Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

10 Mar 2016, 11:07 pm

This is a good introduction to the basis of Global Warming.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/global-warming-basics-whats-has-changed/

PS: I know this thread is quite likely to migrate to PPR, but by posting it in this section of the forum I also make a statement; Global Warming is a scientific issue and outside of fringe groups is accepted as a reality by the whole of the scientific community, at such the reality of it and the urgency it imply should be accepted beyond political partisanship issues.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Mar 2016, 12:22 am

^^^in your opinion, is it basically money which is the concern of the climate change deniers?



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

12 Mar 2016, 10:18 am

auntblabby wrote:
^^^in your opinion, is it basically money which is the concern of the climate change deniers?


No. There are "leukwarmists" who have reservations about the climate sensitivity models pushed by the IPCC. They have not predicted very well. In real science, when a prediction fails the underlying theory is questioned. In climate modelling by the IPCC when someone points out a discrepancy between what the model predicts and measurement that someone is called a "denier". Einstein was a denier. He denied the existence of aether which many scientists believed existed.

In just about every area except climate and nutrition, experimental accuracy is a top level concern....


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

12 Mar 2016, 3:41 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^in your opinion, is it basically money which is the concern of the climate change deniers?


No. There are "leukwarmists" who have reservations about the climate sensitivity models pushed by the IPCC. They have not predicted very well. In real science, when a prediction fails the underlying theory is questioned. In climate modelling by the IPCC when someone points out a discrepancy between what the model predicts and measurement that someone is called a "denier". Einstein was a denier. He denied the existence of aether which many scientists believed existed.

In just about every area except climate and nutrition, experimental accuracy is a top level concern....

The data show that the Earth is warming faster that is predicted by the models; meaning like it or not the situation is bad.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Mar 2016, 8:00 pm

what will the deniers say when it is 40 or 50 years down the road and billions of people have been flooded out of their coastal cities?



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

12 Mar 2016, 9:47 pm

auntblabby wrote:
what will the deniers say when it is 40 or 50 years down the road and billions of people have been flooded out of their coastal cities?


What will they say if 40 or 50 years down the road there is no major flooding and billions of people have not be flooded out of their coastal cities.

Just keep in mind that the IPCC models are not supported strongly by empirical evidence. Furthermore they are based on a flawed analogy. Greenhouses are warm because the ceiling panels prevent hot air from rising out of the green house and cooling off. It isn't back radiation. It is lack of convection. Try this experiment. On a hot sunny day close the windows of your car. It will heat up from the sunlight. Now open the windows and it cools off quickly. The CO2 level has not changed by convection cools the inside of the car. So much for the greenhouse effect.

I have no doubt that the temperature level is rising. But what is driving it? Is it the man made CO2 overload. Or is it some natural driver or drivers? The IPCC folk have reduced the thermodynamic complexity of the Earth atmosphere and ocean temperatures to CO2. The thermodynamics of the system are far more complicated. They have not dealt with the feedbacks, both positive and negative. They have not factored in the ocean temperature variations.

The scientific quality of the IPCC studies, putting it charitably, questionable.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,245
Location: Long Island, New York

13 Mar 2016, 2:39 am

What are people to do about it?. Try in last gasp effort to lower human produced carbon dioxide based on theory whose evidence is based on blind faith in computer modeling which have difficulty predicting storms a few days in advance or harden infrastructure, stop building on the coast, tear down the potential death traps known as glass office buildings?


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

13 Mar 2016, 7:38 am

Tollorin wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^in your opinion, is it basically money which is the concern of the climate change deniers?


No. There are "leukwarmists" who have reservations about the climate sensitivity models pushed by the IPCC. They have not predicted very well. In real science, when a prediction fails the underlying theory is questioned. In climate modelling by the IPCC when someone points out a discrepancy between what the model predicts and measurement that someone is called a "denier". Einstein was a denier. He denied the existence of aether which many scientists believed existed.

In just about every area except climate and nutrition, experimental accuracy is a top level concern....

The data show that the Earth is warming faster that is predicted by the models; meaning like it or not the situation is bad.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


WilliamWilliamWilliam
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 5 Feb 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 2

13 Mar 2016, 7:45 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
What are people to do about it?. Try in last gasp effort to lower human produced carbon dioxide based on theory whose evidence is based on blind faith in computer modeling which have difficulty predicting storms a few days in advance or harden infrastructure, stop building on the coast, tear down the potential death traps known as glass office buildings?

divert copious amounts of money and resources

impede development

hurt the poor

invalidate scientific process

here is some reading for those who believe in man-made warming:

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... .36pl4x89r



Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

13 Mar 2016, 2:55 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Furthermore they are based on a flawed analogy. Greenhouses are warm because the ceiling panels prevent hot air from rising out of the green house and cooling off. It isn't back radiation. It is lack of convection. Try this experiment. On a hot sunny day close the windows of your car. It will heat up from the sunlight. Now open the windows and it cools off quickly. The CO2 level has not changed by convection cools the inside of the car. So much for the greenhouse effect.


I would recommend reading up on the greenhouse effect. Glass is transparent to UV, but opaque to IR; this means that when sunlight shines into a greenhouse, visible and UV get in and are absorbed by the surfaces inside. Those surfaces heat up and radiate IR. That IR is then trapped as it cannot pass back out through the glass. CO2 performs the same function as glass in the atmospheric model. Also, there is no way to vent hot air into space; apart from hydrogen & helium it is all held somewhat tightly in a layer close to the earth by gravity.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

13 Mar 2016, 8:41 pm

Edenthiel wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
Furthermore they are based on a flawed analogy. Greenhouses are warm because the ceiling panels prevent hot air from rising out of the green house and cooling off. It isn't back radiation. It is lack of convection. Try this experiment. On a hot sunny day close the windows of your car. It will heat up from the sunlight. Now open the windows and it cools off quickly. The CO2 level has not changed by convection cools the inside of the car. So much for the greenhouse effect.


I would recommend reading up on the greenhouse effect. Glass is transparent to UV, but opaque to IR; this means that when sunlight shines into a greenhouse, visible and UV get in and are absorbed by the surfaces inside. Those surfaces heat up and radiate IR. That IR is then trapped as it cannot pass back out through the glass. CO2 performs the same function as glass in the atmospheric model. Also, there is no way to vent hot air into space; apart from hydrogen & helium it is all held somewhat tightly in a layer close to the earth by gravity.


Where is the roof of the IPCC "greenhouse". Hot air rises (look up adiabatic lapse rate). When it rises it cools.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

13 Mar 2016, 10:21 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
Furthermore they are based on a flawed analogy. Greenhouses are warm because the ceiling panels prevent hot air from rising out of the green house and cooling off. It isn't back radiation. It is lack of convection. Try this experiment. On a hot sunny day close the windows of your car. It will heat up from the sunlight. Now open the windows and it cools off quickly. The CO2 level has not changed by convection cools the inside of the car. So much for the greenhouse effect.


I would recommend reading up on the greenhouse effect. Glass is transparent to UV, but opaque to IR; this means that when sunlight shines into a greenhouse, visible and UV get in and are absorbed by the surfaces inside. Those surfaces heat up and radiate IR. That IR is then trapped as it cannot pass back out through the glass. CO2 performs the same function as glass in the atmospheric model. Also, there is no way to vent hot air into space; apart from hydrogen & helium it is all held somewhat tightly in a layer close to the earth by gravity.

The "roof" is gravity, if gravity didn't hold the atmosphere all the air would vent in outer space.
Where is the roof of the IPCC "greenhouse". Hot air rises (look up adiabatic lapse rate). When it rises it cools.



Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

13 Mar 2016, 10:41 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
Furthermore they are based on a flawed analogy. Greenhouses are warm because the ceiling panels prevent hot air from rising out of the green house and cooling off. It isn't back radiation. It is lack of convection. Try this experiment. On a hot sunny day close the windows of your car. It will heat up from the sunlight. Now open the windows and it cools off quickly. The CO2 level has not changed by convection cools the inside of the car. So much for the greenhouse effect.


I would recommend reading up on the greenhouse effect. Glass is transparent to UV, but opaque to IR; this means that when sunlight shines into a greenhouse, visible and UV get in and are absorbed by the surfaces inside. Those surfaces heat up and radiate IR. That IR is then trapped as it cannot pass back out through the glass. CO2 performs the same function as glass in the atmospheric model. Also, there is no way to vent hot air into space; apart from hydrogen & helium it is all held somewhat tightly in a layer close to the earth by gravity.


Where is the roof of the IPCC "greenhouse". Hot air rises (look up adiabatic lapse rate). When it rises it cools.


And where does the heat energy go from that rising, cooling air if it cannot radiate through the atmosphere above it, out into space as IR? The amount of heat energy (kinetic energy, really) carried by hydrogen and helium molecules as they leave is somewhat negligible & air molecules don't leave the atmosphere, nor do they themselves radiate much compared to the surface (they carry their gained energy as velocity).

To fit this to the glass greenhouse analogy (though it strays a bit), the roof of the greenhouse is the entire atmosphere itself. By ratio, CO2 is pretty evenly distributed (with some exceptions). By concentration, there is a greater mass of it near the surface due to pressure but the surface is also the main source of radiated IR. There exists more than enough of it at all heights to block a substantial amount of IR radiated at that height and below, be the IR from the Earth's surface or the top of a thunderhead or other convection cell.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,245
Location: Long Island, New York

13 Mar 2016, 11:52 pm

WilliamWilliamWilliam wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
What are people to do about it?. Try in last gasp effort to lower human produced carbon dioxide based on theory whose evidence is based on blind faith in computer modeling which have difficulty predicting storms a few days in advance or harden infrastructure, stop building on the coast, tear down the potential death traps known as glass office buildings?

divert copious amounts of money and resources

impede development

hurt the poor

invalidate scientific process

here is some reading for those who believe in man-made warming:

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... .36pl4x89r


How does hardening infrastructure hurt the poor?. Somebody is going to have to do the manual work to replace the glass office buildings and housing in the coast, build levees and dikes etc.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


WilliamWilliamWilliam
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 5 Feb 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 2

14 Mar 2016, 3:27 am

using less efficient forms of energy increases the cost hurting those who can least absorb it



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

14 Mar 2016, 3:35 am

if Europe can do it [take steps to address excess energy usage and curb pollution] then why can't we? why do we have to take second place to the rest of the west?