How the GW myth is perpetuated

Wake
+2
#2551
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Michael Crichton is trying to sell his book. A book, a work of fiction, that contradicts the evidence of global warming.

The scientific method of research is exactly that. A majority of Climatologists have produced results that others in the field have reproduced. Consensus is not some evil word......it simply means that a majority of scientists in the field have agreed that global warming is a threat. They have agreed that according to the best evidence, the global temperatures are rising and human produced greenhouse gasses are causing it.

I hope you understand that NOAA has been standing their ground by using consensus - they are telling us that it's a proven fact and that it is backed up by the AMA and the American Horticulturalist Association.

Global warming is not proven by a consensus of people that don't know anything about the science.

The original source of the 97% consensus was from a questionnaire given to the some 11,000 scientists leaving the first conference by the IPCC. Virtually ALL of the scientists said either that there was insufficient data to judge or they said, "no comment".

This did not fit the IPCC's needs so they reduced those whom they needed to those 39 scientists that self identified themselves as "climate scientists". There really was no such thing at the time so these people were searching for an identity more than anything else.

Of the 39, 2 said that there definitely was no proof of AGW. The remaining 37 said the opposite. That is where "97% of all scientists" came from.

Lately as that number has been questioned by the other 10,961 they have turned to still more dishonest methods.

Climate Change: No, It (external - login to view)

So in actuality the overwhelming consensus is that there is insufficient data to tell anything. Why would you take the word of a "climate scientist" who quotes a paper but not the man who wrote the study to begin with?

My own belief backed up by study after study is that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature changes and does not cause them. During the time when CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing at a linear 1% per year man's use of fossil fuels was increasing at 13% per year in the US and coal use in the rest of the world was increasing at 25%. So while CO2 was increasing linearly the use of fossil fuels was increasing logarithmically.

We also know that the chemical structure of CO2 and the spectrum in which it absorbs energy is simply not present in high quantities on the Earth.

CO2 Absorption Spectrum. (external - login to view)

Almost none of the claims about CO2 make the slightest sense since CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that virtually all of the energy that is held inside of these molecules is passed to the surrounding atmosphere through direct conduction and not by radiation in a waveband. i.e. Energy in a molecule causes it to vibrate. It takes a lot of energy to "fill" each molecule with enough energy that it releases it as a wave of IR. Instead it bumps into the surrounding molecules and passes part of it's energy on to them as motion. That means that O2 and N hold the majority of energy in the atmosphere. This eventually works it's way into the upper atmosphere and it radiates into space following Plank's law.
 
Danbones
#2552
... CO2 goes up after the temperature does, which is what happened when we had the great ages of Egypt and then later of Rome...
ooooh - great ages during warm spells...

don't tell anyone
 
Wake
#2553
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Simple science here, greenhouse gases increase temperature. Venus is twice as far from the sun than is Mercury, with an average temperature of 461 Celsius for Venus and 179 for Mercury.

We've increased the CO2 in our atmosphere by 30%, and doubled the methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas. Not only that, there are positive feedbacks present in Earth's climate which are increasing the net amount of greenhouse gases we're adding to the atmosphere, ie. natural sinks can't absorb all the extra gases we're adding.

But why let any hard facts at all get in the way....

Do you really need to be corrected? If Mercury ever had an atmosphere it was boiled off with temperatures FAR exceeding those of Venus. Now there is no atmosphere to slow the radiation from Mercury the planet itself is so hot that it radiates all of it's head off of the night side. and reaches within 100 C of absolute zero

Surface temperature of:

Mercury - 430 degrees Kelvin at noon
Venus - 759 degrees Kelvin anywhere on the planet

Mercury actually has water ice on it's north pole. All year round.
 
taxslave
#2554
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

Do you really need to be corrected? If Mercury ever had an atmosphere it was boiled off with temperatures FAR exceeding those of Venus. Now there is no atmosphere to slow the radiation from Mercury the planet itself is so hot that it radiates all of it's head off of the night side. and reaches within 100 C of absolute zero

Surface temperature of:

Mercury - 430 degrees Kelvin at noon
Venus - 759 degrees Kelvin anywhere on the planet

Mercury actually has water ice on it's north pole. All year round.

Wasting your breath. Ton is a fish doctor that hasn't been around for a couple of years now. Got tired of being corrected all the time.
 
JLM
#2555
I hate to disappoint people but this "weather" that many have been complaining about for the past 4 months can now be classified as "climate".
 
Curious Cdn
#2556
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I hate to disappoint people but this "weather" that many have been complaining about for the past 4 months can now be classified as "climate".

It's been unusually warm and green here over the last four months, for sure!
 
Wake
#2557
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I hate to disappoint people but this "weather" that many have been complaining about for the past 4 months can now be classified as "climate".

Unfortunately you can't call weather events "climate" unless they continue for 10 years or more. This is what upsets the True Believers so much about the weather hiatus for the last 19 years. And even NOW it heating could continue but I think that this warm period is over the hump and will begin dropping. Imagine the tears in the eyes of that happens.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

It's been unusually warm and green here over the last four months, for sure!

Yeah, average Canadian temperatures about 3 degrees warming that normal couldn't possibly be because the La Nina has caused the cold weather to slide further south where temperatures are below normal.

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. (external - login to view)

It sure must hurt you to be wrong so often.
 
petros
#2558
I have snow on my dead Metro Vancouver lawn.

Is it possible warm and cold can displace each other?

Why doesn’t Mercury have an atmosphere but Venus and Earth do? Then Mars barely does but rest of the planets are nothing but dense atmospheres. What gives?

An Earth Scientist asks....
 
darkbeaver
#2559
Sooner or later all of you will become familiar with the climate maker, electricity.
 
JLM
#2560
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I have snow on my dead Metro Vancouver lawn.

Is it possible warm and cold can displace each other?

Why doesn’t Mercury have an atmosphere but Venus and Earth do? Then Mars barely does but rest of the planets are nothing but dense atmospheres. What gives?

An Earth Scientist asks....


Perhaps the intense heat on Mercury evaporated it.
 
darkbeaver
#2561
Comment: Water ice is a highly unlikely answer to the puzzle. Once again, there is an electrical possibility. Mercury is likely to have a weak dipolar magnetic field. Mercury, like all planets is connected to the solar circuit. That connection follows the magnetic field down to the poles. Any remanent magnetism of the electrical craters at the pole will tend to focus the plasma discharges upon those craters. In the near vacuum at Mercury’s surface, electrons will strike the surface and form more dense plasma. If sufficiently dense, the plasma layer acts like a metallic surface coating and returns a strong radar echo. I have addressed this issue in the “The Shiny Mountains Of Venus (external - login to view).” If this view is correct the strong radar returns may change abruptly or flicker as the auroral-type discharge moves about.

Astronomical Myths of Mercury & the Sun | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe (external - login to view)
 
Curious Cdn
#2562
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

Unfortunately you can't call weather events "climate" unless they continue for 10 years or more. This is what upsets the True Believers so much about the weather hiatus for the last 19 years. And even NOW it heating could continue but I think that this warm period is over the hump and will begin dropping. Imagine the tears in the eyes of that happens.


Yeah, average Canadian temperatures about 3 degrees warming that normal couldn't possibly be because the La Nina has caused the cold weather to slide further south where temperatures are below normal.

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. (external - login to view)

It sure must hurt you to be wrong so often.

It has become steadily warmer, greener, winter by winter over my six decades. That's a hell of a long La Nina event.
 
Wake
#2563
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I have snow on my dead Metro Vancouver lawn.

Is it possible warm and cold can displace each other?

Why doesn’t Mercury have an atmosphere but Venus and Earth do? Then Mars barely does but rest of the planets are nothing but dense atmospheres. What gives?

An Earth Scientist asks....

There are two reasons that Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere - For one it does have a slight atmosphere. But it is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium from the solar wind itself which blows most of the rest of any gases away. so it is self-replenishing and not a real atmosphere. Also the heat of the planet in direct sunlight can cause chemical reactions that fuse these gases into heavier solids as part of the planet's rocky surface. The STRONG solar radiation literally blows most of the atmosphere away.

On Venus the planet itself has no magnetic barrier as many planets have but the force of the solar wind at that distance makes one by electrically charging the entire upper atmosphere (the ionosphere) on the sunward side. This deflects the greater percentage of the solar wind that would be so damaging to the thick atmosphere.

A magnetic shield is no guarantee of a protected atmosphere. Earth happens to be at the sweet spot where the magnetosphere can protect us from the worst of the solar wind. beyond us the solar wind drops logarithmically and so this isn't a problem for other planets that it is for the inner three. Whereas on Mercury the violence of the solar wind simply blows through the magnetic field. There are some effects from this field but they are minor in relation to the strengh of the solar wind at that distance.

One problem - where in the hell did such a dense atmosphere get on Venus to begin with? It appears that Venus was NEVER in the "water zone" and never had any significant amount of water. While the early life of Venus and Earth were probably near the same, the Earth bound up the majority of it's heavy CO2 into the water in it's oceans. And after life appeared it custom built an atmosphere made for life.

While we can observe our planets it is always chancy to make any stupid comments like "Venus's atmosphere of CO2 caused run-away solar heating". The fact is that ANY gas would have done so because it would have slowed the response to Plank's Law.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

It has become steadily warmer, greener, winter by winter over my six decades. That's a hell of a long La Nina event.

I should have known that you were encountering Alzheimer's.
 
pgs
#2564
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Sooner or later all of you will become familiar with the climate maker, electricity.

Actually sooner or latter we will all become part of the climate matter , worms .

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

It has become steadily warmer, greener, winter by winter over my six decades. That's a hell of a long La Nina event.

Has it or do you have selective memory ?

Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

There are two reasons that Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere - For one it does have a slight atmosphere. But it is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium from the solar wind itself which blows most of the rest of any gases away. so it is self-replenishing and not a real atmosphere. Also the heat of the planet in direct sunlight can cause chemical reactions that fuse these gases into heavier solids as part of the planet's rocky surface. The STRONG solar radiation literally blows most of the atmosphere away.
On Venus the planet itself has no magnetic barrier as many planets have but the force of the solar wind at that distance makes one by electrically charging the entire upper atmosphere (the ionosphere) on the sunward side. This deflects the greater percentage of the solar wind that would be so damaging to the thick atmosphere.
A magnetic shield is no guarantee of a protected atmosphere. Earth happens to be at the sweet spot where the magnetosphere can protect us from the worst of the solar wind. beyond us the solar wind drops logarithmically and so this isn't a problem for other planets that it is for the inner three. Whereas on Mercury the violence of the solar wind simply blows through the magnetic field. There are some effects from this field but they are minor in relation to the strengh of the solar wind at that distance.
One problem - where in the hell did such a dense atmosphere get on Venus to begin with? It appears that...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Please don't you 2 get into a huge debate on a subject you agree on . I really have no time and interest for Plank studies .
 
Curious Cdn
#2565
Quote: Originally Posted by WakeView Post

There are two reasons that Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere - For one it does have a slight atmosphere. But it is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium from the solar wind itself which blows most of the rest of any gases away. so it is self-replenishing and not a real atmosphere. Also the heat of the planet in direct sunlight can cause chemical reactions that fuse these gases into heavier solids as part of the planet's rocky surface. The STRONG solar radiation literally blows most of the atmosphere away.
On Venus the planet itself has no magnetic barrier as many planets have but the force of the solar wind at that distance makes one by electrically charging the entire upper atmosphere (the ionosphere) on the sunward side. This deflects the greater percentage of the solar wind that would be so damaging to the thick atmosphere.
A magnetic shield is no guarantee of a protected atmosphere. Earth happens to be at the sweet spot where the magnetosphere can protect us from the worst of the solar wind. beyond us the solar wind drops logarithmically and so this isn't a problem for other planets that it is for the inner three. Whereas on Mercury the violence of the solar wind simply blows through the magnetic field. There are some effects from this field but they are minor in relation to the strengh of the solar wind at that distance.
One problem - where in the hell did such a dense atmosphere get on Venus to begin with? It appears that...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Where is it that you live again, Yank?

Tayeksus?

How many "white winters" do you get down there? (...and I'm not referring to putting a hood on your head like dad used to do)
 

Similar Threads

42
History or Myth
by darkbeaver | Aug 2nd, 2009
0
The Shortage Myth
by darkbeaver | Dec 5th, 2007
35
How the Myth of Jesus came about
by Dreadful Nonsense | Oct 27th, 2007
17
The Myth of Zarqawi
by vista | Oct 24th, 2004
no new posts