaque at the wave lengths of interest.
@OvoidCranium i'd be happy to see the outcomes of this research. you've not yet specified your objections to the conclusions of the miscolczi paper, although you may have none. i don't think it's accurate to refer to the atmosphere as opaque. the absorption will decrease as the light filters through and more so as the concentration increases, but neither of these aspects are linear. perhaps to avoid my further confusion you would furnish me with a paper that i can peruse.
@batteries76 The peer review process is complete an has been accepted will be out at the end of the year.
From the Miskolczi paper
"due to technical or engineering constraints, the spectral sensitivity of a detector or instrument design sets the spectral boundaries"
The upper picture in the Grant Petty chart shows those spectral boundaries for that air borne instruments. You can see it's narrower than the land based upward looking one.
@OvoidCranium i can see that. on that you have a point - the extent of the point is not clear. agreed again on your criticism of that particular aspect of the miskolczi paper. but that only holds if you assume that the energy discrepancy we are aware of is balanced by energy exiting the earth's system through those wavelengths not measured. this seems like a stretch. congratulations on your publication. in the meantime is there one that is analogous or are you actually breaking new ground?
@batteries76 If you compare the picture in the upper panel of the Grant Petty fig8 with fig 1 in Miskolczi paper you'll get an idea of how much is missing. Most of the time they just assume continuum and fill in the missing part with Planks law but this will over state the emision of course if they don't they will understate it. What do you it was that Trenberth was complaining about in those emails when he said it "it is a travesty we can't [measure it]"? The instruments have a way to go.
@OvoidCranium my problem with this theory is that it would have to be the case that the energy is absorbed at one frequency, then emitted at another frequency and that all of the discrepancy occurs in those wavelengths. it's possible, but not particularly likely and should be assumed. trenberth was referring to the "lack of warming" not the instruments. he could see the energy imbalance, but it was not then being born out in the temperature data. the missing energy was later found in the ocean.
@batteries76 "my problem with this theory ... and should be assumed."
absorbing at one frequency and emitting at another is known as fluorescence though most people tend to think it only refers to lamps. In such cases we take the integral over the entire spectrum and where phosphorescence occurs we have to integrate over decay time as well. The first law of thermodynamics is found to hold in those cases as well and we might cite Balfour Stewart's law for the equilibrium state.
@batteries76 "the missing energy was later found in the ocean."
can't find it there either.
"i also want to note that you have not addressed ... that causes the trapping effect."
Side ways components cancel there is only up and down. In the Petty graph we can see the CO2 band is radiating at 268 K which is actually the surface temperature (from the text) the near surface parcel radiates the same amount upward but from higher levels where it is cooler it comes back at a lower rate.
@OvoidCranium i also want to note that you have not addressed my issue about the fact that it is the reemission in many directions of the carbon dioxide that causes the trapping effect. it's temporary - without a continuing energy source presumably the energy would, in time, be emitted back into space and the earth would be cold. the sun's output has been steady for some time now and cannot explain the current warming. do you have a theory as to what would? or a paper? what journal is yours in?
@batteries76 continuation. It's this difference the smaller back radiation with increasing altitude means there is a net flow out to space about 195 W/m^2 IRCC. This is usually about half the surface radiation but about 25 W/m^2 more that what is being absorbed at the surface. There are some tricky intermediate bits but the simple equations actually give a fair picture of what is going on. Those integrals I mentioned earlier, applied layer by layer to the atmosphere are anything but trivial.
@OvoidCranium this has been good. i have learned a lot in tackling it. no doubt there is more complexity to the situation, and my approach will be to follow the science as it stands on this until it is shown to be wrong. people have undertaken that painstaking work on the integrals, and it has shown - to this point - that co2 traps energy and this increases as the co2 increases. perhaps this isn't to your satisfaction, but you'll need better than a few equations on youtube to convince me.
@OvoidCranium clearly the science of all these areas is beyond most people's grasp - either through lack of time, will or intelligence. we all fall into that category on some topic in this debate. i understand your concerns and have taken them on board. i have no agenda beyond wanting to uphold the science as it stands, and if this changes, i will change with it. the same could be said for what you have outlined here. show me the money, and it's a done deal. good luck with your paper.
@OvoidCranium i do want to say one other thing. while i appreciate your concerns on the issue, i am baffled that you side with some of the more spurious arguments on this debate. if you are right it amounts to the same outcome - that agw isn't true - but the important element is the truth of the science, not just the outcome. even if you are on the same 'team' surely it must trouble you to see some of the arguments out there - and i'd have thought they were as wrong to your eyes as mine.
@batteries76 Out of those woods hypos are worrying. Any way as you research the various opinions of climatologists (usually called alarmist) you will find that some will hold that the signature of CO2 warming is not the tropo hot spot but stratospheric cooling. I tend to agree with this but what it means is that the warming has concentrated the heat in the lower troposphere. Thus we see higher temperatures down low, higher water vapour down low but lower temperatures & low vapour up high.
@OvoidCranium good to hear. ok. i will keep my eyes on all of this as it goes on. also you mention alarmist. i can't stand some of the more 'alarmist' aspects, but further, the use of that term, and 'denialist', has permeated the debate. it completely polarises the situation and means you have two groups shouting at each other. the current level of debate is poor, but the fact that we eventually got somewhere gives me hope.
@OvoidCranium my other comment would be that while i don't have a full grasp of all the equations involved, there is significant complexity that is left out in making some of your claims. there is a subtlety to the interaction of the light as it passes through the atmosphere. i agree that co2 also emits, but it is the angles of emission that create the trapping effect. the energy initially comes from one source and one direction, the emissions don't balance in their directional output.
@batteries76 "we can presumably measure the energy entering the earth and also the energy leaving. the difference is the loss/gain. "
The instruments on the satellites are not that accurate because they don't cover the entire spectrum emitted from earth and radiosonde (direct measured) data is the satellite data is checked.
3w. met. hu /idojaras /IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01. pdf
It's by 2 of the chaps who calibrate the birds instruments. See 3rd par page 210.
@batteries76 "failing to answer them does not show intelligence, it shows you are gutless - that you stand for nothing."
I have explained why I'm not answering them but I'll add one other and that is you have been rude in the extreme and that is another reason not to answer it only encourages your bad behaviour.
Now let's see some sign, any sign that you actually know what yhou are on about.
@OvoidCranium now you are claiming rudeness. this from a man who called me a liar but could not back it up and then ducked it when he was trapped. it's quite simple, doc called me a liar, you agreed. now you say that didn't happen. the explanation for agw is out there. pick any point in it to show that it isn't happening. you won't because you are gutless. keep hiding ovoid, keep running and hiding.
@batteries76 Hey can back up that doc called you a liar that is no problem at all.
You claim to have refuted that I don't agree that you have. But that is par for the course for you you make claims you can't support I'm not sure if that makes you a liar or a fool. You can make your own choice regarding that.
@flyncatfish sounds like someone watched Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore didn't specify whether he was saying that global warming just ain't so or that we are going to die in the next 30 year. Do what you want, store your farts in an airtight chamber, or wait for real evidence to show up about our (human) impact on the Earth's temperature before you (Clinton) start cap and trade B.S.
So i ran my own research model in software i created while at MIT and the raw data clearly told me, that even if global warming was not going to happen in the next 2 weeks we should still look after this thing called the environment - by regulating shit flavored emissions that are constantly being pumped into it, by creating clean energy and the countless number of jobs that will be created along with it. My PC then told me it loved me before exploding to the electric dreams theme song.
I've believed this for a long time, but I'm not completely educated in the areas where these experts are. I can't make an absolute conclusion to the GW/CC question until I saw this. These guys have shown that the climate experts are not all in agreement with the Al Gore types. Thank you again.
Please re load this segment with all the credits at the end. It would be very beneficial to those of us who we need to actually listen to.
Everyone has it own agendas! I guess the best and safest way without too much scientific and political controversies is looking for new planets!! Ironically that require scientific knowledge!
It doesn't really matter. In the last decade, I have gone from Global Warming advocate to denier. Why, one might ask? The more I understand about this subject and how the alarmists are falsifying facts, the more I realize that there is no problem. I am to seeing changes in America's questioning attitude and realize that it will not take long before enough people are sceptics to put the burden of proof on the alarmist. When that happens, this issue will go away. (Because there is no real proof)
It's kinda funny to listen to that Swedish professor about the sea level in the Maldives.
So he "has proved" that the sea level has been retreating at Maldives, but that doesn't mean it is not going to rise if the temperature changes to be warmer. He should try to tell that to people of some Pacific island countries that their homes are actually sinking before their eyes.
And god, water evaporates and then all falls down as snow, making the ice sheet thicker? What a joke ...
The temperature HAS changed and become warmer. The fact that the sea levels aren't changing as predicted does tend to indicate that there is some problem with the predictions.
As for the island of Tuvalu. The highest point of the island is 4.5 meters above sea level. That's potentially a problem for them. At the current rate of sea-level rise of about 1mm/year, they've only got 4,500 years before they're underwater.
@Gwynne66 in 4500 years, we will have technologies good enough to build new islands. From scratch. Anywhere you want. And probably as big as Rod-Island. If fundamentalism doesn't prevail....
@ktawut, when the oceans evaporate, where does the water go? It MUST fall down as precipitation somewhere. So, he is correct. Antarctica would grow larger.
You do know that the amount of water on Earth is the same it has always been, don't you? It simply changes form and location.
This is one very "humdrum" video. =p
jesusgray922 2 weeks ago
Your vid went viral on Russia
freddymathis820 3 weeks ago
Climate models are tested by running them against real world past measured climate. Since they work for the past, future predictions are also likely to be modelled correctly. See...
Räisänen, J. 2007. How reliable are climate models? Tellus A 59(1), 2-29.
"Nonetheless, models have skilfully simulated many large-scale aspects of observed climate changes, including but not limited to the evolution of the global mean surface air temperature in the 20th century."
Diamonddavej 1 month ago
@Diamonddavej The computer models have been an epic failure.
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The earth on it's own can easily affect the temperature, with the rotation, ocean currents, tectonic plates, etc, etc, etc.
You would have to ignore all these and more, to come to the conclusion that it has to be CO2.
To ignore the obvious would be foolish.
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
With respect to the point below, NOTHING can predict climate in the future. All we ever have at our disposal are COMPUTER-MODELS, OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS - none of which have any meaning or significance whatsoever 50-100 years from now. Either of these methods can only describe or attempt to explain the HEAR and NOW. It's the same thing with WEATHER, which reflects the CLIMATE - IT'S A WORKS IN PROGRESS - nothing more and nothing less.
MegaPostman77 3 months ago
Computer-models are a very useful scientific tool, which nearly all scientists use to some extent or another. However, they are by no means reliable and accurate as far as the climate system is concerned. Computer-models need to be able to simulate the climate accurately with a complete understanding of the natural processes at play - of which there are thousands. Unfortunately, our understanding of these processes are not only incomplete, but in many respects even rudimentary.
MegaPostman77 3 months ago
if only scientists ran the world in stead of "politicians" and their puppet master string-pullers. imagine the sanity....
qwyzl 3 months ago
LIES-Remember how Ross Perot said NAFTA and GATT was going to create a "Giant Sucking Sound" and all US JOBS will be gone-Al (the Gangster) GORE laughed at Ross Perot-But do you see any JOBS left in America Now-Don't Get Fooled Again-Vote for RON PAUL or starve in a FEMA Prison Camp. The United Nations is a Rothschild mechanism of Global Satanism.
exposetruthwolf 5 months ago
I am neither for nor against man-made global warming because of the science suggesting that it is a real threat, and the science suggestion it is not a threat. In my personal opinion however I do believe that doing nothing could be suicide to modern civilization if the scientific evidence for climate change turns out to be true. We will need to change our means of powering the planet in the future anyway with our non-renewables running dry i.e. Coal, Oil and gas. Why not start now?
MrBananahatingmonkey 6 months ago
@MrBananahatingmonkey The only suicide would be what you're suggesting. Technology cannot be forced. Renewable is highly inefficient.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
UN cost estimates this week to reduce the 24ppm of man-made atmospheric CO2 would be $76 TRILLION. With all vastly inaccurate climate models, the high probability of another solar minimum starting, the skewed NASA and NOAA temp data, the Climategate scandal, no rise of global temperature since 1995, ice core evidence proving CO2 rises is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE of natural global warming, recent record low winter temps., record snowfall in both hemispheres, etc., proves AGW is an expensive hoax.
samuraiconservative 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
-=OBEY CLIMATE COPS=-
oi52.tinypic.
com/jt1jxj.jpg
-=OBEY CLIMATE CRIMINALS=-
oi52.tinypic.
com/2wpmn83.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
The severity of the climate is currently out-forcasting the IPCC, which means, that the situation is currently worse than the worst IPCC prediction model. Before taking this one voice into consideration into your opinions, look at some real peer-reviewed literature about the truths on climate change, and read the IPCC report yourself. Leave climate science to the climatologists, not the astrophysicists. Get the facts. 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have been since 2000.
lukster1991 8 months ago
@lukster1991 Lmao! Of course it would be. Records have only been kept since the late 1800s
tjohn1986 6 months ago
Years ago my professors tried to tell me it was all a sham. I didn't believe them at first because I had been beat to death with what the idiots in the media had to say about it. It took me years of research to determine on my own that it is completely a political issue and not a scientific one There is no data to support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. It's based on computer modeling, and as a meteorologist I know the physics break down in the models a matter of days, not decades.
AlexanderRozhenko 9 months ago
LOOK neither computer models,or any other scientist can forsee the future. It only takes one big volcanoe to spoil the forecast. Fortune telling is for astrology. At present the globe is cooling , co2 levels are decreasing.
david222444 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
why do things like this have to inspire so much hate in people? this is good, well documented observation and it speaks very fairly for an unpopular scientific belief. it's doesn't make any wild inferences or accusations for or against any ideology. why do they have to be wrong? why can't they just be a valid argument? you don't have to change your beliefs to accept something as worthwhile. lighten up, everyone. you're not dying tomorrow. not because of global warming anyway.
seriouslynotacop 11 months ago
Great video.
Thanks for posting.
After years of indoctrination I've concluded that the GW hysteria is nothing more than a sham. Im sorry I ever bought into it.
AshtonPhoto 11 months ago
Absolutely baseless argumentation
lecinema333 11 months ago
We should HELP the environment anyway. I think people want to prove global warming wrong so they can just use up more oil and coal without worrying about the consequences of there effect.
Catoriesih 11 months ago
@Catoriesih No these people are scientists in search of the truth. Co2 is essential to life, plants use it to produce sugar hence we do not starve. Global cooling is much worse than warming.
david222444 10 months ago
@david222444 So... What is wrong with cleaning the earth anyway? The only thing we would be left with is more energy efficient vehicles and cleaner oxygen. We CAN find a better way but we don't want to.
Catoriesih 10 months ago
@Catoriesih There is nothing at all wrong with cleaning the earth. Just be honest about the motives. There is no need to scarmonger with false assumptions of Global warming.
david222444 10 months ago
@Catoriesih The whole GW issue has never really been about GW. It has been completely about global redistribution of wealth. The Kyoto Protocol exempted all developing nations from CO2 restrictions and palced draconian restrictions on developed nations. Example was the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions to pre-1970 levels only for developed nations no reductions on China, India, or any 3rd world nation. Just imagine the havok this would wreak on the US or European economies.
Robbob9933 8 months ago
This information is from The American Prospect. article from 2004.There studies were funded by:American Petroleum Institute & ExxonMobil.“Since its publication in 2003, the work of Soon and Legates has been embroiled in controversy over its scientific legitimacy.”“co-authored with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Baliunas” “White House pressured EPA scientists to delete a hockey-stick diagram and instead include a reference to the Soon and Baliunas work in a forthcoming EPA report.”
2000amp 1 year ago
Talking 6min about a model climate change, that was a waist of time, no significant facts just regurgitation. This was uninformative and un-gratifying in every way. I would love to believe you but when you say someone is wrong then people will ask were is you're prof. And if someone sticks there neck out with a theory about what will happen in the next 20 years and have something intriguing and fact building evidence then I would rather listen to that then ALL the crap form the nej sayers.
2000amp 1 year ago
@2000amp
This video was a the conclusion, recapping the information, of the show. From your comment, one can only infer that you have not viewed the first four videos.
MDCBilge 11 months ago
@MDCBilge so you can only infer that...why don't you look these scientists up on the net. There scientific data is inconclusive and they are funded by Oil corporation, and one can infer that you have reply to my comment just because I pop the bio-dome bubble of some make believe theory with fact quotes that are all over the net.
2000amp 11 months ago
Gamma radiation from Crab Nebula is increasing (per NASA), adding to formation of clouds (Svensmark). Coincide with cooling Europe and the US (Maine -49F) eastern seaboard snowfall (increased solar reflectivity?). Research the Priora Oscillation to get a picture of what occured about 5k years ago ...way before BP..
Blogengezer 1 year ago
Work in the same scam with the TSA with scanners make the problem con the people.
Bristow42 1 year ago
Listen to 2:20 through 2:45 on this video. She is absolutely right. There is a wide range of expected outcomes that we predict, chaotic systems are very hard to predict but there is still precision...this is no different than any other scientific estimate. Estimates and even measurements ALWAYS have ranges. This is actually a good thing, as it gives best and worst cases scenario. In science and especially engineering, you always plan for worst cased scenario. And we should do the same here.
slovakmath 1 year ago
Nils-Axel Mörner from Stockholm from the 3 &4 videos is a hack. Every single conclusion he comes to is baseless. He claims when sitting on the beach pointing to a wave height from several years ago, that the ocean is lowering. That was the silliest thing I have ever seen.That was obviously driftwood brought in on a storm ...also I checked out Wikipedia and he is a strong supporter of Dowsing...basically hes a psychic. Anyone with a basic understanding of science will see through his nonsense.
slovakmath 1 year ago
I like this video. Thank you for your sharing. Hope to see next your video.
many9662 1 year ago
29-9-2010
Yes There is a climate change around the globe.Heavy rains,stronger hurricanes,earthquakes.floods.
I just watch the daily news in between,not obsesivly,just like any other current citizen.
So dont study too much,since I honestly doubt that it can be for any use at all
Good luck to everyone around
Take care
nasukade 1 year ago
@nasukade What stronger hurricanes? Do you mean Katrina? What has happened since then? Not much of anything. Take a look at the hurricane seasons over the past 4 years.
So, you don't want anyone to study? do you want people to be ignorant? Why? So you can get the ignorant to believe anything and everything you say? Probably.
buisyman 1 year ago
We humans are not causing the climate change. The other planets in our solar system are getting warmer too. Pluto, which is so far from the sun that no thermo radiation can reach, is even showing signs of a thaw. If all of the planets are warming then it is not caused by humans but from outside the solar system. An increasing amount of gamma radiation has been detected emanating from the galactic core. A coincidence that the Maya depicted a river spewing from that core & engulfing us in 2012?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
.. The Maya even claimed this time will bring a change in consciousness or awareness. Did you know that gamma radiation is caused by a high powered electromagnetic field? Remember the study done on cell phones, and electromagnetic fields? EM radiation can cause neurological changes in the brain, research neurological effects of electromagnetic fields. Gamma rays can indeed cause a change in ones consciousness. Were the Maya right about that too? Then what else will they be right about?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Wnere are the Mayans now? If their society, culture and science were so great, where did they go?
buisyman 1 year ago
@buisyman The Mayan were drove off or killed for gold by the Spaniards, in the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire led by Hernán Cortés. The descendants of the Maya still live in the mountains in South America.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Correction Mr. GateMessenger. The descendants of the mayans do not live in the mountains of South America, they live in South East of Mexico which is in the North of the American Continent. Where did you learn geography?
acuaman42 1 year ago
@acuaman42 lol. My point was that descendants still live and they did not all disappear. Thank you for the correction.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acuaman42 My point was that descendants still live and they did not all disappear. Thank you for the correction.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Comment removed
1acount 1 year ago
If the scientific foundations of climate change and global warming do not agree, the science behind them itself must be biased. The general consensus that human beings are slowly cooking themselves to death in this blue, pot-belly stove with fossil fuels and other carbon-based materials is premature and ought to be studied with far more diligence before the scientific community concludes its findings. Without the existence of fact-based findings, theories will remain theories.
ClarkieDude 1 year ago
ifreeballit ! well done! well said. i agree with you IT IS BETTER TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE. I feel that this video is to comdemn each other. HELLO!! WAKE UP DEAR SCIENTIST YOUR JOB IS TO HELP MOTHER EARTH ! YOU DON'T GET PAID TO FIGHT EACH OTHER! You are wasting time, smart scientist spend time on now creation that help extinct animal or something. Spend the time to help poor /dying children on earth. BY FIGHTING EACH OTHER DON’T FEED HUNGRY CHILDERN IN THE SLUMB! “SMART PEOPLE” start thinking!
titusoz 1 year ago
@titusoz Start thinking? Maybe you should do the same. They aren't fighting, it's called debating, ever heard of it? Real Scientist debating for Truth's Sake. That's what it's all about. Maybe you should start thinking a little and quit believing all these lies about Global Warming.
Zulnic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zulnic hi Zulnic, is this DEBATING FEEDING ANY CHILDERN in Haiti, hungry children and families in Africa????? Stop animal extinct animal??? i am thinking for the people around the world, i am not from AFRICA, but why should i care. HELLO BEAUSE I AM THINKING for these poor childern and animal. "Maybe you should start thinking a little and quit believing all these lies about Global Warming." did i say i am rooting for global warming? NO!!
titusoz 1 year ago
@titusoz I know exactly how you feel, but there are people fighting for the hungry. Also, you want something to think about? How about instead of helping people in Haiti, and in Africa, that we start helping our own people? I'm not against helping other people, but in the past few years, poverty in America has gone way up. 22% of America's children are in poverty. And you think we should be helping Haiti and Africa, when we can't even help out own? Now that's something to think about.
Zulnic 1 year ago
@Zulnic Hi zulnic, again I said help poor children and people aroung the world ... Haiti is just an example. Help people around you be it our country or other country. They are te one that need help and debating of scientist is not helping anyone . The main point I am Posing is debating doesn't help feed and one or any help.
titusoz 1 year ago
@titusoz I understand where you are coming from with helping feed the hungry, but it's almost as though you dislike Scientist debating on the Truth. Truth is, that these Scientist might not have had jobs if it wasn't for what they are doing. They don't just debate, they do research, without this research, we can't advance. Without advancement, we will never grow or learn. And this growing and learning will allow us to help more people. Without proper knowledge, you can't help people.
Zulnic 1 year ago
@Zulnic There are research that are good .. That have a positive out come . Example cure for new flu that in the end help human benefit . Thus research become a positive one . This debate have been in gray area . No out put . The large ice cap broke at green , 4 size of manhattan . That is the fact but are these scientist "incharge" of research doing anything no. All the do is blaming each other .. Debating of cause and responsibility , that are paid to research and help inthis issue.
titusoz 1 year ago
They are doing the what causing it.. This is not positive out put . They should be giving solution. Educate people how to solve problem rather than "who to blame".
titusoz 1 year ago
@titusoz and there lies the problem titusoz. See, most Scientist aren't really there to offer solutions. They are their to do research. They are their to provide Businesses with the information they need to provide solutions and new inventions. Yes some scientist provide solutions, but these scientist didn't go to school to provide solutions, that's for businesses to do. They went to school to research, which usually takes 8 years, a Ph.D.
Zulnic 1 year ago
@Zulnic Quote " This is distinct from philosophers, those who use logic toward a more comprehensive understanding of intangible aspects of reality that lack a direct connection to nature, focusing on the realm of thought itself. Scientists are also distinct from engineers, those who develop devices that serve practical purposes. " wikipedia definition of scientist. Why spend 8yr studying some thing that is nothing . Busniess to do ?
titusoz 1 year ago
So scientist provide research for business .. So in te end who benefit ? The scientist and their business partner..? Does it benefit the poor ? That is why in states the rich are getting richer and poor people plunge deeper in to poverty . Not only in te states.. Is every where.
titusoz 1 year ago
@titusoz oh really? the only ones getting richer are the government officials, while the rest of us is getting relatively poorer. But only the free enterprise system made us better off than we were 200 years ago, and still does. Somehow you rarely see a starving person in Western countries today, don't you?
Arjozof 1 year ago
@Zulnic all i said was "You are wasting time, smart scientist spend time on extinct animal or something. Spend the time to help poor /dying children on earth."
answer me Zulnic by debating for truth sake DOES IT FEED HUMAN? FEED HUNGRY CHILDERN IN SLAM? does it ? Still seeking the truth ? TRUTH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU "Every seven seconds, a child dies at the hand of a silent killer. Hunger. Right now, millions of children in Africa are at risk of starvation."
titusoz 1 year ago
Cant stop watching that dudes mustache :)
krikukiks 1 year ago
you know, either way.....ITS BETTER TO STAY ON THE SAFE SIDE AND STOP the emission CO2, because its unnatural, IT WILL NEVER HURT TO TRY AND KEEP EARTH THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE US! let it do its thing, we should not be an interruption, we should be aa benefit, just like any animal in this world, this beautiful circle of life. humans seem to have somewhat of interferance with this, from the view that ive gotten its HUMANS VS. WORLD itself . shouldnt we be a whole?................ill leet u ponder.
ifreeballit 1 year ago
@ifreeballit The hurt is that global warming polices such as cap in trade will cost the economy many trillions in higher energy costs. People use energy to warm their homes in the winter and cool in the summer. Poor people are already having enough trouble buying heating oil etc. Our food is manufactured with energy and if food is more expensive and scarce then more starvation. we have enough people starving in the world already.
buddymartin71 1 year ago
@ifreeballit So you say the bad effects of global warming are worth taking any measures to avoid. But you fail to see that man made global warming has almost no chance of happening and nearly no chance of negative effects. Also that the carbon taxing policies will almost certainly not slow down warming. But, what is certain is the terrible human costs of global warming policies. If human life has less value to you than making sure man doesn't use energy, then I see that as quite odd.
buddymartin71 1 year ago
@ifreeballit Seriously? CO2 emissions are UNNATURAL? LoL, The world we live in produces the bulk of CO2 emissions. If you've done your research, we as humans have a very very small percentage of CO2 emissions, compared to the rest of the world. We also breath out CO2 lol. It's what trees use to produce Oxygen. I'm all for Green Tech, but using this Global Warming scam to promote it? I'm all for mankind advancing in tech and knowledge. I'll let ye ponder. :)
Zulnic 1 year ago
I am confused about what point John Christy is trying to make. I understand that the climate models are not perfect, but he seems to suggest there is a better way to predict climate change. How? Measurements alone don't make predictions, so what does he mean?
TheSlowThinker 1 year ago
@TheSlowThinker he was saying climate models are not authoritative on their own because they only show the predictions of the theory, not the predictions of actuality. if their was a model as complex as the Earth and/or universe, then you could accurately predict the climate, but what would be the point? you would already know everything anyway,
KrunchyGoodness 1 year ago
What the fuck is that little 3-D shape next to the new window button. And what the fuck is happening when I press it?
227Morgan 1 year ago
Follow the money. Only researchers creating output that support AGW are getting huge funding. This has corrupted science, and that is the most tragic thing that has come out of the entire situation.
Wikipunani 1 year ago
Only the mislead, the foolish, or the vested babble as if humans weren't deteriorating our only habitat. The science is well supported.
Google: Global Warming Is Fact, and Denial Won't Change Climate Back
qsteveens 1 year ago
all the arguments in this rubbish have been discredited. every last one. moreover, the evidence of global warming is now stronger (three years on). this would take only a little research to discover, but watching a video is much more fun.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "all the arguments in this rubbish have been discredited. every last one"
Now I know you are kidding.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium do something useful for once and find support for an argument against agw from this film. you should realise that you only need one. the key is it must be raised in this film (and tell me where) and you need to cite a source from peer-reviewed literature. and it must be anti-agw.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "do something useful "
I am pointing out that apart from strawman, ad hominem, irrelevant waffle and now bald assertion you have nothing to offer and have not produced any valid arguments.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium it's simple. i claimed there were no valid arguments in this film. you suggest that i am kidding. i suggest i am not. i ask you, very politely, to back up one argument in this film with some verifiable research from a decent source. it is seemingly not a onerous request. or, alternatively, acknowledge that the film doesn't contain valid arguments against agw.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "it's simple"
It is.
"i claimed there were no valid arguments in this film."
Bald assertion is not a valid argument. I thought you knew that so, mea culpa, I thought you were kidding.
Obviously not you really think a bald assertion is valid argument.
I should have known silly me.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium do you think there are valid arguments in this film? do you think there is one valid argument in this film that goes against agw? please answer the question. if you can manage it.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 What you are doing now is shifting the burden of proof you made the claim that:
""all the arguments in this rubbish have been discredited. every last one"
not just that there are no valid arguments you also made the claim that they have been discredited. That was a bald assertion a logical fallacy now shifting the burden of proof is also a logical fallacy.
When it comes to argument by fallacy I think you'd have to be a contender for the championship.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium yep. there are too many of these fatuous claims out there to possibly counter them all in 500 characters, although i have countered many at various times. it is an invitation for someone who believes strongly in the content of this spurious production to attempt to engage on the issue and validate one of the claims it makes. it is a bald assertion, and if someone was willing they could prove me wrong. i know that won't be you because nothing you say is ever of any consequence.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 " it is an invitation for someone who believes strongly in the content of this spurious production to attempt to engage on the issue and validate one of the claims it makes."
No it doesn't work like that you are shifting burden of proof and now waffling about it. "nothing you say is ever of any consequence."
There you go I've just told you that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy employed by someone who doesn't have the ability to present a coherent argument.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i'm not claiming that it is a perfect form of argument. however. the science is out - it supports agw. there are thousands of papers and organisations that are readily available to back this up. here i am suggesting that anyone is welcome to back up the claims that come from the other side. if you don't wish to do this then that's up to you. either way is fine by me - my expectations of you are rather low.
batteries76 1 year ago
Comment removed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
Comment removed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
Comment removed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@batteries76 I'll respond to this when the autospam stops spamming me out.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium can't believe it - i actually had my hopes up. i actually thought you might produce something of value. don't let me down here.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Shifting the burden of proof is not a valid argument nor are unsupported assertions and arguments ad populum (your latest). I will only keep on pointing this sort of thing out until you learn and start supporting your claims in a coherent manner. If you can.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium sure. i have nothing more to say to you on this then. you seem to think that by keeping on in this way you are making a point of some sort and that inserting latin into your posts increases their value. my request was simple, take it or leave it. it's not proof of anything, nor did i say it was - it's a request. if people want to believe the contents of this film i ask that they look at the sources and back it up with some evidence. you won't, or can't, so you play word games.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 " i have nothing more to say to you on this then."
Thank you for your concession that you have nothing of substance it's long overdue.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium it's like talking into a cloud.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 are you admitting your head is in the clouds? it looks like it.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium here's my statement: "there is nothing of value about the science of global warming in this film that refutes the consensus opinion on agw." i've made it easy for you. you can agree, or you can disagree. if you disagree all you have to do is find one single argument in the film and show it to be correct and valuable. then i will be wrong, and you will be right. or you can agree.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 " "there is nothing of value about the science of global warming in this film that refutes the consensus opinion on agw.""
It is still a bald assertion. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing you are not making a valid argument for me to bother with.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium correct. it's not an argument, it is a contention. it wasn't claimed to be an argument. you have made your choice - do whatever you like.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "t's not an argument, it is a contention."
No it was a bald assertion or an unsupported contention. You have yet to show youe ability to support it.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium more boring wordplay from everyone's favorite fake intellectual. pointless.
batteries76 1 year ago
Comment removed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@batteries76 I'm sure it must tedious having the emptiness of your coments continually pointed out. Isn't it time you learnt something about the topic rather that mindlessly parroting the alarmist blogs?
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium how about this simple question: do you agree with this film? it'll go unanswered as well because you are a coward. i've given the parameters. take it or leave it - it's not hard. the only thing you have is blogs - the science sides with me. as your grand self-delusion grows you only sound more ridiculous and are further in a hole. either you support the poor journalism in this film or you don't. i've said my piece - i don't support it. you, as always, say nothing.
batteries76 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium unanswered = coward.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "unanswered = coward."
Nope I'm still waiting for something substantive supporting your earlier remark.
Coming back with more burden shifting questions only proves you have nothing substantive to offer.
I am very patient I'm still waiting now unless you do have something real just shut up you are making a fool of yourself.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium answer any of these three questions: do you agree with this film? (yes/no). did you call me a liar? (yes/no). what does your equation have to do with global warming? all are simple, or should be. failing to answer them does not show intelligence, it shows you are gutless - that you stand for nothing.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 what I think of this film is irrelevant you made the claim it's rubbish you need to substantiate that.
Doc called you a liar. Did you forget? On the very last post to you. I agree with him that it's a waste of time arguing with liars, and also with people who cannot understand the arguments (or use strawman), use ad hominem, bald assertions then shift the burden of proof etc.
If you don't know what that equation has to do with warming of any sort you are out of your depth.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium it's ok, i get it. you don't really have anything. it's so clear now. i say that i agree with the views of the scientists on the issue and that everything in this film says against it is false. you could pick any part to support your beliefs. the trouble is you don't know why you are against agw and as such you can't explain it so you hide behind some physics equations and hope you don't get caught out. but really you are just baffled.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 " you don't really have anything."
I don't need anything you made the claim there is no valid argument in this film now prove it. It's not up to me what I think about it is irrelevant. You can keep trying to get a different response like some of the more idiotic journo's do but it won't get you anywhere.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium any argument you have against the scientific current understand of global warming. any at all. one thing. i'll even accept that equation if you want to relate it to climate change. again - doc called me a liar, you agreed, therefore you think that i'm a liar. but you are so weak that you can't even stand behind the things you say. it's pathetic. and all i hear is wordplay. are you saying i didn't refute his claims? i await your non answer on the topic. keep running.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "i'll even accept that equation if you want to relate it to climate change."
It is actually fundamental to how hot (or cold) anything in an electro-magnetic radiation field source from a sphere can become when the only heat transfer mode available is radiation. You will note that there is no term for albedo which can account for change cloud cover and ice extent so changing those (and CO2 levels) can have no effect on the overall heat content of the planet.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i have said strongly what i stand for. yes, they are broad, but the science on this is broad. if you had any courage at all you could do one of two things: find a bit of the film you support and claim it, or find a bit of the broader science and disprove it. instead you weasel around playing word games. you are so desperate not to be caught out you stand for nothing and snipe. it's gutless.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "i have said strongly what i stand for. "
I noticed the strong language but not much substance you need to put some substance into your argument instead of the strong language.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium keep running. keep hiding. weak.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 right here boyo.
You still keep ducking the fact that you can't support your claims.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium yes. i nearly fell off my chair when i got home. ovoid, out of the blue, some words which actual relevance. just so we are clear before we get started, you are saying that human activity isn't the cause of global warming? just to be clear. that the secret instead is in this equation. correct? can't believe it: a real actual conversation with ovoid. half my luck.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "you are saying that human activity"
I don't know about that my room would be a lot colder than it is without the heater going. This means we can and do affect microclimates clear enough so far? CO2 cannot affect the equilibrium temperature and hence the overall energy content in the planet since the heat capacity is constant. It does play a part in affecting the distribution of heat on the planet.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium so i'm asking, are you saying that the total heat content of the planet remains the same? that we just see changes in temperature that appear to show that things are hotter? that no heat comes into or out of the earth's system? is that a fair representation?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "that no heat comes into or out of the earth's system?"
need to be careful making such statements energy is continually being exchanged the net growth of energy in the climate over a very long time is zero (probably cooling very slowly as the core cools but this is negligible). Every year because of eccentricity the earth moves towards and away from the sun so there will be a lag when it's gaining and again when it's losing never quite getting to equilibrium except on average.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium why do you say the net growth is zero? two things. carbon dioxide (and methane and water vapour) traps energy, increasing the energy in the system. secondly, the erbe project was started specifically to measure the energy budget and look for a discrepancy. my understanding is they found one - the earth is taking on energy. this correlates to the data on temperature and ocean heat content. sun output is flat, and the scale is off for it to be milankovitch cycles. where is the error?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "the erbe project was started specifically to measure the energy budget and look for a discrepancy. my understanding is they found one "
the interferometers on those birds (and the ones on the ground) cannot measure what is absorbed the only way to find that out is with laboratory data re the einstein coefficients of the radiatively active species in the atmosphere, and temperature and concentration data as measured by radiosonde throughout the atmosphere. Satellites can't do it.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium "carbon dioxide ... traps energy"
It's more accurate to say they distribute heat they share what they absorb in a matter of nano-seconds to help warm the atmosphere which once it reaches equilibrium with the surface will emit up and down (sideways components of emissions cancel) exactly what that absorb Kirchoff's law at work. This warm atmosphere with water vapour lift by convection to radiate at least 50% of what they have absorbed to space in first 6KM.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium on the carbon dioxide this seems to be a quibble. the net result will be a retention of heat - regardless of the nomenclature. i'm not saying how much, or what warming an amount of co2 produces, but stating the effect. as to the measurements, we can presumably measure the energy entering the earth and also the energy leaving. the difference is the loss/gain. why would radiosonde be the only way?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "on the carbon dioxide this seems to be a quibble. the net result will be a retention of heat - regardless of the nomenclature"
It's no quibble according to Beer-Lambert law if you increase the concentration of an absorber you reduce the distance distance over which it absorbs not the amount it absorbs. Unless the distance is restricted as in a cuvette. The equation is tau (optical depth) = a * c * l where a is the absorption coefficient, c the concentration and l the distance.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium my understanding is that the physics on this has been run and won. but fair enough. surely there is support for these ideas in the literature if it were true, although i'm not seeing it. i'm looking at beer-lambert and it seems to be that absorbance increases linearly with concentration. also, i don't think you've addressed why the erbe project can't do the job it was designed for. if they can measure the in and the out then they can measure the absorption.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "my understanding is that the physics on this has been run and won"
far from it there is even a mathematical error leading to a singularity in temperature at the surface AND has for some odd reason 2 boundary conditions for a first order differential equation that has been perpetuated for 80 years.
There is still much work to be done.
" absorbance increases linearly with concentration."
no the optical depth changes linearly with concentration AND path length get it right!!
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium listen ovoid. we can have this conversation here and that's fine. it's one thing to have an intelligent chat about some issues to do with the debate, it's another to snipe other conversations especially by going in to bat for some of the more spurious canards out there. you are a level ahead of most others so why go back into the mud? and i want to be completely clear: you are saying that an increase in the level of co2 will not increase the amount of energy in the earth's system?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "you are saying that an increase in the level of co2 will not increase the amount of energy in the earth's system?"
that is right because the change in heat capacity is negligible and the change in overall temperature (average is an equally bad term for an intensive property) cannot change by any means apart from the sun heating up or we change the orbit because they are the parameters that determine the intensity of light at TOA.
We can only change the distribution some.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium also, with regards your equation a variation gives the absorption as the product of the molar absorptivity, the absorption cross-section, and the concentration of the gas. holding the first two variables constant as you would when dealing with one substance and a known depth, and increasing the concentration would result in an increase in the absorption. regarding the cited paper, far more interesting would be their conclusion which would seem to directly contradict you.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 in the end, these are just simple equations (although i don't think you have shown them to do what you need them to). more to the point is the wealth of literature that says that carbon dioxide does absorb energy and that an increase in the concentration will increase the amount of energy trapped in the "earth's system", for want of a better phrase. that last paper didn't do what you wanted so perhaps you can find one that does.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 these equations work just fine when designing the WORKING instruments I have built. There is no argument that CO2 absorbs IR the problem is climate alarmists just won't accept it also emits.
Here from a text book by Grant Petty
s229. photobucket. com /albums /ee272 /JanPompe/?action=view¤t=PettyFig8-2-mod.jpg&newest=1
you can see where CO2 emits at 268C towards the surface in the bottom one.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@batteries76 try not to confuse yourself what you say is true for a sample in a cuvette as I mentioned earlier. In your earlier post you seem to have been confused optical depth and absorbance they are not the same. Recent work we have done on the atmospheric optical depth indicates that the global average optical depth is constant.
If the optical depth is constant then as concentration increases the path length must decrease remember the atmosphere is opaque at the wave lengths of interest.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i'd be happy to see the outcomes of this research. you've not yet specified your objections to the conclusions of the miscolczi paper, although you may have none. i don't think it's accurate to refer to the atmosphere as opaque. the absorption will decrease as the light filters through and more so as the concentration increases, but neither of these aspects are linear. perhaps to avoid my further confusion you would furnish me with a paper that i can peruse.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 The peer review process is complete an has been accepted will be out at the end of the year.
From the Miskolczi paper
"due to technical or engineering constraints, the spectral sensitivity of a detector or instrument design sets the spectral boundaries"
The upper picture in the Grant Petty chart shows those spectral boundaries for that air borne instruments. You can see it's narrower than the land based upward looking one.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i can see that. on that you have a point - the extent of the point is not clear. agreed again on your criticism of that particular aspect of the miskolczi paper. but that only holds if you assume that the energy discrepancy we are aware of is balanced by energy exiting the earth's system through those wavelengths not measured. this seems like a stretch. congratulations on your publication. in the meantime is there one that is analogous or are you actually breaking new ground?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 If you compare the picture in the upper panel of the Grant Petty fig8 with fig 1 in Miskolczi paper you'll get an idea of how much is missing. Most of the time they just assume continuum and fill in the missing part with Planks law but this will over state the emision of course if they don't they will understate it. What do you it was that Trenberth was complaining about in those emails when he said it "it is a travesty we can't [measure it]"? The instruments have a way to go.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium my problem with this theory is that it would have to be the case that the energy is absorbed at one frequency, then emitted at another frequency and that all of the discrepancy occurs in those wavelengths. it's possible, but not particularly likely and should be assumed. trenberth was referring to the "lack of warming" not the instruments. he could see the energy imbalance, but it was not then being born out in the temperature data. the missing energy was later found in the ocean.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "my problem with this theory ... and should be assumed."
absorbing at one frequency and emitting at another is known as fluorescence though most people tend to think it only refers to lamps. In such cases we take the integral over the entire spectrum and where phosphorescence occurs we have to integrate over decay time as well. The first law of thermodynamics is found to hold in those cases as well and we might cite Balfour Stewart's law for the equilibrium state.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@batteries76 "the missing energy was later found in the ocean."
can't find it there either.
"i also want to note that you have not addressed ... that causes the trapping effect."
Side ways components cancel there is only up and down. In the Petty graph we can see the CO2 band is radiating at 268 K which is actually the surface temperature (from the text) the near surface parcel radiates the same amount upward but from higher levels where it is cooler it comes back at a lower rate.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i also want to note that you have not addressed my issue about the fact that it is the reemission in many directions of the carbon dioxide that causes the trapping effect. it's temporary - without a continuing energy source presumably the energy would, in time, be emitted back into space and the earth would be cold. the sun's output has been steady for some time now and cannot explain the current warming. do you have a theory as to what would? or a paper? what journal is yours in?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 continuation. It's this difference the smaller back radiation with increasing altitude means there is a net flow out to space about 195 W/m^2 IRCC. This is usually about half the surface radiation but about 25 W/m^2 more that what is being absorbed at the surface. There are some tricky intermediate bits but the simple equations actually give a fair picture of what is going on. Those integrals I mentioned earlier, applied layer by layer to the atmosphere are anything but trivial.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium this has been good. i have learned a lot in tackling it. no doubt there is more complexity to the situation, and my approach will be to follow the science as it stands on this until it is shown to be wrong. people have undertaken that painstaking work on the integrals, and it has shown - to this point - that co2 traps energy and this increases as the co2 increases. perhaps this isn't to your satisfaction, but you'll need better than a few equations on youtube to convince me.
batteries76 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium clearly the science of all these areas is beyond most people's grasp - either through lack of time, will or intelligence. we all fall into that category on some topic in this debate. i understand your concerns and have taken them on board. i have no agenda beyond wanting to uphold the science as it stands, and if this changes, i will change with it. the same could be said for what you have outlined here. show me the money, and it's a done deal. good luck with your paper.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 OK thank you I do appreciate your position even if I don't agree with it.
Well leave it here with this final thought (when I get over this hypoglycaemia)
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batteries76 "good luck with your paper."
thanks but it's not mine I just helped with some of the leg work :- it's Ferenc Miskolczi's just so you know.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i do want to say one other thing. while i appreciate your concerns on the issue, i am baffled that you side with some of the more spurious arguments on this debate. if you are right it amounts to the same outcome - that agw isn't true - but the important element is the truth of the science, not just the outcome. even if you are on the same 'team' surely it must trouble you to see some of the arguments out there - and i'd have thought they were as wrong to your eyes as mine.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Out of those woods hypos are worrying. Any way as you research the various opinions of climatologists (usually called alarmist) you will find that some will hold that the signature of CO2 warming is not the tropo hot spot but stratospheric cooling. I tend to agree with this but what it means is that the warming has concentrated the heat in the lower troposphere. Thus we see higher temperatures down low, higher water vapour down low but lower temperatures & low vapour up high.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium good to hear. ok. i will keep my eyes on all of this as it goes on. also you mention alarmist. i can't stand some of the more 'alarmist' aspects, but further, the use of that term, and 'denialist', has permeated the debate. it completely polarises the situation and means you have two groups shouting at each other. the current level of debate is poor, but the fact that we eventually got somewhere gives me hope.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Agreed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium my other comment would be that while i don't have a full grasp of all the equations involved, there is significant complexity that is left out in making some of your claims. there is a subtlety to the interaction of the light as it passes through the atmosphere. i agree that co2 also emits, but it is the angles of emission that create the trapping effect. the energy initially comes from one source and one direction, the emissions don't balance in their directional output.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 "we can presumably measure the energy entering the earth and also the energy leaving. the difference is the loss/gain. "
The instruments on the satellites are not that accurate because they don't cover the entire spectrum emitted from earth and radiosonde (direct measured) data is the satellite data is checked.
3w. met. hu /idojaras /IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01. pdf
It's by 2 of the chaps who calibrate the birds instruments. See 3rd par page 210.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@batteries76 "failing to answer them does not show intelligence, it shows you are gutless - that you stand for nothing."
I have explained why I'm not answering them but I'll add one other and that is you have been rude in the extreme and that is another reason not to answer it only encourages your bad behaviour.
Now let's see some sign, any sign that you actually know what yhou are on about.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium now you are claiming rudeness. this from a man who called me a liar but could not back it up and then ducked it when he was trapped. it's quite simple, doc called me a liar, you agreed. now you say that didn't happen. the explanation for agw is out there. pick any point in it to show that it isn't happening. you won't because you are gutless. keep hiding ovoid, keep running and hiding.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Hey can back up that doc called you a liar that is no problem at all.
You claim to have refuted that I don't agree that you have. But that is par for the course for you you make claims you can't support I'm not sure if that makes you a liar or a fool. You can make your own choice regarding that.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
What an incredible dillusionist.
Christy say we need observations, yes we do and they are being done.
Look at the cryosphere visit the snow and ice data center-org.
Look at our changing weather - and yes extreme events are on the rise -
visit: climatehotmap-org.
citizenschallengeYT 1 year ago
Mark Twain said it best: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
flyncatfish 1 year ago
@flyncatfish sounds like someone watched Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore didn't specify whether he was saying that global warming just ain't so or that we are going to die in the next 30 year. Do what you want, store your farts in an airtight chamber, or wait for real evidence to show up about our (human) impact on the Earth's temperature before you (Clinton) start cap and trade B.S.
handkanger 1 year ago
Q.E. fucking D.
DEZZIELIGHTBULB007 1 year ago
So i ran my own research model in software i created while at MIT and the raw data clearly told me, that even if global warming was not going to happen in the next 2 weeks we should still look after this thing called the environment - by regulating shit flavored emissions that are constantly being pumped into it, by creating clean energy and the countless number of jobs that will be created along with it. My PC then told me it loved me before exploding to the electric dreams theme song.
nync888 1 year ago
Thank you for posting this series!
I've believed this for a long time, but I'm not completely educated in the areas where these experts are. I can't make an absolute conclusion to the GW/CC question until I saw this. These guys have shown that the climate experts are not all in agreement with the Al Gore types. Thank you again.
Please re load this segment with all the credits at the end. It would be very beneficial to those of us who we need to actually listen to.
Thank you again!
Miradart 1 year ago
Everyone has it own agendas! I guess the best and safest way without too much scientific and political controversies is looking for new planets!! Ironically that require scientific knowledge!
gerjaison 1 year ago
It doesn't really matter. In the last decade, I have gone from Global Warming advocate to denier. Why, one might ask? The more I understand about this subject and how the alarmists are falsifying facts, the more I realize that there is no problem. I am to seeing changes in America's questioning attitude and realize that it will not take long before enough people are sceptics to put the burden of proof on the alarmist. When that happens, this issue will go away. (Because there is no real proof)
bradley535 1 year ago
I hate fat americans..
cypress1337 1 year ago
fucking grim skjorte
PeterGrzona 1 year ago
For those who put their faith in computer models... check out 3:38
Gwynne66 1 year ago
It's kinda funny to listen to that Swedish professor about the sea level in the Maldives.
So he "has proved" that the sea level has been retreating at Maldives, but that doesn't mean it is not going to rise if the temperature changes to be warmer. He should try to tell that to people of some Pacific island countries that their homes are actually sinking before their eyes.
And god, water evaporates and then all falls down as snow, making the ice sheet thicker? What a joke ...
ktawut 1 year ago
The temperature HAS changed and become warmer. The fact that the sea levels aren't changing as predicted does tend to indicate that there is some problem with the predictions.
As for the island of Tuvalu. The highest point of the island is 4.5 meters above sea level. That's potentially a problem for them. At the current rate of sea-level rise of about 1mm/year, they've only got 4,500 years before they're underwater.
Gwynne66 1 year ago
@Gwynne66 in 4500 years, we will have technologies good enough to build new islands. From scratch. Anywhere you want. And probably as big as Rod-Island. If fundamentalism doesn't prevail....
coturnix19 1 year ago
@ktawut, when the oceans evaporate, where does the water go? It MUST fall down as precipitation somewhere. So, he is correct. Antarctica would grow larger.
You do know that the amount of water on Earth is the same it has always been, don't you? It simply changes form and location.
BRYAN351 1 year ago
Well it proves that the sea level isnt rising because we havent had significant warming in the last decade
mmartinnnn 1 year ago
@mmartinnnn and we won't in this next one either
handkanger 1 year ago
"There is an old computer phrase that says; garbage in, garbage out"
That is so true...
InSaneTK 1 year ago