'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

CO2 is one of the WEAKEST of the greenhouse gasses, especially when compared to water vapor. It is only important because of the fables of AGW proponents. Since its a byproduct of mans industrial age we do produce more of it than other gasses.

Greenhouse gases - Environment - smh.com.au
www.smh.com.au › Environment
Apr 3, 2007 – "While carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas because of the sheer mass emitted, it is one of the weakest greenhouse gases on ..

reva

 

More information related to the WEAKNESS of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and how events of the past should, but rarely do* help us make intelligent decisions today.



At this scale, there is really no apparent correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures. What's more, there have been ice ages when CO2 has been as much as 10 to 15 times higher than modern levels (for example the end-Ordovician Ice Age). There have also been times when temperature was increasing but CO2 was decreasing and times when CO2 was increasing but temperatures decreasing (during the Silurian and Devonian and during the Triassic and Jurassic, respectively).

* The reason that true independently made decisions that not related to grant money or political beliefs are NOT made today by the politically correct is obvious. Outside influence of 'give me' grant money, power or something similar. One can become rich telling lies, just have a look at Gulfstream jet-setter Al Gore!

** Usually AGW proponents are so exceedingly far left wing, so left wing that if they were a bird they would fly around in left turn circles like a NASCAR stock car.


reva

 

so Margaret Thatcher was left wing now?

David Cameron is left wing?

please RA.

the solutions to the issue may be political in nature, but only the ignorant get confused between science and politics.

 

I have highlighted the important word for you.

Now why don't you look at some relevant measurements taken on a appropriate scale.

Below, from Herries 2001 is a plot of the measured outgoing logwave radiation between 1970 and 1997:

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

and look!! surprise surprise!!! there is a decrease in outgoing radiation in the same wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2.

Well lookee there!!!! It looks like you are talking crap!!!

 

Oh good lord!!!!

Don't tell me this clown is another one of the "It was all started by Margaret Thatcher school!!!!!" I can't believe that is still getting around!!

 

I said MOST AGW proponents are left wing, not that there are no individuals that may have different opinions. I am highly conservative in some things but very liberal in others. Not everyone can have a label attached to them. So please, try reading my posts instead of doing what you do as a matter of fact, that is you say what you think I think. Try factual statements for once. And I suggest if you can not find something more substantial to whine about in my posts not to comment at all. If you can learn to behave civilly I invite you to comment on anything I say, otherwise please keep your assumptions to yourself.



reva

 

no ... RA's story is that AGW is a left wing conspiracy to make him stop farting.

so I am asking him if he thinks MT was left wing.

 

On a small scale anything can be proven. You have proved nothing except that you are not well versed in the finer points of critical thinking. Long term global warming and cooling is a sine wave affair and has been for 400 million years. Our puny emissions will not change the shape of that sine wave at all in the long term. Guess what, if the earth is warming we should celebrate and invest in copper tone stocks etc while they are still relatively cheap...

reva

 

In each "wavelength", as it pertains to the correlation, there is a 'tipping point' at which the numbers for the "lead factor" level or even begin to fall, and that for the rest, they continue on up because of effect the increases have, long term. Some of the energy "absorbed" during the upward movement has now been "stored" in our deep Oceans, especially the Pacific, and it will take decades for that energy to work its way out of the "System".

We may have found our most recent Tipping Point...

 

At this timescale, you are flat-out wrong to ignore the increase in solar radiation, as you have done.

So perhaps you can tell us all why the Earth is was warm 500 million years ago as it is today, when the Sun was 3.5% cooler back then?

False. There is no proxy CO2 record specifically confined to the early Hirnantian, the brief period when the end-Ordovician glaciation occurred. The only proxy anywhere close is the Ashgill proxy measurement of Yapp & Poths, which does not eliminate the possibility that the proxy was laid down in the mid-Ashgill warm period.

I've been over this road with Inquisitor recently. He lost, and if you pursue this point, you'll lose too.

Proxy CO2 measurements from that far back are too sparse to make any such claims. If you want to make them anyway, provide peer-reviewed references.

Speaking of telling lies: Al Gore does not own an airplane. But I flatly predict that knowing that fact won't prevent you from lying about it again.

Partial list of conservatives who accept the consensus on global warming:

Barry Bickmore
Jonathan Kay
Michael Hanlon
Chad Meyers
Peter Wehner
Jon Huntsman
Chris Christie
Kerry Emanuel

 

Not sure what you mean by 'long term effects of water". Do you mean the ocean or water vapor or ????
And what are the causes of all those changes and "patterns"? The causes were Earth's orbital eccentricity, Earth's obliquity, Earth's precession, GHGs (including CO2) and the sun. Guess which causes act over the the 120 years? Guess which causes act over 500 years? Guess which causes act over thousands of years. Guess which cause acted over the last 35 years?

Energy does not dissipate through the oceans. The only way to get rid of energy is when it radiates into space.

 

The Oceans.

Energy is in fact absorbed by the Oceans by heating them. They then distribute this warmth through the currents as well as updrafts and downdrafts. It has been estimated that it can take decades to get the warmth at the lower depths to "dissipate"...

 

Really?

Maybe you should let NASA know your findings...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanClimate/ocean-atmos_phys.php

The ocean couples with the atmosphere in two main ways. The first way is physically, through the exchange of heat, water, and momentum. Covering more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface and containing about 97 percent of its surface water, the ocean stores vast amounts of energy in the form of heat. The ocean receives most of its heat along the equator, where incoming solar radiation is about double that received at the poles. Hence, sea surfaces are much warmer along the equator than at the poles.

Ocean and atmosphere move because they are fluid. The speed and direction of air and sea currents are determined primarily by air temperature gradients. As heat rises and eventually escapes the ocean to warm the overlying atmosphere, it creates air temperature gradients and, consequently, winds. In turn, winds push against the sea surface and drive ocean current patterns. Over time, a complex system of currents was established whereby the ocean transports a tremendous amount of heat toward the poles. Because heat escapes more readily into a cold atmosphere than a warm one, the northward flow of ocean and air currents is enhanced by the flow of heat escaping into the atmosphere and, ultimately, into outer space.

The ocean has a high temperature and momentum "inertia," or resistance to change. Relative to the atmosphere, it has a very slow circulation system, so changes in its systems generally occur over much longer timescales than in the atmosphere, where storms can form and dissipate in a single day. The ocean changes over periods from months to years to decades, whereas the atmosphere changes over periods of minutes to hours to days. The interactions between ocean and atmosphere are fully nonlinear, and occur over decades, which is why their "dialogue" is so hard to interpret.

(continued at link provided)

 

And yet on the other thread, you're proposing that the waterless Moon is undergoing the exact same sort of "dissipation".

 

Solar irradiance is not waning. The last peak was just before the maximum northern ice loss in 2003.

 

No I am not...

I was simply showing that while the temperatures were increasing, here on Earth, they were increasing on the moon as well. Now the moon doesn't really even have an "atmosphere" so it can't be because of any "GreenHouse Effect".

So what is it that they BOTH have in common that could be afffecting each temperature.

I wonder...

 

But when the ocean temperature is rising MORE than can be accounted for by solar input??

From the previous page of your link

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanClimate/oceanclimate.php

The heat is not just coming from the sun but also the atmosphere itself

 

Pic only goes back to 1975

Nice cherry pick

Now post one with a longer time frame

Although even this one it is clear that solar trends have not increased since the seventies

 

But they weren't. Global temp on Earth dropped between 1973 and 1974, while the lunar experiment was still showing an increase.

How do you account for the fact that lunar surface temps are about 30 K colder than the Earth, even though the Moon is the same distance from the Sun that we are?

 

Really?!?!? Is it?!?!? Why?

What causes it to be sinusoidal?

Why do you think you can just make rubbish up like this? Do you think everyone is as ignorant about the subject as you are? Here is a hint...we aren't. So come on Champ - tell us more about this "sine wave affair" - or admit that you are just telling silly little fibs.

I am accusing you of posting a lie.
Long term global warming and cooling IS NOT a sine wave affair.

What have you got to say for yourself?

 

Would you like to re-write this in English mate?

 

I am no climate scientist but I can relate to what I have read and believe. There is some kind of self correcting mechanism similar to photosynthesis which of course uses CO2 to make O2 etc. Of course CO2 isn't the evil its made out to be.

Show where I have fabricated anything or apologize.

I have forgot more than you know.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket. Now considering your insistence of getting personal I feel that you are indeed a bigot, and since you have not posted anything factual rebutting my comments I can only assume you are indeed ignorant of many of the facts concerning AGW.

.

First look up...oh I better do it for you ; Analogy a·nal·o·gy

a·nal·o·gy [ə nálləjee]
(plural a·nal·o·gies)
n
1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some respects, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Online Dictionary : Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. sine wave - a wave whose waveform resembles a sine curve
undulation, wave - (physics) a movement up and down or back and forth

I am your champ but please call me rev or my sc name. I have found that anyone that resorts to insult instead of facts has lost the debate and knows it or is exhibiting symptom of a fairly serious inferiority complex. By the evidence of your comments a diagnosis is not that difficult to make. Now, maybe you think I faked the graphs I posted and fabricated the sources I posted. However without proof that they were indeed faked your baseless claims indicate that along with the inferiority complex you are presenting with the pathology of borderline personality disorder. I would be curious to know if you have ever been a patient in a mental institution? If not show specifically where I lied or be prepared to be reported. A sine wave affair means 'sine wave like'. You know up down up down~

http://www.americantraditions.org/A...oxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming.htm.

I posted the graph and I did not say it was a sine wave, I said it was sine wave like ie a sine wave affair. So I suggest you post a very sincere apology.

I say you have nothing factual to say.

reva

 

Though the previous post was in response that it was decreasing in the 11 year cycle, it is probably near it's peak. The temperature to solar activity is misleading as it compares it against sunspots, which do follow the 11 year cycle, but do not increase over time. Solar irradiance does. The sun has been getting a bit hotter over the years.

 

Look up the meaning of the word "dissipate". And compare that with the meaning of the word "store".

I will attempt to explain it for you . The only way to dissipate (get rid of) the energy from the sun is to radiate it into space. What the NASA article is attempting to explain to you is that the ocean is part of the climate system.Energy stored in the oceans will not leave the earth's system. That stored energy will eventually be released back into the atmosphere.

 

Or as you said, just radiated into space.