Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global Warming Total Fraud

global warming gop

  • Please log in to reply
493 replies to this topic

#166    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 30 August 2013 - 04:29 AM

 Br Cornelius, on 28 August 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

I have done significant things to reduce my carbon footprint.

Have you also done significant things to reduce your methane footprint? Remember, according to the UN, cow farts are a bigger "danger" to our climate than CO2. And human farts are not really different from cow farts.

So be a responsible citicen and put a balloon for recycling you-know-where.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#167    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:52 AM

Ravenhawk, I will make one comment before looking at your post in  detail. All of yours and Carters comments assume that CO2 has no effect on temperature which is empirically demonstrably untrue. A simple lab experiment can show that CO2 effects the transmissivity of the atmosphere and hence temperature.
You may think its clever to dismiss this basic fact of physics, but it really shows the fundamental flaw in your whole position - the historic record shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature - but only in the current era has man been the main driver of this change.

Its also quite convenient that the skeptics much vaunted cooling is always just a decade away, just far enough into the future to allow deniability and for it to delay any effective action for another 10 profitable years. All based on "what goes up must come down" as it always has. All of this glosses over the obvious upward trend of over a 100 years which has shown no sign of going into reverse on any meaningful time scale (30 years statistically meaningful period).



Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 August 2013 - 07:34 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#168    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:30 AM

 Br Cornelius, on 30 August 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

Ravenhawk, I will make one comment before looking at your post in  detail. All of yours and Carters comments assume that CO2 has no effect on temperature which is empirically demonstrably untrue. A simple lab experiment can show that CO2 effects the transmissivity of the atmosphere and hence temperature.

Can you explain the lab experiment and the quantities used?

By the way, nobody doubts that CO2, and thousands of other chemicals have some influence on other things, including transmissivity.
Among them, cow farts, which the UN already said have a bigger effect than CO2.

The insanity comes when moving to "man made" and the phantastic claim that we can regulate the planetary climate like an airconditioner.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#169    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:35 AM

 Zaphod222, on 30 August 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Have you also done significant things to reduce your methane footprint? Remember, according to the UN, cow farts are a bigger "danger" to our climate than CO2. And human farts are not really different from cow farts.

So be a responsible citicen and put a balloon for recycling you-know-where.
Source please, maybe when we can look at where you are getting the notion that cows farts are the main cause of climate change - we can put it to rest when its shown to be a fantasy.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#170    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:38 AM



CO2 is a greenhouse gas - basic physics.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#171    dmurdock36

dmurdock36

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Angelo Tx

Posted 30 August 2013 - 04:37 PM

you are failing to see the cause and effect of the co2 argument, co2 levels rise as temperatures rise not the other way around, when temperatures increase more co2 is released into the atmosphere when it is cooler less is released, Therefore co2 is an effect not a cause of warming.


#172    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,085 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 August 2013 - 04:37 PM

 Br Cornelius, on 30 August 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

Ravenhawk, I will make one comment before looking at your post in  detail. All of yours and Carters comments assume that CO2 has no effect on temperature which is empirically demonstrably untrue.
No, that is not what we are claiming.  Carter is disproving AGW.  Thatís two different things.  Because you are unwilling to see the political implications, you canít see the truth and even now, still stating things that arenít.  You didnít think I had a counter so you boasted about it, now that Iíve presented solid science and you are making excuses.  Or scurrying about trying to.  I canít wait to see your other excuses.

Quote

A simple lab experiment can show that CO2 effects the transmissivity of the atmosphere and hence temperature.
Yes, that is a very simple experiment and no one is refuting that.  But how representative is that in the real world?  Is the heat source in relation to the bottles equivalent to a Jupiter sized planet 1 million miles from a super red giant?  How does the ratio of the difference in temperature in the bottles relate to the difference on Planet Earth?  There are also other greenhouse gases, like methane, water vapor, and ozone.  How do they relate?  How Ďbout other gases?  Obviously non greenhouse gases wonít react the same, but what would be the readings if you put other gasses in the bottles?  My guess is that temperature will go up too.  And then how does the common non greenhouse gasses (oxygen & nitrogen) *cut* the effects?  And then there is the concept of circulation that occurs on the planet that doesnít occur in the bottles.  Then you have to consider the quality of the CO2 produced from Wal Mart Alkaseltzer.  In the final analysis, this is just a parlor trick to play on peopleís fears.  The experiment is science but the purpose is pseudo science.

Quote

You may think its clever to dismiss this basic fact of physics, but it really shows the fundamental flaw in your whole position - the historic record shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature - but only in the current era has man been the main driver of this change.
No one is dismissing basic facts of physics.  No one is denying the correlation between CO2 and temperature but they are questioning the conclusion.  Itís the AGW proponent that is denying reality.  They are politically motivated to isolate one *law* of physics and ignore how everything else relates.  The current cycles have been going on for 10,000 years (Holocene).  The planetary system seeks equilibrium.  Temperature is going up as it has many times in the past.  Is Man causing this?  Absolutely not!  Is Man affecting the temperature rise?  That is a definite possibility.  The existence of Man may be speeding up the rate increase, but it is still constrained by cyclic processes.  What caused the temperature to drop when Man wasnít here?  What was that trigger?  Can Man stop this rise?  Probably not.  And all the money in the world will not do it.  Can we clean up our environment?  Yes.  Can we learn to adapt to change?  Absolutely!  We need to focus on the real problem and not something artificial.

Quote

Its also quite convenient that the skeptics much vaunted cooling is always just a decade away, just far enough into the future
Like anything to do with weather and climate, the best indictor is still sticking your head out of the window.  AGW proponents have been stating year after year that this year will see one massive hurricane after the other.  Weíre not seeing that.  With the natural rise in temperature, we do see an increase in the intensity of some storms, but they arenít lining up one after the other as predicted.  And then what do AGW proponents claim?  They backpedal and say that thereís this cycle going on and right now, itís just a lull, but next year it will be different.  How convenient!

Quote

to allow deniability and for it to delay any effective action for another 10 profitable years.
Ah, so the Socialist agenda rears its head.  The one thing wrong with your evil corporations are not the corporations but the consumers reneging on their responsibilities.  It would be far more cost effective and much less fear mongering to champion the mindset of Capitalism than spend trillions in trying to stop something we have no power to control primarily because it doesnít exist.  And to clarify that, it is not global warming that does not exist, but AGW that does not exist.

Quote

All based on "what goes up must come down" as it always has. All of this glosses over the obvious upward trend of over a 100 years which has shown no sign of going into reverse on any meaningful time scale (30 years statistically meaningful period).
And you are so blind.  This is the basic mechanics.  This isnít a fantasy world.  What you are glossing over is that we *ARE* in an upward trend in the past 150 years.  And there are signs of going down.  It has receded since about 2009.  At this point, no one can say if the next few years it will go up or down but it is more likely for equilibrium to occur and not some exponential rise.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#173    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:15 PM

 dmurdock36, on 30 August 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

you are failing to see the cause and effect of the co2 argument, co2 levels rise as temperatures rise not the other way around, when temperatures increase more co2 is released into the atmosphere when it is cooler less is released, Therefore co2 is an effect not a cause of warming.
Thats called a feedback loop which is accounted for in climate science, it doesn't diminish the effects of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. This is the primary reason why adding CO2 to the atmosphere artifically will always cause more increase in CO2 in the long run.

In natural systems driven by external forcings such as the Sun or orbital changes the CO2 lags the temperature by up to 400 years.
In man made global warming the CO2 leads the temperature.
Volcanoes of significant magnitude are more complex since they cause immediate cooling due to sulphates and particulates which cause cooling, if this cooling is large enough then more ice can form which effects the planets albedo and can cause a cooling feedback. If this doesn't happen - they can cause warming, but only if there were a long series of contiguous eruptions which caused a sustained elevation of CO2 levels. Such an event happened at the end of the Jurassic and lead to a mass extinction of the dinosaurs.

Facts don't have to be mutually exclusive to be true.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 August 2013 - 09:10 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#174    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:44 PM

Quote

No, that is not what we are claiming.  Carter is disproving AGW.  That’s two different things.  Because you are unwilling to see the political implications, you can’t see the truth and even now, still stating things that aren’t.  You didn’t think I had a counter so you boasted about it, now that I’ve presented solid science and you are making excuses.  Or scurrying about trying to.  I can’t wait to see your other excuses.
If you acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then you must acknowledge that adding more of it to the atmosphere will effect the temperature of the atmosphere. this is the basic principle of climate science. It is illogical to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and then dismiss the effect of mans input of that gas to the system.

Quote

Like anything to do with weather and climate, the best indictor is still sticking your head out of the window.  AGW proponents have been stating year after year that this year will see one massive hurricane after the other.  We’re not seeing that.  With the natural rise in temperature, we do see an increase in the intensity of some storms, but they aren’t lining up one after the other as predicted.  And then what do AGW proponents claim?  They backpedal and say that there’s this cycle going on and right now, it’s just a lull, but next year it will be different.  How convenient!
Climate scientists have made one primary prediction - that over a statistically meaningful period of 30 years the climate will warm. That claim has never failed to be true since they made it. Climate science is highly predictive and has been almost 100% correct in its predictions so far. As time goes on and the climate system becomes more energetic as it accumulates more heat, it becomes progressively more difficult to predict the future - since complex systems reach threshholds where meta-state changes occur. That has not yet happened and the predictions remain true so far. What is demonstrably true from statistics is that extreme precipitation and extreme heatwaves have increased in frequency and intensity in those areas where the data is capable of showing a trend (Northern Europe and North America predominantly).

Quote

Ah, so the Socialist agenda rears its head.  The one thing wrong with your evil corporations are not the corporations but the consumers reneging on their responsibilities.  It would be far more cost effective and much less fear mongering to champion the mindset of Capitalism than spend trillions in trying to stop something we have no power to control primarily because it doesn’t exist.  And to clarify that, it is not global warming that does not exist, but AGW that does not exist.

I will forgive your little political rant and pass over it. we all know where your coming from here.

Quote

Yes, that is a very simple experiment and no one is refuting that.  But how representative is that in the real world?  Is the heat source in relation to the bottles equivalent to a Jupiter sized planet 1 million miles from a super red giant?  How does the ratio of the difference in temperature in the bottles relate to the difference on Planet Earth?  There are also other greenhouse gases, like methane, water vapor, and ozone.  How do they relate?  How ‘bout other gases?  Obviously non greenhouse gases won’t react the same, but what would be the readings if you put other gasses in the bottles?  My guess is that temperature will go up too.  And then how does the common non greenhouse gasses (oxygen & nitrogen) *cut* the effects?  And then there is the concept of circulation that occurs on the planet that doesn’t occur in the bottles.  Then you have to consider the quality of the CO2 produced from Wal Mart Alkaseltzer.  In the final analysis, this is just a parlor trick to play on people’s fears.  The experiment is science but the purpose is pseudo science.
Once you have empirically discovered the effect of adding a certain concentration of CO2 to the atmosphere you can easily scale it up to the effect on the bulk atmosphere. The physics remains the same.
CO2 is CO2 whatever its source (alkacelca included), there is no such thing as man made CO2 molecules or natural CO2 molecules - their basic chemical structure is exactly the same - the only difference is where they came from. This is basic chemistry that even a high school kid could tell you. The only difference between the two bottles was the addition of more CO2 to the one which retained more heat. All the other gas constituents were exactly the same which was dictated by the atmospheric concentration in the room. You are correct in saying that other gases have varying greenhouse effects, but the climate scientists understand this better than you or I, they know their quantified effects and model them along with CO2. They know that man has contributed significant quantities of NOx, CFC's and Methane which are also greenhouse gases and this is well accounted for in their overall calculations. This is basic climate science and you should know this if you had done even the most cursory reading on the subject.  Again you are right in saying that the exact effects are complicated by mixing in the atmosphere - but the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases must be having warming effects due to their basic physical properties. The science of climate is quantifying these effects within the overall climate system - but to deny they exist is just illogical at best.


Quote

And you are so blind.  This is the basic mechanics.  This isn’t a fantasy world.  What you are glossing over is that we *ARE* in an upward trend in the past 150 years.  And there are signs of going down.  It has receded since about 2009.  At this point, no one can say if the next few years it will go up or down but it is more likely for equilibrium to occur and not some exponential rise.
There are no signs of a natural upward trend and no natural external cause which can account for the last 150 years of temperature increase. The sun cannot account for it, no internal mechanism can account for it, no orbital effect can account for it. Every change in temperature on the planet has a cause (basic cause and effect) and the only cause which accounts for the current rise, after natural variability such as the sun is accounted for, is the greenhouse gases we have added.
There is no sign in the data that we are entering a new cooling phase, temperature have continued to rise over the last decade and we have recorded the four warmest years since records began. The system as a whole has continued to accumulate heat energy at an increasing pace, and this will cause a significant spike in temperatures when the current El-Nino La Nina cycle reverse. That is a prediction which is supported by the fact that this years global temperature will be high on the back of a neutral El-Nino La Nina. In summery - there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we will see a sudden and dramatic reversal of global average temperature or return to an equilibrium state comparable to pre-industrial levels as you predict.

I will get to you other comments in detail, when I have the time and patience to wade through them.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 August 2013 - 08:52 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#175    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:44 PM

Shells position on climate change;

Quote

Climate change



Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

http://www.shell.com...ate-change.html

Chevrons position on climate change;

Quote

Q. What is Chevron's view on climate change?

A. At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change and the role of greenhouse gases (GHGs). There is a widespread view that the increase in GHGs is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.
GHGs come from a variety of sources: power generation, transportation, agriculture and land use, manufacturing, and other activities. Fossil fuels—coal, crude oil and natural gas—release carbon dioxide during production and consumption. Fossil fuels are also the primary source of energy for the global economy, which is in the midst of a prolonged expansion that is contributing to a rising quality of life in many parts of the world, particularly in developing countries. According to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook, global energy demand will be at least one-third higher in 2035 than it was in 2011, depending on future government policies. The majority of that energy will be provided by fossil fuels, even as lower-carbon alternatives continue to emerge.
As we work to reduce GHGs, our collective challenge is to create solutions that protect the environment without undermining the growth of the global economy.

http://www.chevron.c...echange/faq/#q1

What do they know that you don't Ravenhawk ?

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#176    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 August 2013 - 11:24 PM

 Br Cornelius, on 30 August 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:



CO2 is a greenhouse gas - basic physics.

Br Cornelius
He mentions a few variables but misses one.   A regular round lightbulb in a smaller system would have made a better experiment.   Using a parabolic lamp like an automotive headlight puts out a cone of heat and light dependent on its facing as much as the distance away from it.    Looks as if I could heat that bottle on the right more if I just angled the lamp to the right.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#177    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 31 August 2013 - 05:48 AM

About positive feedback loops:

http://transitionvoi...feeding-itself/


#178    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 31 August 2013 - 08:29 AM

 Yamato, on 30 August 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

He mentions a few variables but misses one.   A regular round lightbulb in a smaller system would have made a better experiment.   Using a parabolic lamp like an automotive headlight puts out a cone of heat and light dependent on its facing as much as the distance away from it. Looks as if I could heat that bottle on the right more if I just angled the lamp to the right.
Its not perfect - but it illustrates the point well enough. Simply measuring the distances could address you point.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#179    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 August 2013 - 09:42 AM

 Br Cornelius, on 31 August 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Its not perfect - but it illustrates the point well enough. Simply measuring the distances could address you point.
The angle must be controlled.    Though I'm sure he used a strong lamp like that to be able to get timely results in an hour or less in the open air rather than to pull a stunt and mislead everyone.  While it's a valid experiment I can't be sure it was administered accurately.  If results are replicable/typical then it's not an issue.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#180    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 31 August 2013 - 11:00 AM

Quote

Ward finally gets to the science part and in his opening statement, he calls Carter as giving misleading statements.  With Gore’s alarmist and melodramatic presentation on that cherry-picker (appropriate symbolism?) in “An Inconvenient Truth”, don’t talk about misleading statements of the available scientific evidence.  I don’t think Ward or any AGW proponent has the right to claim the other side is making misleading statements.
Gore is not a climate scientist and he doesn't speak for climate scientists. He has done a fair job of popularizing the concerns of climate scientists. Your fixation on Gore speaks volumes for what motivates your skeptism - and it isn't the science. Fixating on your boggy man will not divert attention away from the scientific failure of Carter.

Quote

Ward continues and points out that the period between 2000 and 2009 was the warmest decade since 1850.  There are several things that must be noted here.  Prior to 1850, the only record of things like temp. and CO2 levels come from proxies.  That’s stuff like ice cores and tree rings.  But also, the number of worldwide recording units has increased greatly since 1850 as well (i.e. recording stations are not static).  So as a new science, we really only have a short period of world accuracy, definitely not enough to make any real predictions such as AGW proponents are.  The other thing is that we are in a warming trend coming out of the Mini Ice Age.  So of course, any prediction of temp using the existing chart is going to go up.  That’s all we know in recent memory.  There is nothing to change that except the proxy record going back into time.  Plus, if you are at the (local) peak of a graph which we appear to be at, most of the points around that peak *ARE* going to be the warmest on record.  The chart in Ward’s fig. 1 shows that peak.  Of course at this point, there is no telling which way it is going to go.
The actual temperature record is only one part of a picture of evidence which supports the statement that the climate is warming. Examples of evidence which demonstrates that climate is changing are;
-shifts in ecozones - that is habitat ranges are shifting and these are readily descernable from soil profiles.

A study showing changes in fire in boreal North America in response to climate change
http://www.uoguelph....ur GRL 2006.pdf

Another study showing shifts in community composition in the arctic in response to climate change;

"We live in a constantly changing environment, yet tracking ecological change is often very difficult. Long-term monitoring data are frequently lacking and are especially sparse from Arctic ecosystems, where logistical difficulties limit most monitoring programs. Fortunately, lake and pond sediments contain important archives of past limnological communities that can be used to reconstruct environmental change. Here, we summarize some of the paleolimnological studies that have documented recent climate warming in Arctic lakes and ponds. Several hypotheses have been evaluated to determine if warming, resulting in changes in ice cover and related variables (eg increased habitat availability), was the factor most strongly influencing recent diatom and other biotic changes. Striking and often unprecedented community changes were evident in post-1850 sediments, and could be linked to ecological shifts consistent with warming. Because future temperature increases are predicted to be greatly amplified in polar regions, the ecological integrity of these sensitive ecosystems will be further imperiled."


Read More: http://www.esajourna.../10.1890/060162

The list of papers on this subject is large so i wont go on.

-Stratospheric fingerprint of climate change. The theory of climate change predicts that less heat will escape to space and more heat will be trapped in the troposphere. This will be detected as a tropsopheric hotspot and a stratospheric cooling. This is detected and no external forcing such as solar activity can account for it - only an increase in heat trapping gases can account for it;

" As discussed above, greenhouse gas emissions are very effective at trapping the outgoing IR radiation. As these greenhouse gases increase, more heat will be trapped in the troposphere which means there will be less incoming heat into the stratosphere above. Furthermore, the greenhouse gases in the stratosphere will still be very effective at emitting their heat into the regions above. The net effect is that the stratosphere will be emitting more heat upward than it receives from below resulting in a cooler stratosphere."

A full and detailed explanation for why the stratopher is cooling under a climate change regime is given at;
http://www2.sunysuff...spheric_cooling

- Climate change predicts that warming will be greatest at night since less heat will be able to escape to space when there is no net solar input. this is exactly what is detected and is not accountable by anything other than changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

"Observed DTR (diurial temperature range) over land shows a large negative trend of ~0.4°C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (~0.9°C) than maximum temperatures (~0.6°C) over the same period. Analysis of trends in DTR over the last century from five coupled climate models shows that simulated trends in DTR due to anthropogenic forcing are much smaller than observed. This difference is attributable to larger than observed changes in maximum temperatures in four of the five models analysed here, a result consistent with previous modelling studies."
http://www.agu.org/p...4GL019998.shtml

-Climate change theory predicts a steady increase in infrared radiation arriving at the surface of the planet as more is reflected back by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and thats exactly what is observed.

"[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm−2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm−2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm−2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m−3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm−2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect."

http://onlinelibrary...018765/abstract

Again, there is no evidence that the sun has changed its radiative profile in such a way as to account for this observed change in surface IR radiation.


Quote

Current charts showing 2009 to 2013 are showing a trend downward.  But if you follow Gore’s prediction, it should be around 0.8° by now.

Firstly Gore is not a scientists so he has made no prediction of any relevance to the discussion.
Trying to divine a long term trend from 4 years of data is a fools game and not what climate science is about. the minimum period for a climate prediction is a period of 30 years. All trends have to be tested for statistical significance and that is why 30 years is considered the minimum time period required to test a significant trend.


In conclusion (to this segment), climate change is not based purely on the evidence of the surface temperature record and proxies. Climate change theory makes a series of predictions about physical changes in the energy balance of the atmosphere which can and have been tested empirically and shown to support the basic temperature trend evidence. It is a red herring to say that we cannot make accurate statements about the climate since the climate is reflected in its effects on numerous natural systems which respond to temperature and precipitation signals and which can be detected in the changes in ecological communities (hence the Arctic study which shows significant shifts in diatome communicates in response to temperature change). Each piece of evidence supports the overall theory of climate change and when taken in combination make a very compelling case since they account for observed changes in a way which is impossible without invoking multiple other unproven disparate theories.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this before I move onto the other aspects of your comments. If you disagree with what i have presented - in what way do you think it fails to support the physical model of the climate change predictions which have been made so far.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 31 August 2013 - 11:02 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson





Also tagged with global warming, gop

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users