|The History of Climate Change17-11-2017 01:52|
|The link is to who is credited with the term "Greenhouse Effect". it was a French mathematician named Fourier.|
It was in 1852 that the Joules-thomson Process was discovered. It was in 1913 that French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson.
The picture is of George Washington crossing the Delaware River during the Revolutionary War. Notice the ice in the river ? Won't see it today. There was a mini ice age then as there was during the Dark Ages.
Warm periods like what we are experiencing now have about always existed during social epochs that prospered. People seem to be more industrious and inventive during warmer periods than they are during cooler or more temperate time frames.
And for ItN, ozone levels are seasonal. If the amount of ozone in a seasonally adjusted column did not change then how could we know there was a Chapman cycle ? We couldn't because only when levels change do we know there is a cause and effect which the Chapman cycle illustrates.
p.s., in 1896 it was a Svante Aarhenius who calculated the warming potential of CO2. He believed that increased levels of CO2 allowed for more ice ages. Today ice core research suggests this is true.
Edited on 17-11-2017 01:54
|In 1913 the ozone layer was discovered.|
|That was a good link you posted about the history of figuring out Greenhouse Gases, James.|
Something I found interesting was that a scientist actually noticed evidence of Global Warming with just 200 weather stations around the world, almost a hundred years ago. Now we have armchair scientists who can't figure it out with thousands of thermometers around the world and satellites helping too.
It's sad that we live during such a time, especially with such a time being compounded with idiots who think their opinions actually matter, when no one's opinion matters.
I also found it interesting that they still don't really understand the result of doubling the CO2 concentration. I need to send them the algorithm that I came up with, so they will know.
And the picture is great. No, you won't see any ice on the Delaware anymore. I've seen that picture many times, but it never occurred to me that it's actually an indication of Global Warming.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
Thanks GreenMan. One thing I am concerned about is that data is being manipulted. I think this hurts research that needs to be done.
With co2 it's possible that it's more an indicator of warming. Power plants both nuclear and coal put about the same amount of heat into our atmosphere.
At the moment I don't think scientists have a good enough understanding of natural climate change. And they would need this to be 100% certain of AGW's contribution. This is where if anyone watches the documentary Climate Change by the Numbers scientists say with % certainty.
|A Claude Lorius who helped promote co2 as being the cause of Global Warming.|
The man who discovered climate change finally gets his due;
In the 1970's, the changes in Antarctica were considered to be from ozone depletion. Today scientists say that it's warming and cooling have a zero net effect on it. What he observed might actually have been the beginning of the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica.
Edited on 17-11-2017 22:46
Are you saying that there is doubt about the safety of fossil fuel consumption?
monckton wrote:James_ wrote:
I think climate data is being manipulated. The IPCC it seems is claiming that atmospheric co2 caused our oceans to warm and not our atmosphere. The 2013 IPCC report showed a global warming pause from 1998 - 2013. Then shortly after that issued another report on the threats that continued global warming posed.
This is where I don't think most people know about what is actually being said by the IPCC. They hear co2 being said a lot but not by scientists. This is where things have shifted more towards AGW and climate change. Climate change and global warming are 2 different things.
"AGW denier liar whiner james" jawboned: I think climate data is being manipulated.... I don't think most people know....James dresses up as NOT an anti-AGW denier. But there ya have it..... james is an anti-AGW denier, all the way.
litesong wrote:"AGW denier liar whiner james" jawboned: I think climate data is being manipulated.... I don't think most people know....James dresses up as NOT an anti-AGW denier. But there ya have it..... james is an anti-AGW denier, all the way.
The image shows ozone depletion about stopped which the IPCC credits to record levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. Hopefully you'll understand that the problem is not me but it is the information being made known. You know I've always said that I believe waste heat to be more of a threat than CO2. And waste heat is AGW.
But when it comes to our environment, I'd like to understand what is actually happening.
Considering there has been more urbanization and no warming associated with it, kind of have to wonder. Also anyone who has looked at different time periods and has noticed that natural warming and cooling can be independent of what man and woman does could be one reason global warming has slowed. There is still a lot that we don't know. And if naturally cooling has been happening then that could make people think that man and woman's influence doesn't amount to anything.
James_ wrote:Yes, as stated, James dresses up as NOT an anti-AGW denier. But there ya have it..... james is an anti-AGW denier, all the way, no matter how he pumps his underwater volcanic & now, waste heat trills.litesong wrote:I believe waste heat to be more of a threat than CO2."AGW denier liar whiner james" jawboned: I think climate data is being manipulated.... I don't think most people know....James dresses up as NOT an anti-AGW denier. But there ya have it..... james is an anti-AGW denier, all the way.
Edited on 18-11-2017 22:12
Well I'd agree that we should take reports from the IPCC with a pinch of salt.
But this is because the IPCC only meets every 4 years to produce a report based on data that is years old at that point - and then every participating country gets to veto the report and remove anything it doesn't like.
Things are far worse than what reports from the IPCC are able to disclose.
It almost seems like it was set up to fail.
I'll give you an example, during this press conference last November, a question was asked about the feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, which had just been agreed in Paris ... (and I heard this was only allowed in as an aspirational target if the countries that are going to get flooded first agree not to sue the US and others for damages - when they do get flooded first.)
World has warmed 1.2 degree Celsius | WMO Full Press Conference
The reply advises that this will be addressed in an IPCC special report.
That would be this report ...
... requested in 2015 to be provided in 2018.
In April 2016, the IPCC accepted the invitation to produce the report.
Then a scoping meeting was held in August 2016.
Then in October 2016, an outline was approved.
And currently as of september, the first order draft has been reviewed and they're processing something like 12000 review comments.
So let's hope its not bad news.
Well yeah this cautious approach disappears if you suggest we should apply it equally to continued use of fossil fuels or expansion into fracking and shale oil.
Nobody is saying stop! - we need to study this further.
monckton wrote:James_ wrote:
At the same time the IPCC doesn't know where the CCl4 is coming from. They say it accounts for about 10% of global warming because it destroys stratospheric ozone.
An litesong that is AGW FYI.
monckton wrote:"yeah... we need to" study this further."Yeah ...we need to" label monckton further as an AGW denier liar whiner.
|Climate change denial: a history||0||19-11-2017 18:36|
|The sufferance of people in Viet Nam, Changing climate cause the history flood||41||22-12-2016 17:55|
|History of Climate Change Science||8||05-11-2015 16:22|