Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,326
#4,326
BartW said:
The greenhouse effect was proven in the 1800s.
Click to expand...

And, unfortunately, that's about as far as their understanding ever got. Instead of really trying to understand what goes on with the Earth's climate the progressive movement has absconded and destroyed this science to advance their petty tyranny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,327
#4,327
OrangeWayOfLife said:
I'll take your bait and ask, what emissions were being emitted in the 1800's?
Click to expand...

Tyndall was the first physicist to quantify infrared absorption by gases in the atmosphere chiefly water vapor. But also did some other studies of gases like CO2, CH4, N2, O2, and O3. Supposedly this insignificant increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 1 particle in 10,000 is causing the Earth to heat up. Their template is there is positive feed back from this man made CO2 that will cause the Earth to heat up three times faster than it normally would. This appears not to be the case and is responding as if it is negative feedback, i.e. it is heating slower than if only CO2 increase were the effect. And, they really can't come up with satisfactory explanation for why CO2 was 10 times greater in the past and the planet was cooler. And, they've really not studied the natural causes of climate change and included them in their models. Maybe their template is just wrong. But, they want major law and policy changes based upon this faulty science. Their argument is we'd better do something just in case they're right or risk doom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,333
#4,333
BartW said:
'twas in jest. The point was that some of Norway's divestitures reveal not just concern for the Oil Fund, but legit concern about climate change in general.

Norway has already committed to reducing its emissions by 40% from 1990 levels (matching the EU target).
Click to expand...

Yet they keep producing oil...So what if they aren't the ones to use it; they are still going to sell it and the citizens will continue to receive the windfall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,334
#4,334
volinbham said:
Yet they keep producing oil...So what if they aren't the ones to use it; they are still going to sell it and the citizens will continue to receive the windfall.
Click to expand...
No one expects demand for fossil fuels to disappear overnight, and oil is better than coal...
 
#4,335
#4,335
FLVOL_79 said:
Hmmm..
Click to expand...
OrangeWayOfLife said:
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
Click to expand...
theFallGuy said:
nothing to see here! keep moving people
Click to expand...
theutvolunteers said:
.
Click to expand...

so-cool-so-scandalous.jpg


No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal

Climate Denial Food Chain: Conservative Media Run With Baseless Climate Science Conspiracy Theory

Really? Volinbham's article was just complaining about the need for adjustments for things like urban heat islands (apparently the author was unaware they already exist). Now that argument has been turned completely on its head, and those same adjustments are "the biggest science scandal evar"

lol

:clap:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,336
#4,336
Sandvol said:
Tyndall was the first physicist to quantify infrared absorption by gases in the atmosphere chiefly water vapor. But also did some other studies of gases like CO2, CH4, N2, O2, and O3. Supposedly this insignificant increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 1 particle in 10,000 is causing the Earth to heat up. Their template is there is positive feed back from this man made CO2 that will cause the Earth to heat up three times faster than it normally would. This appears not to be the case and is responding as if it is negative feedback, i.e. it is heating slower than if only CO2 increase were the effect. And, they really can't come up with satisfactory explanation for why CO2 was 10 times greater in the past and the planet was cooler. And, they've really not studied the natural causes of climate change and included them in their models. Maybe their template is just wrong. But, they want major law and policy changes based upon this faulty science. Their argument is we'd better do something just in case they're right or risk doom.
Click to expand...
C+ for effort, D- for accuracy

Spectrometers have come a long way since the 1800s. You know you can point a handheld spectrometer at the night sky and see just how much radiation is being trapped by each gas? Your “1 particle in 10000” point is painfully dumb. Be glad our atmosphere doesn’t have the same concentration of CFCs, methane, ethene, or other more powerful greenhouse gases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,337
#4,337
BartW said:
C+ for effort, D- for accuracy

Spectrometers have come a long way since the 1800s. You know you can point a handheld spectrometer at the night sky and see just how much radiation is being trapped by each gas? Your “1 particle in 10000” point is painfully dumb. Be glad our atmosphere doesn’t have the same concentration of CFCs, methane, ethene, or other more powerful greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

It is exactly accurate you dope. If CO2 concentration has increased from 250ppm to 400ppm that is roughly 1 part in 10,000. And, those other more powerful green house gases are irrelevant aren't they? Of course the most prevalent green house gas, water vapor at 40,000 ppm in the atmosphere is never mentioned and your IPCC forcing chart never includes. Why is that?

P.S.-And you could have held a spectrometer in the night sky at times in our past and there would have been a whole lot more absorption and it would have been a lot colder. So, what's your point?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,338
#4,338
BartW said:
so-cool-so-scandalous.jpg


No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal

Climate Denial Food Chain: Conservative Media Run With Baseless Climate Science Conspiracy Theory

Really? Volinbham's article was just complaining about the need for adjustments for things like urban heat islands (apparently the author was unaware they already exist). Now that argument has been turned completely on its head, and those same adjustments are "the biggest science scandal evar"

lol

:clap:
Click to expand...


When we're caught lying and misrepresenting data just start screaming "deniers" or "conspiracy theorists". That always shuts them up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,341
#4,341
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,342
#4,342
Sandvol said:
It is exactly accurate you dope. If CO2 concentration has increased from 250ppm to 400ppm that is roughly 1 part in 10,000.
Click to expand...
Math. Good. Now factor in how powerful each GHG is and…
Sandvol said:
And, those other more powerful green house gases are irrelevant aren't they? Of course the most prevalent green house gas, water vapor at 40,000 ppm in the atmosphere is never mentioned and your IPCC forcing chart never includes. Why is that?
Click to expand...
I know what you’re thinking of and understand the confusion. The simple answer is that water vapor is a feedback -- not a forcing. As trout pointed out, the IPCC doesn’t ignore the effects of water vapor (or any other significant factors).

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works
Sandvol said:
P.S.-And you could have held a spectrometer in the night sky at times in our past and there would have been a whole lot more absorption and it would have been a lot colder. So, what's your point?
Click to expand...
My point is that we can directly measure the impact of each GHG (regardless of concentration). In fact, spectroscopy is widely used in order to measure the composition/concentration of gases.
Sandvol said:
When we're caught lying and misrepresenting data just start screaming "deniers" or "conspiracy theorists". That always shuts them up.
Click to expand...
So do you deny that “the biggest science scandal evar” is a conspiracy (theory)? Because that sure seems to be the implication…

If it is, are Richard Mueller, Judith Curry, and Anthony Watts in on the conspiracy too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,343
#4,343
theFallGuy said:
Media matters is definitely a go to source for unbiased info
Click to expand...
Why is it biased? Because they interviewed actual scientists instead of Chris Booker’s rectum?
MG1968 said:
Not to mention Mother Jones and Slate.
Click to expand...
Oh I do so love this game. Did you know Booker also opposes the consensus on evolution, asbestos, and secondhand smoke (among others)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,345
#4,345
No, 2014 wasn’t the ‘warmest year in history’ - Opinion - The Boston Globe

Indeed, the probability that 2014 set a record is not 99 percent or 95 percent, but less than 50 percent. NOAA’s number-crunchers put the probability at 48 percent; NASA’s analysis came in at 38 percent. The agencies rationalize their attention-getting headline on the grounds that the probabilities were even lower for other candidates for the label of “hottest year in history.”
Click to expand...
 
#4,350
#4,350
BartW said:
Lmao, "Lord" Monckton again.

GwdMoncktonNazi.jpg


He's got to be the most hilarious character the GOP has ever called upon to testify before congress on global warming. Your tax dollars at work :crazy:
Click to expand...
Do you understand we are about 4 degrees under the average temperature than during the medieval warming? What do you believe is causing warming?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top