Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific Consensus



Page 2 of 4<1234>
18-07-2017 03:29
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb
18-07-2017 04:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb


Just like a cat. They don't pay attention to anything except themselves and what they are hunting.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2018 05:46
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


They do nothing of the sort.

Humans account for ~3.7% of carbon dioxide produced. The rest is naturally occurring. And CO2 represents 400 ppmv compared to 15,000 ppmv for water vapor, so 400 divided by 15,400 = 2.59%. So human CO2 is .037 x .0259 or .000958 of greenhouse gases, and climate change sharia priests pretend that that infinitesimal proportion drives the climate? Please, get serious.

China and India are building thousands of coal fired power plants. Anything we do in the United States will be eclipsed by the poor people of the world.

After the ecohypocrites start practicing what they preach, then some might listen. Until then, let's watch them take their limousines, and private jets around the world while they tell us what to do and when.
13-05-2018 17:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


They do nothing of the sort.

Humans account for ~3.7% of carbon dioxide produced. The rest is naturally occurring. And CO2 represents 400 ppmv compared to 15,000 ppmv for water vapor, so 400 divided by 15,400 = 2.59%. So human CO2 is .037 x .0259 or .000958 of greenhouse gases, and climate change sharia priests pretend that that infinitesimal proportion drives the climate? Please, get serious.

China and India are building thousands of coal fired power plants. Anything we do in the United States will be eclipsed by the poor people of the world.

After the ecohypocrites start practicing what they preach, then some might listen. Until then, let's watch them take their limousines, and private jets around the world while they tell us what to do and when.


It's even worse than that - after between 200 and 250 ppm of CO2 there is no further effect from CO2 other than that of any other gas.

The entirety of greenhouse effect, which is sadly misnamed in order to threaten people with it, is nothing more than water in its three phases.

And yet you cannot turn on ANY TV without hearing the phrase "global warming" loudly and often.

I have an idea of how to raise money for the Federal Government - every time any show uses that term we fine them $1,000. This would both make money that the government could use and cease the miseducation of the population by the eco-freaks.
13-05-2018 20:26
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


..What they've never explained is if CO2 excites other gasses such as N2 or O2, etc. I don't think this compound effect has been studied. If we go by the ideal gas law then 1/3mc^2 = KE = 3/2KT where K is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature in kelvins.
..Kinetic theory gives the average pressure p for an ideal gas as

p=(1/3 * N/V)mv^2

..How does CO2 change this ? A reduction in pressure p means less KE which allows for a lower temperature. Conversely an increase in pressure p allows for an increase in KE which means higher temperatures will be observed.
..This will show how CO2 effects our atmosphere. I haven't ever seen where they've made known the interaction between CO2 and other atmospheric gasses. Kind of why I stay neutral in the debate myself. This is basically what's being debated, does CO2 increase the KE of other atmospheric gasses ?
..This is something that can be tested under controlled conditions in a laboratory. Then those results could be used for computer modelling. Then computer models might be more accurate.

..@itn,
..When you say gasses can not warm our planet the Boltzmann constant says otherwise. That's why he used the expression KE = 3/2KT or (3/2KT)Na.
Edited on 13-05-2018 20:41
14-05-2018 00:44
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(61)
James___ wrote:

..When you say gasses can not warm our planet the Boltzmann constant says otherwise. That's why he used the expression KE = 3/2KT or (3/2KT)Na.


Gases don't "warm our planet," but rather act as insulation retaining heat absorbed by the sun and radiated outward. If not for our atmosphere, profound amounts of heat would be lost, and there would be little if any life on earth.
But there's nothing magic about CO2 no matter what Al Gore the flunkee from Vanderbilt Divinity School says.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." -

"We all know a zebra doesn't change its spots." -
14-05-2018 00:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:

..When you say gasses can not warm our planet the Boltzmann constant says otherwise. That's why he used the expression KE = 3/2KT or (3/2KT)Na.


Gases don't "warm our planet," but rather act as insulation retaining heat absorbed by the sun and radiated outward. If not for our atmosphere, profound amounts of heat would be lost, and there would be little if any life on earth.
But there's nothing magic about CO2 no matter what Al Gore the flunkee from Vanderbilt Divinity School says.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." -

"We all know a zebra doesn't change its spots." -


Careful, James in particular cannot understand science. He will take your correction as a personal insult.
14-05-2018 08:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:

..When you say gasses can not warm our planet the Boltzmann constant says otherwise. That's why he used the expression KE = 3/2KT or (3/2KT)Na.


Gases don't "warm our planet," but rather act as insulation retaining heat absorbed by the sun and radiated outward. If not for our atmosphere, profound amounts of heat would be lost, and there would be little if any life on earth.
But there's nothing magic about CO2 no matter what Al Gore the flunkee from Vanderbilt Divinity School says.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." -

"We all know a zebra doesn't change its spots." -


Not so much an insulator as just another bit of matter that takes time to heat and cool.


The Parrot Killer
14-05-2018 19:38
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
You 3 are sad.
14-05-2018 20:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
You 3 are sad.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17xh_VRrnMU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_o42QaVnA
14-05-2018 23:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html
Edited on 14-05-2018 23:10
15-05-2018 01:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.
15-05-2018 02:46
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ? [quote]Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.
Edited on 15-05-2018 02:58
15-05-2018 16:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ?
Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.


But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.
15-05-2018 20:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ?
Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.


Wake happens to be right on this one.


The Parrot Killer
15-05-2018 23:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ?
Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.


But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.


Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?



..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right
16-05-2018 00:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ?
Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.


But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.


Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?



..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right


OK, where were these volcanoes? These things don't disappear you know? Or are you going to rush out and find another comic book on global warming to quote since that's the level of your thought processes if they can be called that.

66 Million years ago it is theorized that the Chicxulub meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula. This was in the worse place possible and covered the entire Earth with aerosol ashes for perhaps as much as 5 years. This was one of the largest events in the history of the Earth and traces of it are still showing after 66 million years. It killed off the entire Dinosaur species. It caused the evolution of the Mammal.

But somehow you have either a giant volcano or a string of big volcanoes covering the Earth with ash and no trace of them after 250 years. I must say your thinking processes leave a lot to be desired.
17-05-2018 21:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ?
Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.


But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.


Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?



..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right


OK, where were these volcanoes? These things don't disappear you know? Or are you going to rush out and find another comic book on global warming to quote since that's the level of your thought processes if they can be called that.

66 Million years ago it is theorized that the Chicxulub meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula. This was in the worse place possible and covered the entire Earth with aerosol ashes for perhaps as much as 5 years. This was one of the largest events in the history of the Earth and traces of it are still showing after 66 million years. It killed off the entire Dinosaur species. It caused the evolution of the Mammal.

But somehow you have either a giant volcano or a string of big volcanoes covering the Earth with ash and no trace of them after 250 years. I must say your thinking processes leave a lot to be desired.



...What scientists base that assumption on are sulfur levels. Back in 1300 AD not much history was recorded. There is a report of a comet that caused the ground to shake.

Pg. 2 is interesting;
.In 1348
came an earthquake of such frightful violence that many men deemed the end of the world to be presaged. Its devastations were widely spread. Cyprus, Greece, and Italy were terribly visited, and it extended through the Alpine valleys as far as Basle. Mountains sank into the earth.
https://1f9hwg1wionh254zdu2abfkg-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/black-death-and-abrupt-earth-changes-2.pdf
17-05-2018 23:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ?
Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.


But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.


Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?



..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right


OK, where were these volcanoes? These things don't disappear you know? Or are you going to rush out and find another comic book on global warming to quote since that's the level of your thought processes if they can be called that.

66 Million years ago it is theorized that the Chicxulub meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula. This was in the worse place possible and covered the entire Earth with aerosol ashes for perhaps as much as 5 years. This was one of the largest events in the history of the Earth and traces of it are still showing after 66 million years. It killed off the entire Dinosaur species. It caused the evolution of the Mammal.

But somehow you have either a giant volcano or a string of big volcanoes covering the Earth with ash and no trace of them after 250 years. I must say your thinking processes leave a lot to be desired.



...What scientists base that assumption on are sulfur levels. Back in 1300 AD not much history was recorded. There is a report of a comet that caused the ground to shake.
Comets do not cause the ground to shake.
James___ wrote:
Pg. 2 is interesting;
.In 1348
came an earthquake of such frightful violence that many men deemed the end of the world to be presaged. Its devastations were widely spread. Cyprus, Greece, and Italy were terribly visited, and it extended through the Alpine valleys as far as Basle. Mountains sank into the earth.

Comets do not cause the ground to shake.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 16:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16797075

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html


What is really funny is that throughout history geology shows us that we have had warm periods interspersed with cold periods. While aerosols definitely can have an effect these are almost never world wide. And there is clear geological evidence of the little ice age in New Zealand and northern Australia. There is some evidence of it in Brazil.

Since sunspots have been studied since the time of Galileo there are records of the cycles that cause deep cold periods in inter-glacial periods and we know for certain that at the time of the little ice age there was a very sharp reduction in sunspots which is the probable cause of the little ice age and that is why its real name is The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

But feel free to invent anything you like since you aren't bright enough to actually study it and need your articles from the news section of the BBC.

If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.



...Back to the insults already ?
Wake wrote: If you are unwilling to study anything that has large words in it and instead use reference materials designed for children you aren't getting very far.[/b]
..That just tells me that's all you have.


But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?

Gee willikers you certainly are back on the bandwagon of hating being corrected on anything.


Wake wrote:
But weren't you just telling us that according to your deep research into a child's article that the little ice age was caused by some volcano somewhere that no one knows?



..I was trying to keep it simple for you and itn since neither one of you understand science.
...What we grown ups read;
..The cause appears to have been massive tropical volcanic eruptions, which spewed tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. While suspended in the air, the aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the planet below.
..The cooling was sustained after the aerosols had left the atmosphere by a sea-ice feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean, the researchers believe.
https://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html


..I have my own theory but will go with what is accepted for now. This means that I am right


OK, where were these volcanoes? These things don't disappear you know? Or are you going to rush out and find another comic book on global warming to quote since that's the level of your thought processes if they can be called that.

66 Million years ago it is theorized that the Chicxulub meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula. This was in the worse place possible and covered the entire Earth with aerosol ashes for perhaps as much as 5 years. This was one of the largest events in the history of the Earth and traces of it are still showing after 66 million years. It killed off the entire Dinosaur species. It caused the evolution of the Mammal.

But somehow you have either a giant volcano or a string of big volcanoes covering the Earth with ash and no trace of them after 250 years. I must say your thinking processes leave a lot to be desired.



...What scientists base that assumption on are sulfur levels. Back in 1300 AD not much history was recorded. There is a report of a comet that caused the ground to shake.
Comets do not cause the ground to shake.
James___ wrote:
Pg. 2 is interesting;
.In 1348
came an earthquake of such frightful violence that many men deemed the end of the world to be presaged. Its devastations were widely spread. Cyprus, Greece, and Italy were terribly visited, and it extended through the Alpine valleys as far as Basle. Mountains sank into the earth.

Comets do not cause the ground to shake.


I think he's saying that the comet caused the Black Death. I have a brother who insists that the 9/11 trade towers were blown up by the CIA and he looks like a high IQ detective compared to James.
18-05-2018 18:29
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb


Excellent proverb. After all, it's probably wake anyway LMAO !!!!


...@All,
..What wake (what happens when someone dies, you go to wake
hold a vigil beside (someone who has died).
"we waked Jim last night"
https://www.google.com/search?q=wake&oq=wake&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) doesn't understand is that a near earth asteroid or comet could change the earth's orbit. This is because it would effect it's gravitational field as it passes through it.
..In astronomy they can use a Sun's wobble to determine what planets can be expected to be orbiting it, this includes both mass (size) and orbit in some cases.
..If astronomers can't see the planets, how do they know that they are there at all? According to astronomers, some stars appear to wobble back and forwards. Yes that's right, wobble! But stars don't move...do they?
http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/space/2010/09/it%E2%80%99s-in-the-shake-and-wobble!-.aspx
..If a planet can cause a star to wobble then why can't an asteroid or comet effect our planet ? Because wake said so, that's why.

I kind of wonder if itn and wake will ever read actual books on physics. It's not the same as surfing the next, it takes time and you have to consider things from the author's perspective first.

..Yep, I got "waked" LMAO!!!
Edited on 18-05-2018 19:22
18-05-2018 19:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Desertphile wrote:
Hayduke wrote: This statement is absolutely and unequivocally false.


No. Over 550 science organizations in 85 countries, and they all agree humans have caused and are causing global warming.

Hayduke wrote: Many climate scientists disagree that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change.


Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)

Hayduke wrote: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a politically loaded, unscientific phrase that does not describe the complexity of global climate variation.


It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.


How about 30,000? The Oregon Petition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Of course this is "easily debunked" - the Huffington Post did it with a journalist. After all, journalists are much smarter than scientists on matters of science.
18-05-2018 19:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.


H2O in it's three phases - gas, liquid and solid is 100 times more common and 1000 times more effective.

Can you explain what effect CO2 could possibly have?
18-05-2018 19:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi arthur18

I have responded on WUWT, also copied here:

Well.... I say, this is an absolutely terrific work of fiction, particularly regarding point 3 by JoNova. The way that the original data release has been re-written and mis-represented here is really quite astounding.

If you refer to the original document, then it is clear that the results of the survey have been mis-reported here. In fact, Bart Verheggen, who happens to be the second author on the original document, has written a post on his blog, describing the actual results of the survey:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/

In Bart's words:

"...our survey results show a strong scientific consensus that global warming is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases".

"This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature."

And why on earth are the results of the survey, which was conducted in 2012, being compared to a statement from AR5, which was not published until 2013?

JoNova is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and it would seem as though she is being quite successful. I encourage everyone to not read this article blindly, but to refer to the source document and draw your own conclusions from the data.


I'm and R&D engineer who has designed chromatographs, both gas and liquid. So I understand spectometry. From the first second I saw these claims of CO2 being a greenhouse gas as comical. Yes a very small amount of CO2 can have a vanishingly small effect but larger amounts have none at all.

By all means show where the energy in the absorption bands of CO2 is supposed to come from.
18-05-2018 20:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.


Where did you get your education in chemistry? What's more, the latest satellite imagery shows the vast majority of CO2 is coming from the Brazilian rain forest and South-central African jungle. Rotting plants are in sufficient amounts to generate large (actually very tiny) amounts of CO2.

This is no doubt the source of the very high amount of CO2 saturated ocean water as vegetable plankton dies and sinks to the bottom of the oceans rotting on the way down and at the bottom.

To suggest that there is or ever was any "science" in the AGW hypothesis is sheer fantasy almost entirely postulated by people without any real science education and political groups looking for power.
18-05-2018 20:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Abraham3 wrote:
Hayduke wrote:
Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)


It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.


I do not respond to personal attacks.


I agree that there are respectable climatologists out there that do not accept AGW (which is a perfectly good term). But for every one you can name, I can find 97 that do accept it. If you have some information indicating that is not the case, I'd very much like to see it.


Firstly - the study of climate composes some 200 different science specialties. There is NO SUCH THING as a climatologist. There are no degrees granted at any university for "climatology". Therefore they are ALL self-identified.

The pretense that someone who has nothing better to do than to invent a title for himself and then make claims that man is somehow in control of the climate when he can't even predict the weather a week in advance accurately, and solely to gain government funding for a project would strike most normal people as humor. But to the group of True Believers this is the end of civilization as we know it.

Who are these "respectable climatologists"? Dr. Michael Mann who just lost a court case when other showed that he actually lied in his papers in order to gain more funding?
18-05-2018 20:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
climate scientist wrote:
Climate science is a very broad field. My field within climate science is on greenhouse gases and the carbon cycle. I know the basics of what the observed changes in sea level rise are, but if you asked me exactly how much sea level rise there will be in 2100, I would have to do a lot of reading and research to answer this question. Scientists are naturally skeptical people, and I would probably answer 'don't know' about a question on future sea level rise, simply because I do not have enough in depth knowledge or research topic on the background to be able to provide a more reasonable answer than ' based on trends in observed sea level rise, I think sea level in 2100 might be higher than today, but I'm not really sure'.

However, I still agree with the IPCC position on climate change - that it is extremely likely that humans are causing climate change via greenhouse gas emissions - because I know that there are multiple lines of independent evidence that demonstrate this, including those from my own research specialism.

Even if you disagree with Bart's interpretation of his results, it is completely inappropriate for WUWT to write an article stating explicitly that only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is *not* what the results of the survey show.

It is also inappropriate to compare the results of the survey to previous studies (e.g. Cook et al 2013), as these studies looked for papers that stated a position on climate change - there are only 3 outcomes: they supported climate change, they did not support climate change, or they did not state a view on climate change. The survey asked extremely specific questions about specific aspects of climate change. I'm sure that no one who answered the survey could possible be an expert on all the topics covered by the survey.

I therefore disagree with Thomas Fuller's statement. If I had taken part in the survey, there are a few questions that I would have answered 'don't know' to, and yet I agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is demonstrated in question 1b in the survey, which as about confidence that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 10 in AR5 considers it 'very likely' that this is the case. 1091 of the respondents to q1b also thought that the anthropogenic GHG contribution is the dominant cause of climate change (very likely or higher confidence). That is 76% of the total number of respondents to q1b. Conversely, only 7% of the respondents on q1b thought it 'very likely' (or higher confidence) that the anthropogenic GHG contribution was not the dominant cause. If we include the people who didn't respond, the results become 58% who very likely or higher agree >50% GHG contribution, 5% who very likely or higher agree < 50% GHG contribution, and 36% who did not respond to that question.

Either way you look at it, it is either 76% vs 7%, or 58% vs 5%. What the results definitely do not show is 43% agreeing on GHG contribution, and 57% disagreeing, which is what WUWT has published in their article.


Firstly, I suspect you don't actually know the real facts of the rise in CO2. We entered the present warm period in 1896 or some insist it was in 1864. In either case man had NO ability to effect the climate in those times. In fact until WW II man couldn't even generate enough CO2 to measure. As for the present increasing temperatures blamed entirely on CO2 we have looked at the NASA temperature graphs and they are completely false.

These sharp increases are from about 1980 onward and Dr. Roy Spencer's NASA weather satellite program which is the only world wide accurate method of recording temperatures shows NO change in temperature beyond normal climatic variations.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2018_v6.jpg

Also other satellite data shows CO2 coming not from energy plants in the world but from the rain forests in South America and Africa.

The warm periods like the one we're presently are recorded for the last 3,000 years interspersed with cooler periods though the little ice age was unusually cool.

The 97% numbers had nothing to do with real science but Australian graduate student John Cooke cooking the numbers for a paper. That NASA under Obama doctored everything they got their hands on says a great deal about the Obama administration and nothing at all about science.

Again I'll ask as a man very familiar with spectometry: where do you propose the energy is coming from to cause any increases in atmospheric temperatures with CO2 levels higher than 250 ppm? The CO2 absorption lines are exceedingly narrow and the areas in which emissions from the warmed Earth are within these bands is so rare that by my estimation the entire amount of energy in these bands is entirely absorbed by perhaps 250 ppm. Add CO2 would have no energy to absorb. So explain this if you would?
18-05-2018 21:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
DRKTS wrote:
FriendOfOrion wrote:
All scientists support CO2 caused G. Warming? There are 31,487 scientists that don't agree with CO2 caused GW theory. See www.petitionproject.org to see the names.


I did a video on the Petition Project on YouTube entitled "31,000 Scientists Can't All Be Wrong, Can They?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8NVsmgeFmo

You will find it quite educational


Since you appear to be a real scientist I can address your postings - you cannot have it both ways - there is no such thing as a climatologist. Although there are some courses offered in the study of climate, no degree is awarded at any university I know of. So implying that "climatologists" are the only opinions worthy of note is entirely false. The climate is sensitive to so many things that suggesting that someone that studies humidity doesn't have a say is going far beyond the line. Or suggesting that an economist who studies the financial impact of climate change isn't a scientists is also entirely out of line.

Saying that "not all of the scientists signing the Global Warming Project" were real scientists is simply not fair. NASA's OWN BS about 97% of scientists agree contains THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA! You can't have it both ways.

We are completely aware of three previous warm periods and these were ALL warmer than today. Crying about rising sea levels since the Little Ice Age (or Maunder Minimum closely followed by the Dalton Minimum) is little more than fantasy since the glaciers in Greenland are STILL not back to the pre-little ice age levels. And as the glaciers pull back there is signs of farming under the previous ice. The northern ice sheet is extremely unpredictable - in the little ice age a Portuguese ship's captain sailed directly across the polar sea to Portugal from Japan. In 1964 a US Nuclear submarine surfaced into clear water at the North Pole.

As for the Antarctic continent - the ice sheets there are at an all time high. The "melting" that was observed near the Antarctic Peninsula turned out to be nothing more than a new underwater volcano.

Living my entire life on San Francisco bay and being a sailor I have always been aware of tide levels. We have high water marks on the bay on piers from the 1920's that still are not met. And one could ask why Nils-Axel Morner is continually insulted by people with no education in the ocean levels?

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/scientific-consensus-d10-e24.php#post_2090

My studies have included chromatography and the study of spectometry. And for a fact there is extremely little energy emitted from the Earth in the CO2 absorption bands. At some 250 ppm all of the available energy in these bands is absorbed and increasing CO2 beyond that cannot have any effect. Finding people with no training whatsoever in spectomtry arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about (skeptical science - since when did skeptics start with the answer they want and try to discover anything they can argue for their initial belief?).

In fact there is NO science in AGW. There is NO science that supports this idea but there are multitudes of people without training that will argue for it.
18-05-2018 22:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
FriendOfOrion wrote:
All scientists support CO2 caused G. Warming? There are 31,487 scientists that don't agree with CO2 caused GW theory. See www.petitionproject.org to see the names.

Who knew Ginger Spice was a physicist and that Charles Darwin is still alive?


Let's have a look at that "Petition"

Seattle Times article about people adding fake names to the "Petition"
Business | Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition | Seattle Times Newspaper

The National Academy of Sciences:
STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION
National-Academies.org

Scientific American:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

University of Wisconsin
A Global Warming Counterfeit

The Sceptics Society:
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wed., November 12th, 2008

32,000 scientists - Climate Denial Crock of the Week
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

even Wikipedia

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


People you would counterfeit a name on the list in a second. Who do you think you're kidding? You run around in circles in an attempt to disprove there were any scientists and yet the Oregon Petition changed its name and took more care to accept only papers from real degree holders. Even though I wrote several papers that are keystones on their subject they would not accept my signature because I never finished my degree. My work accelerated the program to discover and identify HIV in the world's blood banking system and saved millions of lives. But THAT was insufficient for me to sign. And the side panel from Scientific American was extremely enlightening - what it said essentially was that ALL of their research grants disappeared because they disagreed with AGW. So OF COURSE they wouldn't speak of this now. Not that it makes the slightest difference to you True Believers.

The best scientists in the world through actual study and measurement have shown that virtually ALL of the climate change records have been falsified - counterfeited if you will. NASA has changed their own temperature records three times and each time with the temperature take a higher and higher spike. This despite that this period was completely countered by the weather satellite program showing NO CHANGE AT ALL BEYOND NORMAL VARIATIONS.

This is a different world today. Lies, distortions and misrepresentations are no longer flying.
18-05-2018 22:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
drm wrote:
Kano wrote:
do I believe it would be beneficial warming YES


I find this common meme to be odd. Humans and their civilization have evolved at a relatively cold period in the earth's recent history on a geological scale. We didn't come around 55 million years ago when it was much warmer. Similarly humans seem to thrive the most not in the hottest climates, not in the coldest, but in temperate zones. Not too hot, not too cold. We seem to do best with things about as they are now.


And I find your comments more than odd. The greatest diversity of plants and animals was during the Mesozoic Era or the age of the dinosaurs. Had an ice age not occurred mammals would not have been given a chance to evolve and man would never have developed.

In fact because of the ice age from which man appeared it was the very difficulty of conditions that forced the evolution of man from lower primates. To say that this was somehow good conditions for homo sapiens is the sort of thinking of bible quoters.

For every degree the MGT rose, homo sapiens multiplied faster and faster. As the environment grew more and more temperate man developed more and more intelligent since he was losing less and less of his capacity for thought to basic survival.

This is not some sort of hypothesis - this is solid history.
18-05-2018 22:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming. And as of 250 ppm that stops. Additional levels of CO2 actually cause cooling since CO2 has a lower molar heat capacity and hence causes conduction and convection at lower temperatures.

This will give you an out to claim that we're going to have a man-made ice age.
18-05-2018 22:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb


Excellent proverb. After all, it's probably wake anyway LMAO !!!!


...@All,
..What wake (what happens when someone dies, you go to wake
hold a vigil beside (someone who has died).
"we waked Jim last night"
https://www.google.com/search?q=wake&oq=wake&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) doesn't understand is that a near earth asteroid or comet could change the earth's orbit. This is because it would effect it's gravitational field as it passes through it.

I won't affect Earth. The distance is too great and the Sun and the Moon swamp out any effect.
James___ wrote:
..In astronomy they can use a Sun's wobble to determine what planets can be expected to be orbiting it, this includes both mass (size) and orbit in some cases.

Not wobble, orbit.
James___ wrote:
..If astronomers can't see the planets, how do they know that they are there at all? According to astronomers, some stars appear to wobble back and forwards. Yes that's right, wobble! But stars don't move...do they?

Yes they do move. The Sun and the Earth orbit each other. The whole solar system orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Our galaxy also moves.

Nothing is stationary. You are denying the Theory of Relativity now.

James___ wrote:
http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/space/2010/09/it%E2%80%99s-in-the-shake-and-wobble!-.aspx
..If a planet can cause a star to wobble then why can't an asteroid or comet effect our planet ?

Because the Sun is much bigger, and the Moon is much closer.

James___ wrote:
Because wake said so, that's why.

No, it's because the Sun is much bigger, and the Moon is much closer.
James___ wrote:
I kind of wonder if itn and wake will ever read actual books on physics.

You deny physics.
James___ wrote:
It's not the same as surfing the next,

The ONLY authoritative reference on any theory of science is the author of the theory. You deny physics and science.
James___ wrote:
it takes time and you have to consider things from the author's perspective first.
...deleted usual ending insults...

Nope. No interpretation by an author needs to be considered. The ONLY authoritative reference of a theory of science is the author of the theory.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 22:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
Hayduke wrote: This statement is absolutely and unequivocally false.


No. Over 550 science organizations in 85 countries, and they all agree humans have caused and are causing global warming.

Hayduke wrote: Many climate scientists disagree that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change.


Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)

Hayduke wrote: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a politically loaded, unscientific phrase that does not describe the complexity of global climate variation.


It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.


How about 30,000? The Oregon Petition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Of course this is "easily debunked" - the Huffington Post did it with a journalist. After all, journalists are much smarter than scientists on matters of science.


Heh. A lot of them certainly seem to think so, don't they?


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 22:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.


H2O in it's three phases - gas, liquid and solid is 100 times more common and 1000 times more effective.

Can you explain what effect CO2 could possibly have?


Neither water nor CO2 have the capability to warm the Earth.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 22:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
Hi arthur18

I have responded on WUWT, also copied here:

Well.... I say, this is an absolutely terrific work of fiction, particularly regarding point 3 by JoNova. The way that the original data release has been re-written and mis-represented here is really quite astounding.

If you refer to the original document, then it is clear that the results of the survey have been mis-reported here. In fact, Bart Verheggen, who happens to be the second author on the original document, has written a post on his blog, describing the actual results of the survey:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/pbl-survey-shows-strong-scientific-consensus-that-global-warming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/

In Bart's words:

"...our survey results show a strong scientific consensus that global warming is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases".

"This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature."

And why on earth are the results of the survey, which was conducted in 2012, being compared to a statement from AR5, which was not published until 2013?

JoNova is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and it would seem as though she is being quite successful. I encourage everyone to not read this article blindly, but to refer to the source document and draw your own conclusions from the data.


I'm and R&D engineer who has designed chromatographs, both gas and liquid. So I understand spectometry. From the first second I saw these claims of CO2 being a greenhouse gas as comical. Yes a very small amount of CO2 can have a vanishingly small effect but larger amounts have none at all.

By all means show where the energy in the absorption bands of CO2 is supposed to come from.


Absorption of surface radiance does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 22:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
Abraham3 wrote:
Hayduke wrote:
Name five. (This ought to be good for a laugh.)


It is an observed fact, no less than evolution and gravity. If you insist upon seeing it as "politically loaded" and "unscientific," that's your own special emotional illness and you should probably talk to a mental health care professional about it.


I do not respond to personal attacks.


I agree that there are respectable climatologists out there that do not accept AGW (which is a perfectly good term). But for every one you can name, I can find 97 that do accept it. If you have some information indicating that is not the case, I'd very much like to see it.


Firstly - the study of climate composes some 200 different science specialties. There is NO SUCH THING as a climatologist. There are no degrees granted at any university for "climatology". Therefore they are ALL self-identified.

Most universities call the degree and program 'atmospheric science'. Guess they got wise to calling it 'climate science' like they used to.
Wake wrote:
The pretense that someone who has nothing better to do than to invent a title for himself and then make claims that man is somehow in control of the climate when he can't even predict the weather a week in advance accurately, and solely to gain government funding for a project would strike most normal people as humor. But to the group of True Believers this is the end of civilization as we know it.

Who are these "respectable climatologists"? Dr. Michael Mann who just lost a court case when other showed that he actually lied in his papers in order to gain more funding?

Yup. There's that old government funding effect again. The Church of Global Warming uses THIS for justifying the Great God Consensus.

Consensus is not used in science.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 22:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
Climate science is a very broad field. My field within climate science is on greenhouse gases and the carbon cycle. I know the basics of what the observed changes in sea level rise are, but if you asked me exactly how much sea level rise there will be in 2100, I would have to do a lot of reading and research to answer this question. Scientists are naturally skeptical people, and I would probably answer 'don't know' about a question on future sea level rise, simply because I do not have enough in depth knowledge or research topic on the background to be able to provide a more reasonable answer than ' based on trends in observed sea level rise, I think sea level in 2100 might be higher than today, but I'm not really sure'.

However, I still agree with the IPCC position on climate change - that it is extremely likely that humans are causing climate change via greenhouse gas emissions - because I know that there are multiple lines of independent evidence that demonstrate this, including those from my own research specialism.

Even if you disagree with Bart's interpretation of his results, it is completely inappropriate for WUWT to write an article stating explicitly that only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is *not* what the results of the survey show.

It is also inappropriate to compare the results of the survey to previous studies (e.g. Cook et al 2013), as these studies looked for papers that stated a position on climate change - there are only 3 outcomes: they supported climate change, they did not support climate change, or they did not state a view on climate change. The survey asked extremely specific questions about specific aspects of climate change. I'm sure that no one who answered the survey could possible be an expert on all the topics covered by the survey.

I therefore disagree with Thomas Fuller's statement. If I had taken part in the survey, there are a few questions that I would have answered 'don't know' to, and yet I agree with the IPCC position on climate change. This is demonstrated in question 1b in the survey, which as about confidence that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 10 in AR5 considers it 'very likely' that this is the case. 1091 of the respondents to q1b also thought that the anthropogenic GHG contribution is the dominant cause of climate change (very likely or higher confidence). That is 76% of the total number of respondents to q1b. Conversely, only 7% of the respondents on q1b thought it 'very likely' (or higher confidence) that the anthropogenic GHG contribution was not the dominant cause. If we include the people who didn't respond, the results become 58% who very likely or higher agree >50% GHG contribution, 5% who very likely or higher agree < 50% GHG contribution, and 36% who did not respond to that question.

Either way you look at it, it is either 76% vs 7%, or 58% vs 5%. What the results definitely do not show is 43% agreeing on GHG contribution, and 57% disagreeing, which is what WUWT has published in their article.


Firstly, I suspect you don't actually know the real facts of the rise in CO2. We entered the present warm period in 1896 or some insist it was in 1864. In either case man had NO ability to effect the climate in those times. In fact until WW II man couldn't even generate enough CO2 to measure. As for the present increasing temperatures blamed entirely on CO2 we have looked at the NASA temperature graphs and they are completely false.

These sharp increases are from about 1980 onward and Dr. Roy Spencer's NASA weather satellite program which is the only world wide accurate method of recording temperatures shows NO change in temperature beyond normal climatic variations.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2018_v6.jpg

Also other satellite data shows CO2 coming not from energy plants in the world but from the rain forests in South America and Africa.

The warm periods like the one we're presently are recorded for the last 3,000 years interspersed with cooler periods though the little ice age was unusually cool.

The 97% numbers had nothing to do with real science but Australian graduate student John Cooke cooking the numbers for a paper. That NASA under Obama doctored everything they got their hands on says a great deal about the Obama administration and nothing at all about science.

Again I'll ask as a man very familiar with spectometry: where do you propose the energy is coming from to cause any increases in atmospheric temperatures with CO2 levels higher than 250 ppm? The CO2 absorption lines are exceedingly narrow and the areas in which emissions from the warmed Earth are within these bands is so rare that by my estimation the entire amount of energy in these bands is entirely absorbed by perhaps 250 ppm. Add CO2 would have no energy to absorb. So explain this if you would?


Absorption of surface radiance does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 22:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.
Wake wrote:
And as of 250 ppm that stops.
No, it doesn't. This is easily demonstrated with containers of CO2.
Wake wrote:
Additional levels of CO2 actually cause cooling since CO2 has a lower molar heat capacity and hence causes conduction and convection at lower temperatures.
CO2 does not cause conduction or convection. It's specific heat is immaterial here. It's heat conductivity is immaterial here.

A difference of temperature between two regions and some for of coupling is the ONLY way to have heat, whether it's by conduction, by convection, or by radiance.

Wake wrote:
This will give you an out to claim that we're going to have a man-made ice age.

Doesn't do that either.

No gas or vapor has the capability to change the temperature of the Earth at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-05-2018 22:54
18-05-2018 23:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.


H2O in it's three phases - gas, liquid and solid is 100 times more common and 1000 times more effective.

Can you explain what effect CO2 could possibly have?


Neither water nor CO2 have the capability to warm the Earth.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


Will you please stop that? No one is saying that this is actually "warming" the Earth. They mean that it slows the loss of heat absorbed from Sunlight. This in turn means that the temperature in the atmosphere has to rise to a higher level so that "energy in equals energy out". This is nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics. These effects are both spontaneous at night and non-spontaneous during the day.
18-05-2018 23:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Scientific Consensus:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
Consensus of Scientists and Proof30705-05-2017 20:09
Where the 97% consensus among scientists comes from3531-12-2016 12:53
▲ 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