Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 124 of 124

Thread: New article on Global Warming

  1. #101  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The sun is the source for all temperature except those caused by tidal forces and nuclear decay, which is really small. the greenhouse effect is a feedback system which amplifies the effect of the sun. Any increases in solar energy also get amplified.
    Agreed.

    My point, the one Lynx_Fox highlighted properly, is that while the solar output might account for some of the increase, a large part of the reason it can do that is because of the increased anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. When you add in the extra radiative forcing due to the extra greenhouse gasses when using a base solar irradiance number, the rest of of the warming is explained. The sun does provide the energy and has been providing a slightly increased amount, but it is the increased green house gasses in the atmosphere due to human activities that is keeping it trapped for longer and so accounts for the majority of the increased energy content of the atmosphere.
    Both forces have increased since industrialization. Would you agree or disagree that the percentage increase of solar energy will see that multiplication throughout the model, or not. I see any solar increase as increasing all values in a model, where increases in greenhouse gasses, which reduce the IR window, change the greenhouse effect amplification.

    Agree or not?
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The sun is the source for all temperature except those caused by tidal forces and nuclear decay, which is really small. the greenhouse effect is a feedback system which amplifies the effect of the sun. Any increases in solar energy also get amplified.
    Agreed.
    Good. We can get past that.
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    My point, the one Lynx_Fox highlighted properly, is that while the solar output might account for some of the increase, a large part of the reason it can do that is because of the increased anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. When you add in the extra radiative forcing due to the extra greenhouse gasses when using a base solar irradiance number, the rest of of the warming is explained.
    My contention is that the radiative forcing would be also as much without any CO2 increase. I have stated several times that I disagree with the impact CO2 has, and no proof has ever been shown mathematically that it influences as much as claimed.
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The sun does provide the energy and has been providing a slightly increased amount, but it is the increased green house gasses in the atmosphere due to human activities that is keeping it trapped for longer and so accounts for the majority of the increased energy content of the atmosphere.
    The increased greenhouse gasses have not made the IR window enough smaller to have any substantial impact. Can you show it has? Without proof to the contrary, and there isn't any, I will maintain solidly that CO2 is not a threat. I will maintain that increased levels will start harming life from an imbalance of oxygen and CO2 in some life before it ever becomes a concern for temperature.
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The increased greenhouse gasses have not made the IR window enough smaller to have any substantial impact. Can you show it has? Without proof to the contrary, and there isn't any, I will maintain solidly that CO2 is not a threat
    The threat would remain if the "window" you are talking about had been completely closed by the former levels of CO2, and no "window" such as you describe existed.

    You have been linked to the relevant literature, which dates back to the '50s, more than once. You refuse to deal with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I have stated several times that I disagree with the impact CO2 has, and no proof has ever been shown mathematically that it influences as much as claimed.
    Your mathematical model is in conflict with measured physical reality and modern relevant theory. It needs emendation.
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The increased greenhouse gasses have not made the IR window enough smaller to have any substantial impact. Can you show it has? Without proof to the contrary, and there isn't any, I will maintain solidly that CO2 is not a threat
    The threat would remain if the "window" you are talking about had been completely closed by the former levels of CO2, and no "window" such as you describe existed.

    You have been linked to the relevant literature, which dates back to the '50s, more than once. You refuse to deal with it.
    CO2 can never come close to closing the IR window on Earth. We would be dead first.

    You keep showing me that you repeat thing you don't understand.
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    CO2 can never come close to closing the IR window on Earth. We would be dead first.

    You keep showing me that you repeat thing you don't understand.
    Sorry to have confused you.

    Here's the same argument restated: The threat would remain if the CO2 boost had no effect on the "window" you describe.

    The "window" you describe is not at issue.
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Ice...

    I see you simply don't comprehend. Rather than discussing anything above your head further, I will give you this:

    wiki: Infared Window
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8
    Wait. Wait. Someone is actually claiming that a 30% increase of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide levels since the industrial age doesn't affect the atmosphere's ability to retain infra red rays?

    And you're arguing against him?

    What's next? Will you be trying to convince teenagers that Justin Bieber is an awful musician?

    I wish you luck in your pursuit.
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Apophasis
    Wait. Wait. Someone is actually claiming that a 30% increase of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide levels since the industrial age doesn't affect the atmosphere's ability to retain infra red rays?

    And you're arguing against him?

    What's next? Will you be trying to convince teenagers that Justin Bieber is an awful musician?

    I wish you luck in your pursuit.
    I don't think Ice knows what he's saying, but I do know he believes CO2 is a strong, rather than weak, greenhouse gas.
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    WC, can you please stop beating the pile of rotting meat that once was a horse?
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    WC, can you please stop beating the pile of rotting meat that once was a horse?
    I can deal with the scientific principles of this topic. Can you? If you wish to contribute, I suggest you back it up with science, or meaningful explanations. Not meaningless links that others offer with conclusions that lack the facts to derive to their conclusions.
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I can deal with the scientific principles of this topic.
    No, you can't.
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I normally don't like to throw large amounts of links, but take a look at these:

    June 2010 Monthly CO2 report

    SPPI Collection as of July 2010
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Christopher Monckton, Editor
    lol
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Christopher Monckton, Editor
    lol
    He was the editor of that work. Not the technical writer. The monthly report requires no more than rearranging the information in a good format.
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Christopher Monckton, Editor
    lol
    He was the editor of that work. Not the technical writer. The monthly report requires no more than rearranging the information in a good format.
    LOL
    This man is known for fabricating graphs and spreading falsehoods. And you are saying he was just the editor.
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Christopher Monckton, Editor
    lol
    He was the editor of that work. Not the technical writer. The monthly report requires no more than rearranging the information in a good format.
    LOL
    This man is known for fabricating graphs and spreading falsehoods. And you are saying he was just the editor.
    What proof do you have a fabrication?

    Someone else's word who does fabricate evidence?

    in the end, what matters is the truth. have you read and understood what these people say, or are you repeating dogma?

    At least I understand what they say. I can clearly see the AGW sides arguments don't add up.
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    What proof do you have a fabrication?
    For example he created a graph of measured temperatures and temperatures allegedly predicted by IPCC to "prove" IPCC was wrong. The graph of predicted temperatures was made up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    in the end, what matters is the truth. have you read and understood what these people say, or are you repeating dogma?
    Yes, I have read much of denier stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    At least I understand what they say. I can clearly see the AGW sides arguments don't add up.
    I belive that. Deniers usually use simple language and very simple explanations. The real science is harder to understand and simply beyond reach of some peoples' minds.
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
     

  19. #119  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    It's old news, but a nice reminder:

    Dust Storms Fuel Global Warming on Mars

    Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News
    An even nicer reminder that it's a load of horseshit:


    http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm
    Mars is not warming globally

    It is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

    The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.

    There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing: <MUCH more available at the link, which has both Basic and Intermediate responses to this Mars is warming canard>
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    It's old news, but a nice reminder:

    Dust Storms Fuel Global Warming on Mars

    Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News
    An even nicer reminder that it's a load of horseshit:


    http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm
    Mars is not warming globally

    It is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

    The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.

    There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing: <MUCH more available at the link, which has both Basic and Intermediate responses to this Mars is warming canard>
    It's enough different than the earth, don't expect it to respond the same. However, it has shown warming that matches the earths warning, which is another clue that we should consider the sun.
     

  21. #121  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    We HAVE considered the sun. It cannot account for the warming we're experiencing. Next?
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    So, people still believe the sun causes 'Anthropogenic Climate Change'?

    But, if you look at the records, over the past few decades solar activity has steadily (and slightly) decreased- this pretty much rules out the sun from the cause- no matter how many fancy prancy equations and sums you show anyone, they are irrelevant due to these records...
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    So, people still believe the sun causes 'Anthropogenic Climate Change'?

    But, if you look at the records, over the past few decades solar activity has steadily (and slightly) decreased- this pretty much rules out the sun from the cause- no matter how many fancy prancy equations and sums you show anyone, they are irrelevant due to these records...
    Not true for so many reasons. There is the latent energy in the ocean. there is urban growth and poorly placed temperature sites. It has been shown that the temperature sites are trending upward because of urban sprawl. You know, temperature islands that fail to represent areas outside the urban areas.

    So many things to discount the items used by alarmists. Too bad that there is no solid evidence.
     

  24. #124  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Giss has removed the urban sites from their data for more than ten years, and adjusted the entire record accordingly. Both they and the European agencies show that removing them actually made things appear warmer, because existing urban stations have been heating up less then rural sites because their temperature is masked.

    This thread was dying a natural death and nothing has been added related to the original post.

    Closed.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •