Moderator: Community Team
Night Strike wrote:Isn't it amazing how all of those peer-reviewed journals are reviewed by people who are dead-set on pushing man-made global warming and government control so that they can reject as many dissenting articles as possible, thereby pushing those dissenting articles into "unapproved" publications that they can denounce as not respectable?
Night Strike wrote:Isn't it amazing how all of those peer-reviewed journals are reviewed by people who are dead-set on pushing man-made global warming and government control so that they can reject as many dissenting articles as possible, thereby pushing those dissenting articles into "unapproved" publications that they can denounce as not respectable?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
_sabotage_ wrote:How many of those journals have a climate change bias? The BBC decided in the 90s to publish only the global warming perspective. Universities have nothing to gain by being anti-global warming and many have openly stated their stance. My mother (my adoptive mother/biological aunt) has held many professorships at many universities and tenure is often granted by how many peer-reviewed studies she wrote while at a university and the total.
Metsfanmax wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:How many of those journals have a climate change bias? The BBC decided in the 90s to publish only the global warming perspective. Universities have nothing to gain by being anti-global warming and many have openly stated their stance. My mother (my adoptive mother/biological aunt) has held many professorships at many universities and tenure is often granted by how many peer-reviewed studies she wrote while at a university and the total.
I will, again, repeat it: if you have the evidence that disproves anthropogenic global warming, you would be instantly famous. Anybody with that evidence would have a very strong motivation for publishing said evidence.
_sabotage_ wrote:I do have glaring evidence that climate change is not man-made:
Precedent: all climate change until today has been natural. All the graphs of temp over time are reflecting natural climate change but are being used to support man-made climate change;
Misuse of evidence: the evidence which these temp and CO2 over time graphs are all showing the same thing, that temp and CO2 correlate but one crowd (yours) neglects to quantify this correlation, that temp precedes CO2 and merely insist that there is correlation- global warming - let's poison the planet.
Neglect: the melting of other planets ice caps which happened during the same period as ours.
The evidence exists and is pretty clear cut. Of course your homies ignore it as the astrologists of Galileo's time ignored the fact that all planetary bodies are round and every other planet was circling the sun when they proposed a geocentric universe.
Not only do you ignore it as well in joining camps, you ignore the real destruction that is being conducted in the name of the thing you lead credence and vouch support for. You are part of whats called the bandwagon who knows not where it goes and who is at the wheel. Indeed, you probably will merrily point to the farmers in India and say, look global warming caused it! And you would be right, not real global warming in the environment, but political and academic global warming that brought about unnecessary cures for fabricated problems.
_sabotage_ wrote:I do have glaring evidence that climate change is not man-made:
Precedent: all climate change until today has been natural. All the graphs of temp over time are reflecting natural climate change but are being used to support man-made climate change;
Misuse of evidence: the evidence which these temp and CO2 over time graphs are all showing the same thing, that temp and CO2 correlate but one crowd (yours) neglects to quantify this correlation, that temp precedes CO2 and merely insist that there is correlation- global warming - let's poison the planet.
Neglect: the melting of other planets ice caps which happened during the same period as ours.
The evidence exists and is pretty clear cut. Of course your homies ignore it as the astrologists of Galileo's time ignored the fact that all planetary bodies are round and every other planet was circling the sun when they proposed a geocentric universe.
Neoteny wrote:Let's be honest: the alternative of being an industry and media shill is much more lucrative, and politically effective, than publishing jargon in a journal almost nobody reads, and you get a free pass on demonstrating your science is sound. Wave your meteorology degree around and make sarcastic comments about the weather and just watch the money roll in from the ignorant hicks.
_sabotage_ wrote:1. Variable amounts of solar incidence: a few pages back, you told PS that solar incidence is a constant and therefore not a factor in climate change, but now it's a variable.
Math is a rather rigid bedfellow though. The point you failed to address, the melting caps on other planets, also suggests that variable solar incidence is the factor in global warming.
So which is it? Is it variable and has its variability been the factor and not CO2 or is it constant and your above car has no engine? If it's constant the beginning of your theory fails, you lack the trigger to start your "feedback loop" and if it is variable, the end fails, it is variable solar incidence which is the cause to global warming.
_sabotage_ wrote:Lootifer,
I enjoyed the graphs. Let's begin with the second. It would seem, from your cohorts explanation that a stronger than average solar incidence over an unspecified period of time began a feedback loop with carbon causing a rise in temperature within several centuries. But the graph's steep inclines suggest a rapid increase followed by a slow dissipation, similar to accelerating in a car and then easing back to the speed limit. But the acceleration is down with energy and not a magical feedback loop. Again, if we look to the graph, we would see that we should be in for a long cold 80,000 years or so as the feedback loop mysteriously dies down, or is the solar incidence the trigger here too? But a more realistic way of looking at it is that the sun does trigger the cycle, just as the energy from your fuel triggers the acceleration and that it is not the carbon feedback loop which mysteriously falters, but the variable sun varying in a rather periodic frequency.
As for the tippy bit at the end which has y'all in a hubbub. It proves that carbon dioxide levels are high. But it's like Job with Alzheimers getting cold porridge and saying its the worst day of his life. Where is the data from before then? From like yesterday in geological time? And here you come into a whole series of problems. If there is no data from prior to then, ie no ice older than that age, then it means yesterday was hot and wet and that we don't know shit. Regardless if temperature followed CO2 but if they correlate at all then at a period when there were no ice caps, 800,000 years ago, carbon must have been at a higher level than now when there are ice caps. Since humans are at least 2 million years old, we survived through times of much higher carbon dioxide levels than we are facing. But back to geologically time, I would expect the oldest ice caps to still have traces of the dwindling down of this last non capped era. Your graph does start at a high point so it could be taken to reflect this, ice being formed after a period of high solar incidence and trapping the increased carbon dioxide.
And upwards bound temperature would peak several hundred years before the natural carbon cycle, which on your graph is about year 0, I would then expect it to level off and then begin to decline over 80,000 years or so. But then again, although much useful information can be gained from them, it's like asking a doctor to look at three heart beats and diagnose an unknown patient. What we do know is that carbon dioxide levels do increase several hundred years after the planet warms but that its presence doesn't then become a perpetual motion machine in the atmosphere because those temperatures rapidly decline, meaning not only would the solar incidence have to oscillate but oscillate at extremes that would defy our ability to exist through it. If CO2 were anywhere near as important as solar incidence then necessary variation in solar radiation would be so great to create the shift in momentum to kick start the feedback loop and again be so extreme to shut it off that certainly everything would die. But whatever, don't let that stop you.
The truth is the earth's atmosphere does act like a blanket which soaks up the sun's heat, but don't let it fool you, it isn't as insulating as advertised. And nanoparticles may reflect 1% of solar incidence for a day, but they build up on the land in lethal doses. To reflect even a month's incidence, you will have to let your community be poisoned for 8 years. Is that something worth killing organics, our bees, and ourselves for?
Lootifer wrote:@ Mets: Do the climate researchers account for the Milankovitch cycles?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
_sabotage_ wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann Law
The earth's atmosphere has a emissivity of 0.83, providing a 33k increase in the earth's temperature. Of this .83 e, 0.66 is created by water vapor in the sky. All other gases combine to give the remaining .17 e. Of all the other gases, CO2 represents about 0.04% of other atmospheric gases. It is less conductive than nitrogen and oxygen, about the same as argon. So let's see what that means, all atmospheric gases make up .017 of e, CO2 is 33% less conductive than N or O and composes 0.04% of the atmosphere, therefore: 0.04% x 1.33= 0.053% of .17 e= .00009 e or roughly a 0.003 k difference. Of course that is the total carbon present and if what climate scientists are saying, ie that a 25% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will generate a massive climate change, it must not be related to emissivity of carbon since it would only create a 0.00075k temperature difference.
But this brings us back to the original problem as suggested by Mets, that fluctuating solar incidence as seen in the Milankovitch cycles support everything I have said and yet somehow have found their way into the climate scientists camp.
In his theory, CO2 has some very special qualities that appear at some critical level to create a massive climate change and are triggered by increased solar incidence. Unfortunately, throughout these cycles, water would take a starring role and carbon would be scalping tickets. The better water performed the more tickets carbon could scalp and when water lost its heyday, carbon would be out of work and on the decline.
These journals have gone out of their way to accept articles by dissenters, but rarely do the dissenters come up with real data. Claims don't mean data. A bunch of numbers don't mean accurate science data. AND,more importantly, even if the base data is correct, using faulty analysis turns conclusions into lies.Night Strike wrote:Isn't it amazing how all of those peer-reviewed journals are reviewed by people who are dead-set on pushing man-made global warming and government control so that they can reject as many dissenting articles as possible, thereby pushing those dissenting articles into "unapproved" publications that they can denounce as not respectable?
Metsfanmax wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:Can you think of a major policy that has followed the science when it meant losing an economic incentive because it was better for the people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_ ... ts_of_1990
_sabotage_ wrote:I do have glaring evidence that climate change is not man-made:
Precedent: all climate change until today has been natural.
_sabotage_ wrote:Unfortunately entropy takes care of the difference, any added heat trapped by carbon dioxide would be dissipated through the system through conductivity.
_sabotage_ wrote:Unfortunately entropy takes care of the difference, any added heat trapped by carbon dioxide would be dissipated through the system through conductivity. It's interesting that you don't take this into account, ie you assume that each factor takes place in a vacuum to justify even a slightly significant contribution to global warming.
Well put all the ingredients in a vacuum and increase carbon by 0.01% in one and show a warming. It just won't happen.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users