Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming is a Scam
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 43 of 164 (668015)
07-16-2012 2:36 AM


It looks like the first four reports of the IPCC could be totally fraudulent. Politicians and media celebrities all told us that the IPCC reports were science and not politics. It turns out they were wrong.
On June 27th, the IPCC said they were now implementing the policies recommended in a report by the Inter Academy Council. The IAC is a group created by the World's Science Academies to provide advice to world governing bodies. Although the IPCC said they were NOW adhering to these policy recommendations, what is startling is what the recommendations tell us about the first four IPCC reports that were supposedly solid science and not political.
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/...re_junk.html#ixzz20lTFSyL5
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 07-16-2012 9:52 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 46 of 164 (668032)
07-16-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
07-16-2012 9:52 AM


Re: Not much rope here for deniers...
Is the quote below anything other than denier's rhethoric?
I guess anybody that disagrees with you is deemed a denier? That quote is from the IAC. The IAC is a group created by the World's Science Academies to provide advice to world governing bodies. So, the worlds science academies create an organization that is full of deniers in your opinion? Who exactly are you calling the scientific consensus? What is the method for determining which scientists can form a consensus?
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 07-16-2012 9:52 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 07-16-2012 2:02 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 47 of 164 (668034)
07-16-2012 12:22 PM


Can you prove that increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1950 is responsible for the increase in temperature since that time? You cannot do it. This is why me and many others are not convinced of manmade global warming. Yes, glaciers and the artic ice cap is melting if you compare it to 60 years ago. Does that mean CO2 did it? You cannot prove it. That is what is being "denied" here. BTW, "denier" is a hateful term to describe someone that is not convinced by religious propaganda. Yes, it is very religious in nature the way you guys are so enamored with the idea. You know good and well you are trying to equate manmade global warming deniers with holocaust deniers. Try to debunk any of the points made in the american thinker article instead of going off on rabbit trails like arctic melting and calling people hateful names like denier.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by frako, posted 07-16-2012 1:20 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 07-16-2012 1:28 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 50 by fearandloathing, posted 07-16-2012 1:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 52 by 1.61803, posted 07-16-2012 2:07 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-16-2012 2:13 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 54 by jar, posted 07-16-2012 2:29 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 07-16-2012 2:41 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-16-2012 7:52 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 67 of 164 (668428)
07-21-2012 2:37 AM


Part of the global warming scam has been fueled by folks like michael mann and his famous hockey stick. The following is a spoof of him and climate gate and how he hid the decline in temps over the last few years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4
And here is a little satirical poem about mann too:
THE HOCKEY STICK
There was a crooked Mann
Who played a crooked trick
And had a crooked plan
To make a crooked stick
By using crooked math
That favored crooked lines
Lysenko’s crooked path
Led thru the crooked pines
And all his crooked friends
Applaud what crooked seems
But all that crooked ends
Derives from crooked means

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Tangle, posted 07-21-2012 3:46 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2012 4:50 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 72 by frako, posted 07-21-2012 5:07 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 68 of 164 (668431)
07-21-2012 3:22 AM


For those of you who can only conclude that carbon dioxide is the only possible reason for the increase in temperatures since 1950, consider increasing ocean heat and surface temperatures in particular as the culprit. I know what you are thinking. Trapped heat from carbon dioxide is what made the oceans warmer. Right? Wrong. Reflected long wave radiation only penetrates the surface of the ocean. High energy short wave radiation penetrates to great depths in the ocean. Try heating an indoor olympic sized swimming pool from 1 degree centigrade to 25 degree centigrade where the inside air temperature is maintained at 30 degrees centigrade. Record the time to reach that temperature. Now, let direct sunlight heat that swimming pool from 1 degree centigrade to 25 degrees centigrade in the arizona desert. Keep a record of the air temperature around the pool at all hours. Keep a record of the water temperature at all hours. Make a calculation of the average change in water temperature per hour. Calculate the average heat conduction between air and water per hour. With this data, you should be able to subtract the heat gained by the water in the outdoor pool due to conduction and long wave radiation from the total. The idea is to find out how much heat from each source was involved in heating the indoor and outdoor pool. The next step is to calculate how fast the temperature should have risen in the outdoor pool if you assume longwave radiation heats water just as quickly as shortwave radiation. Compare that figure to how fast the outdoor pool actually heated up. You will find the calculated value is much lower than the actual value.
Now, with that in mind, since shortwave radiation is much more effective in heating large bodies of water, it would be instructive see if there has been any difference in shortwave radiation that has penetrated the oceans over long periods of time. Changes in Cloud cover over tropical regions would achieve that affect. There are ways to cause that to happen too. An extended period of time of decreasing cloud cover over the tropics would heat the oceans to a significant degree. That is what happened since the end of the little ice age. This has given us more frequent and stonger el ninos since 1950 than there were before. Another another cause for the increase in air temperatures since 1950 is a weaker drop in air temperatures during la ninas since 1950. This is indeed caused by the greenhouse effect, but not carbon dioxide driven. It was driven by an increase in atmospheric water vapor without an concomitant increase in cloud cover. This lack of increase in cloud cover is the same we saw that caused the increase in ocean temperature due to more shortwave radiation penetration. This time the decreased cloud cover simply allowed the water vapor concentration to increase unchecked. The decrease in tropospheric cloud cover since the end of the little ice age was cause by an increase in sunspot activity since then. The little ice age was cause by three seperate low sunspot activity eras called minimas. One was the maunder minima. There has been vigorous sunspot activity since the little ice age and therefore there has been an increase in temperatures since then. The spike we have seen since 1950 is due to higher water vapor concentration caused by higher oceanic evaporation cause by higher sea surface temperatures that finally got here due to a time lag from the slow initial shortwave radiation increases that started at the end of the little ice age.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2012 4:49 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 73 by frako, posted 07-21-2012 6:28 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2012 7:58 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 75 of 164 (668454)
07-21-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2012 4:49 AM


because carbon dioxide's ability to absorb longwave radiation peters out logarithmically. There is an upper limit to how much carbon dioxide can absorb. when you go beyond that limit, there is no added greenhouse effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2012 4:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2012 12:33 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 76 of 164 (668456)
07-21-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
07-21-2012 7:58 AM


Realclimate website is a fraud for one thing.
There's no relationship between climate change and sunspots, because there has been no significant change in any solar aspect since 1950 - with the exception that the Earth's total insolation has fallen. "Skeptics" such as yourself would have us believe that a cooling sun can cause global warming. Nonsensical.
You still are not understanding. There has been a huge change in sunspot activity since the little ice age. The ocean doesn't just warm up overnight; it takes time. Since we have been on the higher sunspot activity regimen, the ocean has been warming steadily and so have air temperatures. Theres hasn't been a change in sunspot activity since 1950 and there doesn't have to be. It has steadily been preventing extra tropospheric cloud cover since then and so water vapor has been allowed to increase unchecked. When water vapor is in the form of clouds, it increases albedo. When water vapor is not in the form of clouds, it acts as a greenhouse gas.
I don't follow this. Clouds are made of water just like oceans, so if shortwave radiation penetrates even ocean water to great depth, a few hundred feet of diffuse cloud cover isn't likely to have any effect on the amount of shortwave radiation reaching the surface. So whether it's cloudy or not would seem to have no effect on oceanic shortwave insolation.
Shortwave radiation is reflected and absorbed by the ocean surface just like any surface. Clouds absorb and reflect shortwave radiation as well. If you doubt this, just notice how the temperature stops rising during the day when the sky becomes totally cloud covered.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2012 7:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by fearandloathing, posted 07-21-2012 12:46 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 81 by frako, posted 07-21-2012 12:50 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 78 of 164 (668459)
07-21-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by frako
07-21-2012 6:28 AM


Yes there is an increase in water vapours and its the cause of man
No, it wasn't. Their cockamamy theories say it was caused by man but they have no proof. It is junk science at best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by frako, posted 07-21-2012 6:28 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 07-21-2012 1:03 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 79 of 164 (668460)
07-21-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2012 12:33 PM


You do know that logarithmic function can grow either exponentially or have their growth be limited logarithmically? The amount of heat trapped by carbon dioxide drops by at least half for every doubling of carbond dioxed concentration. You are right about the limit but each increase is infinitesemally smaller as you go to the right on the x axis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2012 12:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 97 of 164 (671430)
08-25-2012 12:01 AM


If current warming is due to the greenhouse effect then we should see a higher rate of warming in the upper reaches of the troposphere than we do at the surface. We have not seen anything happening like this at all. This should indicate that the greenhouse effect is not the cause of current warming.

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 08-25-2012 9:35 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2012 11:40 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 98 of 164 (671431)
08-25-2012 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by GDR
08-08-2012 4:00 PM


Re: More food for thought
The only thing that will keep temperatures from rising is more low level cloud cover. The 20th century had over 8 percent lower low level cloud cover than the 19th century did. This is the cause of the .6C increase in temperature during that period.
gdr writes:
It is fine to cut down on green house gases which will no doubt help, but the food shortages and the rise of the oceans is something that will happen regardless of cut backs in GHG's. I just don't see a lot of thought going in to dealing with this pro-actively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by GDR, posted 08-08-2012 4:00 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 08-25-2012 10:16 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 103 of 164 (671880)
08-31-2012 2:11 AM


The Oceans hold at least 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere.If the ocean is absorbing extra reflected long wave radiation due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases, we should see a corresponding increase in oceanic heat content. The ARGO network of 3200 floating robot sensors that have been in full deployment since 2003 show a decrease in oceanic heat content since then. How is that possible if the oceans are absorbing the increased amount of long wave radiation due to an increase in GHGs?
One reason is thatlong wave radiation is only capable of penetrating a few microns past the ocean surface. This does not warm the ocean because of the latent heat of evaporation from the ocean surface. Evaporation is a continual process over the ocean surface. When water changes state from water to vapor, energy is required. Where does that energy come from? It will either come from the water or the air depending on which is warmer. Since,as a whole, the oceans are warmer than the atmosphere, that energy comes from the water, and the surface water in particular.Any energy supplied by absorption of long wave radiation therefore quickly goes into supplying this needed energy for the change of state from water to vapor.
For a more intensive explanation of what I just stated, see the paper by (Roy Clark,2010) in Energy and Environment volume 21 number 4. From that paper: It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196).
Although the purpose of another paper in Nature I am about to mention was not to support my above claims, it did just that. The paper was "Thermal skin effect of the surface ocean and its implication for CO2 uptake". It was published in Nature 358, 27 August 1992, pages 738-740. This paper shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean skin from increased downwelling infrared radiation allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures. In case you missed it, that means downwelling infrared radiation causes evaporative cooling of the ocean surface. That means that instead of penetrating deep into the ocean and heating the ocean, downwelling infrared radiation instead only penetrates the surface and cools the surface.
Another paper published today in Global and Planetary Change by (O. Humlum et al,2012) states "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. Another way of stating this is that Ocean surface temperatures are the main drivers in global air temperature changes.
If the ocean surface is the main driver in changing global air temperatures, and the ocean derives all of its heat from the sun and not from reflected long wave infrared radiation, what role does increasing amounts of said infrared radiation play in global warming? Answer: none.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-31-2012 10:52 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 104 of 164 (671881)
08-31-2012 2:19 AM


Other important points in that paper include:
Global changes in atmospheric CO2 lags changes in global sea surface temperature by 11-12 months.
Global changes in atmospheric CO2 lags changes in global air surface temperatures by 9.5-10 months.
Global changes in atmospheric CO2 lags changes in global lower tropospheric temperature by 9 months.
Global changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 106 of 164 (671944)
08-31-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Lithodid-Man
08-31-2012 10:52 AM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
So which part of my post do you disagree with and why? Anybody can fill a post packed full of snark like you just did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-31-2012 10:52 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 08-31-2012 9:24 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 108 of 164 (671949)
08-31-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
08-31-2012 9:24 PM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
lithodid man writes:
This is incorrect. From Page not found | Argo
For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's
You did not show that my claim was incorrect. All you did was show that ocean heat content increased since 1961. I showed that ocean heat content decreased since 2003. Both are true, and so all you did was smoke and mirrors.
lithology man writes:
They are only the people actually looking at ocean temps. I did notice that a good amount of your post is from:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK (I assume your writing?)
I just showed you that the people that sampled data from the ARGO network since it was in full deployment. If they are the same people that you referred to then you have no argument. All you are doing is selectively choosing their comments on the data from 1961 when the network was NOT fully operational. The data since 2003 is more much meaningful since it had more collection equipment that was up to date instead of the incomplete collection equipment in place prior to 2003. I did not write the article in the hockeyshtick; I gathered quite a bit of information from it however.
lithodid man writes:
Now on the Robertson & Watson (1992) paper from Nature. You might have a point if research on the subject ended there. I am sure in your exhaustive research on sea surface temperatures you must have seen the paper by McGillis and Wanninkhof (2006) suggesting that local increases in CO2 solubility due to wind driven evaporative cooling (not sure why you thought that infrared radiation caused this, but okay) and decreases in CO2 solubility when there is no wind and infrared radiation is warming the skin-layer have both been overestimated and the overall effect is negligible. Takahashi et al (2009) showed that because of evaporation the micro-increase in salinity at this skin-layer cancelled out the increased solubility effect of lowered temperatures.
My point still stands despite further research on the subject. Why would you say otherwise?
lithodid man writes:
I cannot access the 2012 Humlum paper from where I am at, but I will take a look when I return from the field. If it is anything like his Humlum et al (2011) paper I do not expect to be impressed. That was the one where the authors suggest that the moon is an important cause of global warming.
Pure snark and sarcasm.
lithodid man writes:
Humlum, O., J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl (2011) Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change, Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, pp. 145-156.
McGillis, W. R. and R. Wanninkhof, (2006), Aqueous CO2 gradients for air-sea flux estimates, Marine Chemistry 98 (1), 100-108.
Takahashi, T., S. C. Sutherland, R. Wanninkhof, C. Sweeney, et al. (2009), Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO2, and net sea-air CO2 flux over the global oceans, Deep Sea Research (II) 56 (8-10), 554-577.
I suppose these three papers somehow refute I point I have made? If so, why don't you elaborate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 08-31-2012 9:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Jon, posted 09-01-2012 12:37 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2012 1:06 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 111 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-01-2012 10:30 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024