Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
01-11-2015 01:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.

Saturation fallacies

The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon
dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in
1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name
graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists)
argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth's climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth's atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres,
Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy
shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström's
laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the
additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm
−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström's sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument
would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a
whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the
radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the
atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would
become still hotter if one added CO to its atmosphere.
A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO2 spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


My bold.

The paper you linked to;

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

I have looked at it. I have tried to discuss the science of that paper with you. You have reacted to that as though I have called your messiah a pig. Grow up. This is a science focused area of debate. Politeness is not required. Understanding and honesty are.


My bad, I had assumed when you first said "the paper you linked to rubbished another paper' that you were referring to a modern research paper, not Angstrom's conclusions written in 1900 which have long been proven to be false. This is basic textbook stuff. Anyone who has done even cursory study in atmospheric physics and chemistry would already know why Angstrom was wrong, much like first year chemistry students would know why Johann Becher was wrong about 'phlogistons' in the 17th century.

Pierrehumbert's article in Physics Today, is not a research 'paper'. It's nothing new. It's just an article summarising what you would find in any first year textbook on the topic.

You're only pretending to 'discuss science' or 'understand science'. You have shown you don't even have a clue about the basic foundational science that any first year student would understand, so make some very basic mistakes. It's when you then pompously claim that you have found an 'obvious flaw' in basic textbook science and don't even know that it's textbook science, then tell other people to 'grow up' and that 'honesty and understanding are important', that it becomes incredibly funny.




Edited on 01-11-2015 02:05
01-11-2015 02:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - I'm not sure I followed everything just right, but if he is an admirer of Angstrom, in an endeavor to help Tim update his knowledge base, perhaps we should introduce him to the Ptolemaic system. I would be very curious to see how he applies it to modern day scientific discourse.

Thoughts?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 01-11-2015 02:40
01-11-2015 07:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
My thoughts are that this Data Mine thread is a "Kiddie Pool" for people who know less than a 5th grader about even basic science but want to pretend they are 'discussing science'.

The 'rulz' of the thread are to play with carefully cherry-picked kilobytes of 'numbers' from a couple of selected individual surface stations (preferably ones from cold places) and paste them into an Excel spreadsheet on their PCs to 'prove' mainstream science, the laws of physics, the overwhelming consilience of evidence from a broad range of fields, and all the world's scientists (who MUST be 'fudging data' because the 'kiddies' just don't like what scientists are saying), are wrong.

Considering global climate models use Petabytes of data, I'd say the 'kiddies' could have fun playing with 'numbers' for hundreds of thousands of years to come on their home PCs pretending they are modern day Galileos

At least it keeps them off the street corners with their sandwich boards proclaiming "Global warming is a hoax! It's a marxist, fascist, atheist, libtard, commie plot to take over the world!" and harassing people walking past them.



Edited on 01-11-2015 07:59
01-11-2015 09:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Ceist wrote:
My thoughts are that this Data Mine thread is a "Kiddie Pool" for people who know less than a 5th grader about even basic science but want to pretend they are 'discussing science'.

Personal opinion. Nothing wrong so far, though I don't agree with it.
Ceist wrote:
The 'rulz' of the thread are to play with carefully cherry-picked kilobytes of 'numbers' from a couple of selected individual surface stations (preferably ones from cold places) and paste them into an Excel spreadsheet on their PCs to 'prove' mainstream science, the laws of physics, the overwhelming consilience of evidence from a broad range of fields, and all the world's scientists (who MUST be 'fudging data' because the 'kiddies' just don't like what scientists are saying), are wrong.

Nothing is cherry picked. I have given the url to examine any station you wish. Enjoy yourself.
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.

Modeled data is no data. It is manufactured numbers with no meaning.

Fudged data is no data. It has been modified by some algorithm (often unknown or secret) and presented as raw data. This is deceptive data. For all practical purposes, it is random numbers in both cases.

The data itself doesn't prove anything (other than it's own existence). If you wish to present data in the Data Mine, just follow the rules. It's not that hard.

Ceist wrote:
Considering global climate models use Petabytes of data, I'd say the 'kiddies' could have fun playing with 'numbers' for hundreds of thousands of years to come on their home PCs pretending they are modern day Galileos

Are you seriously stating that numbers manufactured by a computer program overrides raw data observations?
Ceist wrote:
At least it keeps them off the street corners with their sandwich boards proclaiming "Global warming is a hoax! It's a marxist, fascist, atheist, libtard, commie plot to take over the world!" and harassing people walking past them.

Some people make such conclusions about global warming, but the data presented by the rules does not.
01-11-2015 10:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
I'll leave you to play with 'numbers' from individual stations in your own little 'infants pool' thread where you can pretend to be 'discussing data' and 'reel sciencey stuff'


I'll refer to it as the The Rabbit Hole, where crackpot conspiracy theorists who believe all the scientists are 'fudging data' and lay people who have no clue about science can dive down a hole and pretend the real world doesn't exist. It's a special place where no science and no evidence is required, and where one can believe '6 impossible things before breakfast' while mathturbating with 'numbers' - because they don't really even know what the 'numbers' mean or what to do with them.



Edited on 01-11-2015 10:59
01-11-2015 12:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.

Saturation fallacies

The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon
dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in
1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name
graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists)
argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth's climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth's atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres,
Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy
shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström's
laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the
additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm
−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström's sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument
would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a
whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the
radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the
atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would
become still hotter if one added CO to its atmosphere.
A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO2 spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


My bold.

The paper you linked to;

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

I have looked at it. I have tried to discuss the science of that paper with you. You have reacted to that as though I have called your messiah a pig. Grow up. This is a science focused area of debate. Politeness is not required. Understanding and honesty are.


My bad, I had assumed when you first said "the paper you linked to rubbished another paper' that you were referring to a modern research paper, not Angstrom's conclusions written in 1900 which have long been proven to be false. This is basic textbook stuff. Anyone who has done even cursory study in atmospheric physics and chemistry would already know why Angstrom was wrong, much like first year chemistry students would know why Johann Becher was wrong about 'phlogistons' in the 17th century.

Pierrehumbert's article in Physics Today, is not a research 'paper'. It's nothing new. It's just an article summarising what you would find in any first year textbook on the topic.

You're only pretending to 'discuss science' or 'understand science'. You have shown you don't even have a clue about the basic foundational science that any first year student would understand, so make some very basic mistakes. It's when you then pompously claim that you have found an 'obvious flaw' in basic textbook science and don't even know that it's textbook science, then tell other people to 'grow up' and that 'honesty and understanding are important', that it becomes incredibly funny.


So, back once again to the origional point;

Do you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the effect of CO2 as a cause of heating on the world's climate?

Given that you sy that the very basic stuff is contained in your article I presume that the IPCC has taken this into account. Or is the article different science to the IPCC's????
01-11-2015 12:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.

Saturation fallacies

The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon
dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in
1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name
graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists)
argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth's climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth's atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres,
Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy
shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström's
laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the
additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm
−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström's sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument
would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a
whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the
radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the
atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would
become still hotter if one added CO to its atmosphere.
A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO2 spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


My bold.

The paper you linked to;

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

I have looked at it. I have tried to discuss the science of that paper with you. You have reacted to that as though I have called your messiah a pig. Grow up. This is a science focused area of debate. Politeness is not required. Understanding and honesty are.


My bad, I had assumed when you first said "the paper you linked to rubbished another paper' that you were referring to a modern research paper, not Angstrom's conclusions written in 1900 which have long been proven to be false. This is basic textbook stuff. Anyone who has done even cursory study in atmospheric physics and chemistry would already know why Angstrom was wrong, much like first year chemistry students would know why Johann Becher was wrong about 'phlogistons' in the 17th century.

Pierrehumbert's article in Physics Today, is not a research 'paper'. It's nothing new. It's just an article summarising what you would find in any first year textbook on the topic.

You're only pretending to 'discuss science' or 'understand science'. You have shown you don't even have a clue about the basic foundational science that any first year student would understand, so make some very basic mistakes. It's when you then pompously claim that you have found an 'obvious flaw' in basic textbook science and don't even know that it's textbook science, then tell other people to 'grow up' and that 'honesty and understanding are important', that it becomes incredibly funny.


So, back once again to the origional point;

Do you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the effect of CO2 as a cause of heating on the world's climate?

Given that you sy that the very basic stuff is contained in your article I presume that the IPCC has taken this into account. Or is the article different science to the IPCC's????

Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.



Edited on 01-11-2015 12:57
01-11-2015 22:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?
01-11-2015 23:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?

What did you find wrong about it?
01-11-2015 23:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Ceist wrote:
I'll leave you to play with 'numbers' from individual stations in your own little 'infants pool' thread where you can pretend to be 'discussing data' and 'reel sciencey stuff'


I'll refer to it as the The Rabbit Hole, where crackpot conspiracy theorists who believe all the scientists are 'fudging data' and lay people who have no clue about science can dive down a hole and pretend the real world doesn't exist. It's a special place where no science and no evidence is required, and where one can believe '6 impossible things before breakfast' while mathturbating with 'numbers' - because they don't really even know what the 'numbers' mean or what to do with them.


Admittedly there have been quite a few posts (most of them) that don't seem to want to present data at all or has presented data not in accordance with the spirit of the rules I proposed at the beginning. It is not the way I envisioned the Data Mine. I had hoped people would talk about the data itself. Apparently that is not going to be the case.

As far as what the numbers mean, that is the reason for rule 3. Following this rule shows what the numbers mean and how they came to be.

I do not believe all scientists are fudging data. Most are out there collecting real data. That is why I set up rules 1b and 7, specifically to stop fudged data.

You do not have to have a clue about science to present data according to the rules set up. It helps, though.

I think you might be falling down a different Rabbit Hole.
Edited on 01-11-2015 23:41
01-11-2015 23:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Ceist wrote:Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way.

What "first-year" science textbook for an accredited program have you read (and understand) that covers the models that define "climate," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," or any kind of "forcing"?

Consequently, if you aren't aware of any, how can you expect others to have somehow read one?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2015 23:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way.

What "first-year" science textbook for an accredited program have you read (and understand) that covers the models that define "climate," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," or any kind of "forcing"?

Consequently, if you aren't aware of any, how can you expect others to have somehow read one?

Assuming that Ceist is referring to books suitable for the first year of a university degree, there are loads of textbooks covering the greenhouse effect. Here's one example:

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry
02-11-2015 00:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Surface Detail wrote:
Assuming that Ceist is referring to books suitable for the first year of a university degree, there are loads of textbooks covering the greenhouse effect. Here's one example:

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry

Excellent for the first part. Now for the crucial second part: What accredited chemistry program uses that textbook?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-11-2015 00:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Assuming that Ceist is referring to books suitable for the first year of a university degree, there are loads of textbooks covering the greenhouse effect. Here's one example:

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry

Excellent for the first part. Now for the crucial second part: What accredited chemistry program uses that textbook?

The foreword of the book says:

"This book contains the lectures and problems from the 1-semester course Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry which I have taught at Harvard since 1992. The course is aimed at undergraduates majoring in the natural sciences or engineering and having had one or two years of college math, chemistry, and physics."

A quick Google shows that it's a recommended text on loads of courses at universities around the world including, obviously, the author's course at Harvard.
02-11-2015 00:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - the Cherry-Picking Data Mine!

Ohhhhh. I like it!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
05-11-2015 22:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?

What did you find wrong about it?


The paper's basic argument was that earth's atmosphere could behave as Venus's does.

They avoided any mention of the vast difference between the two and the fact that the atmosphere of Venus has huge amounts of sulfuric acid and metals in it, amongst other nasties.

They also failed to discuss the fact that if their idea that CO2 can stop an unlimited amout of IR leaving the earth why did it not do so when there has been loads of the stuff in the air in previous periods?

The actual information in the paper seemed to support these issues. I did not get that far into it as any discussion here about it was treated like I had pissed on somebody's grandmother by the warmists here.

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.
05-11-2015 23:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?

What did you find wrong about it?


The paper's basic argument was that earth's atmosphere could behave as Venus's does.

They avoided any mention of the vast difference between the two and the fact that the atmosphere of Venus has huge amounts of sulfuric acid and metals in it, amongst other nasties.

They also failed to discuss the fact that if their idea that CO2 can stop an unlimited amout of IR leaving the earth why did it not do so when there has been loads of the stuff in the air in previous periods?

The actual information in the paper seemed to support these issues. I did not get that far into it as any discussion here about it was treated like I had pissed on somebody's grandmother by the warmists here.

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.

In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all. So if Venus was once like Earth, and the oceans boiled away, where is all that hydrogen? There is some locked up in the sulfuric acid, but not enough.
Secondly, The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2. The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth. If sufficient hydrogen were available, you would have all the conditions needed to synthesize hydrocarbons. This should leave the surface black and shiny, but it isn't. You also have to ask where all that CO2 came from. The high pressure can certainly explain the high temperatures of Venus.

I don't think Venus changed from anything due to runaway anything. It has always been like this since it was formed.
Edited on 05-11-2015 23:07
06-11-2015 16:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping.

That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....
06-11-2015 17:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The paper's basic argument was that earth's atmosphere could behave as Venus's does.

They avoided any mention of the vast difference between the two and the fact that the atmosphere of Venus has huge amounts of sulfuric acid and metals in it, amongst other nasties.

They also failed to discuss the fact that if their idea that CO2 can stop an unlimited amout of IR leaving the earth why did it not do so when there has been loads of the stuff in the air in previous periods?

The actual information in the paper seemed to support these issues. I did not get that far into it as any discussion here about it was treated like I had pissed on somebody's grandmother by the warmists here.

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.


I don't know what 'paper' you are referring to Tim, but the article in Physics Today about atmospheric heat transfer that I linked to did not say anything like what you are saying. Nothing about "CO2 can stop an unlimited amount of IR leaving the earth". How does that even make any sense? It also discussed the differences between Venus and Earth and why earth wouldn't become like Venus.

So I can only assume you are referring to something else. Can you provide a link please?



Edited on 06-11-2015 18:02
06-11-2015 17:11
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping.

That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....

What 'paper' are you referring to Tim?

The Physics Today article I linked to didn't say anything like "CO2 could stop all the IR from escaping". That wouldn't even make sense. It also described the differences between Venus and Earth. It was just a concise summary mainly about atmospheric radiative heat transfer and what you would find in current textbooks, not some new research paper.

So can you provide a link to this other 'paper' that says what you are saying? Thanks.

If the 'paper' you are referring to IS the Physics Today article I linked to, then you have misrepresented it and have created your own straw man, probably because you didn't understand what he was saying.

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand"- Bertrand Russell



Edited on 06-11-2015 18:10
06-11-2015 17:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Tim the plumber wrote: Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping. That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....


Did you find anything in the article that explains how CO2 can stop any IR from escaping?

Have you ever seen any such explanation anywhere?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-11-2015 19:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping. That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....


Did you find anything in the article that explains how CO2 can stop any IR from escaping?

Have you ever seen any such explanation anywhere?


Yes.

The same way that clouds cause visable light to be reflected back down to the surface.

You maintain the position that all materials react with all EM radiation in the same way. This is wrong. Think about how sun screen works. It stops UV but allows all other wavelengths through.

Since the wavelengths of light given off by the earth are different to those coming from the sun there is the possibility that the sun's energy can get to the surface more easily than the IR emitted by the surface of the earth.

Although I have seen a decent argument that this hypothesis is not at all required to explain the temperature difference between the surface of the moon and that of the earth at sea level.
06-11-2015 20:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Tim the plumber wrote: You maintain the position that all materials react with all EM radiation in the same way.

You are incorrect. I have never asserted this.

I am on record as asserting on multiple occasions that different substances have different electromagnetic absorption signatures.

Are you, perhaps, confusing me with someone else?

The question I posed to you was whether you have any reason to believe that CO2 (specifically) can stop any IR from escaping into space. (not clouds, not any other gas)

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)

Tim the plumber wrote: Since the wavelengths of light given off by the earth are different to those coming from the sun there is the possibility that the sun's energy can get to the surface more easily than the IR emitted by the surface of the earth.


A. Do you acknowledge that some solar EM is reflected/deflected away, never being absorbed by the earth, making it impossible for that solar EM to be absorbed by the earth?

B. Do you acknowledge that all terrestrial IR (except for a negligible non-zero amount) has only one possible (short-term) final destination, i.e. space?

Your statement doesn't quite hold up.

Tim the plumber wrote: Although I have seen a decent argument that this hypothesis is not at all required to explain the temperature difference between the surface of the moon and that of the earth at sea level. [/color]

The surface of the moon and the surface of the earth form an apples-and-oranges comparison. However an apples-to-apples comparison can be made by noticing that both the moon and the earth are identical at the top of their respective atmospheres (with the lunar surface essentially being the top of the lunar atmosphere). Obviously the bottom of two vastly different quantities of atmosphere for a given solar distance are going to have noticeably different temperatures patterns.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2017 15:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-05-2017 00:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


The Parrot Killer
24-05-2017 22:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


Agreed. It is *SO* much easier to just accept conclusions we are told to believe than to expend all the effort required to question. Similarly, it is much easier to just fabricate numbers on the spot and to pretend that is reality than it is to suffer the effort and expense of, gasp, valid research.

The phrase "The (unnamed, uncounted) Scientists said so!" is so convenient. There should be one in every home.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-05-2017 22:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


Agreed. It is *SO* much easier to just accept conclusions we are told to believe than to expend all the effort required to question. Similarly, it is much easier to just fabricate numbers on the spot and to pretend that is reality than it is to suffer the effort and expense of, gasp, valid research.

The phrase "The (unnamed, uncounted) Scientists said so!" is so convenient. There should be one in every home.
.


Mine is right next to the description of the Gods of the Church of Global Warming. They're at my hangar, not my home.


The Parrot Killer
14-04-2018 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
We keep coming back to the 'data'. Everyone has their own source. Seems like everyone and his brother are trying to make Global Warming data easier to understand with pretty graphs.

It is time to remember the Data Mine and it's purpose.
05-05-2018 00:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


Agreed. It is *SO* much easier to just accept conclusions we are told to believe than to expend all the effort required to question. Similarly, it is much easier to just fabricate numbers on the spot and to pretend that is reality than it is to suffer the effort and expense of, gasp, valid research.

The phrase "The (unnamed, uncounted) Scientists said so!" is so convenient. There should be one in every home.


.



Or as Mark Twain stated: "people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
18-03-2019 20:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
It is quite indicative that the avoidance of the Data Mine thread by the Church of Global Warming only goes to show how little data they actually have.
19-03-2019 13:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Into the Night wrote:
It is quite indicative that the avoidance of the Data Mine thread by the Church of Global Warming only goes to show how little data they actually have.

I remember your Data Mine from Topix. It was such an outstanding idea; posters could build a repository of valid datasets that would aid anyone in their endeavors to support their claims. Sadly, I believe I was the only one that had made an entry of validated data sources with information on sensor margin of error (if I recall correctly, it concerned Arctic temperature readings that I used to hurl back at litesong as he would rant about how hot the Arctic was becoming). It was your Data Mine that really opened my eyes to the fact that NO ONE had any data, and that the oft-used "the data" reference simply revealed another dupe.

So the Topix Data Mine, just like this one, remained completely devoid of data useful to the Global Warming cause. It makes me laugh to realize the Global Warming gold mine is empty and boarded up. If I were the administrator I would pin the Data Mine to the top of the list.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-03-2019 15:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is quite indicative that the avoidance of the Data Mine thread by the Church of Global Warming only goes to show how little data they actually have.

I remember your Data Mine from Topix. It was such an outstanding idea; posters could build a repository of valid datasets that would aid anyone in their endeavors to support their claims. Sadly, I believe I was the only one that had made an entry of validated data sources with information on sensor margin of error (if I recall correctly, it concerned Arctic temperature readings that I used to hurl back at litesong as he would rant about how hot the Arctic was becoming). It was your Data Mine that really opened my eyes to the fact that NO ONE had any data, and that the oft-used "the data" reference simply revealed another dupe.

So the Topix Data Mine, just like this one, remained completely devoid of data useful to the Global Warming cause. It makes me laugh to realize the Global Warming gold mine is empty and boarded up. If I were the administrator I would pin the Data Mine to the top of the list.



I like the way you stated your position with "certainty". Now let's see what the IPCC itself says about that. I noticed that you showed no data but only alluded to a different discussion in which you did show data sets.

quoting the IPCC; in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty,


See, NotDaMann? I provide the source of material. It's funny how people like you, ITN, etc. can post with "certainty" yet ignore the primary argument that skeptics use, that talk of CO2 and Global Warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age.
I mean you guys say that no warming or climate change happens. A complete denial of what has actually been observed. This means that you belong to the Church of Logic which is communism. Those who think they are, smarter, better, etc. based on the belief that their idea is true and correct and omits any religious belief is simply The Communist Manifesto.
After all, many in here claim there is a Church of Global Warming because a belief in God is bad. After all, any people that believe that the Earth was created support religion in their own way even if they are not a member of a physical building. The building isn't the church but the people who share a common belief in and of a Creator are a church. This includes Native Americans who accept that there is a Great Spirit. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says this about an altar
Exodus 20:25; If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/316870523757913461/
It's interesting but this forum might be about educating people how logic supports communism. maybe that's why GFM and ITN created it. This then makes them the creators and their logic cannot be falsified.
I owe you an apology ITN. I thought you were a Native American that was unhappy but now just believe that you are a communist and when we accept you logic then we can accept your rule.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-scientists-helped-create-a-spurious-pause-in-global-warming/
Edited on 19-03-2019 15:13
19-03-2019 15:10
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
gfm7175 wrote:
Hahahaha I like how this thread has gone YEARS... numerous years... without ANY data being presented hahahaha...

This thread sure made my morning



Yet it's primary progenitors are your friends.

Would you consider your response to be a Distraction Phallusy?
I am trying to understand how to use your logic
19-03-2019 16:00
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
Hahahaha I like how this thread has gone YEARS... numerous years... without ANY data being presented hahahaha...

This thread sure made my morning
19-03-2019 16:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote:
quoting the IPCC; in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty,


See, NotDaMann? I provide the source of material. It's funny how people like you, ITN, etc. can post with "certainty" yet ignore the primary argument that skeptics use, that talk of CO2 and Global Warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age.

James___, help me out here. You totally lost me. I know you are trying to express something wondrous because I see words that you have typed ... but your post seems to be running interference on itself.

Could I get you to rewrite your point in English. I really didn't latch onto anything coherent.

James___ wrote: I mean you guys say that no warming or climate change happens.

Nope. That's not what I say.

1. Warming happens. The sun does that per Stefan-Boltzmann.
2. Cooling happens. The earth cools per Stefan-Boltzmann.
3. I don't know what you mean when you use "climate" in a seemingly logically contradictory manner.

James___ wrote: A complete denial of what has actually been observed. This means that you belong to the Church of Logic which is communism. Those who think they are, smarter, better, etc. based on the belief that their idea is true and correct and omits any religious belief is simply The Communist Manifesto.

Nope.

A bit of advice for you. You can write less and exert less effort and still get away with being wrong.

James___ wrote: After all, many in here claim there is a Church of Global Warming because a belief in God is bad.

I have not seen these claims. Could you provide some links?

James___ wrote: It's interesting but this forum might be about educating people how logic supports communism. maybe that's why GFM and ITN created it. This then makes them the creators and their logic cannot be falsified.

So it is your contention that Into the Night has been striving all along to render his logic unfalsifiable?

James___ wrote: I owe you an apology ITN. I thought you were a Native American that was unhappy but now just believe that you are a communist and when we accept you logic then we can accept your rule.

@ Into the Night - forgive me for not having noticed before. What is thy bidding?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-03-2019 16:34
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
James?? Being incoherent again??? Say it ain't so!!!!

You know James, sometimes you can use LESS words, yet convey MORE meaning with those words...
19-03-2019 17:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
gfm7175 wrote:
James?? Being incoherent again??? Say it ain't so!!!!

You know James, sometimes you can use LESS words, yet convey MORE meaning with those words...



It's funny how you, itn and notDaMann can ignore fact as not data. Seattle has recorded rising sea levels for over 100 years.
It's funny how someone like itn who lives around Seattle can say that the people in Seattle are wrong. They can't measure water levels. Yet they want people to accept what they say.
You guys sound just like the IPCC. That is so funny it's sad

Edited on 19-03-2019 17:03
19-03-2019 17:18
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
quoting the IPCC; in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty,


See, NotDaMann? I provide the source of material. It's funny how people like you, ITN, etc. can post with "certainty" yet ignore the primary argument that skeptics use, that talk of CO2 and Global Warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age.

James___, help me out here. You totally lost me. I know you are trying to express something wondrous because I see words that you have typed ... but your post seems to be running interference on itself.

Could I get you to rewrite your point in English. I really didn't latch onto anything coherent.

James___ wrote: I mean you guys say that no warming or climate change happens.

Nope. That's not what I say.

1. Warming happens. The sun does that per Stefan-Boltzmann.
2. Cooling happens. The earth cools per Stefan-Boltzmann.
3. I don't know what you mean when you use "climate" in a seemingly logically contradictory manner.

James___ wrote: A complete denial of what has actually been observed. This means that you belong to the Church of Logic which is communism. Those who think they are, smarter, better, etc. based on the belief that their idea is true and correct and omits any religious belief is simply The Communist Manifesto.

Nope.

A bit of advice for you. You can write less and exert less effort and still get away with being wrong.

James___ wrote: After all, many in here claim there is a Church of Global Warming because a belief in God is bad.

I have not seen these claims. Could you provide some links?

James___ wrote: It's interesting but this forum might be about educating people how logic supports communism. maybe that's why GFM and ITN created it. This then makes them the creators and their logic cannot be falsified.

So it is your contention that Into the Night has been striving all along to render his logic unfalsifiable?

James___ wrote: I owe you an apology ITN. I thought you were a Native American that was unhappy but now just believe that you are a communist and when we accept you logic then we can accept your rule.

@ Into the Night - forgive me for not having noticed before. What is thy bidding?


NotDaMann,
Your clever use of logic isn't working. The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.
This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality. It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet yet say science is a religion.
19-03-2019 17:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote: Seattle has recorded rising sea levels for over 100 years.

Do you mean to say that Seattle has monitored areas that are sinking with the sea level remaining the same?

James___ wrote: It's funny how someone like itn who lives around Seattle can say that the people in Seattle are wrong.

I knew a guy from Seattle who was wrong.

James___ wrote: You guys sound just like the IPCC. That is so funny it's sad

You bring up an excellent point: How does the IPCC sound? Is it something like the Pugent Sound?
(Do you see how I tied it in with Seattle?)


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-03-2019 17:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote:NotDaMann, your clever use of logic isn't working.

It can't be both "clever" and "not working" at the same time, can it?

James___ wrote: The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

What if I am? Would it be the end of the world? (pun intended)

James___ wrote: This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality. It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet yet say science is a religion.

What I am saying is that your religious dogma, what you call "The Science" is the basis for your religion. Duh! I thought it was pretty straightforward.

Remember, the word "science" without quotations marks is what you don't have.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast218-05-2019 15:06
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 03:44
Ideas of Mine3611-02-2018 21:41
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 23:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact