UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade

[Zipperfish]

I don't think it's important. My doubts about the whole debate arise from the facts ignored concerning the primary inputs of electrical current to the planet that have been ignored throughout, rendering the entire debate an exercise in futility thus far. IMO

So you don't tink there's a connection between CO2 asdn temperature? Or that signal is overwhelmed by changes in the ionosphere?

Seeing and ignoring.

No, I think where we left it last time is that you said there was no such thing as the greenhouse effect and then I asked you why the temperature of the earth wasn't the same as the moon at night time.

 

[darkbeaver]

So you don't tink there's a connection between CO2 asdn temperature? Or that signal is overwhelmed by changes in the ionosphere?

If we're warming I don't think it's the CO2.

 

[Zipperfish]

If we're warming I don't think it's the CO2.

Is that because you don't buy the spectral properties of CO2 (that it absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum). IOr you don't think the CO2 is actually increasing? Or the heating from additional CO2 is overwhelmed by another response?

 

[PoliticalNick]

If you think there's no difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a guess in science there's really not much I can do to help.

Her let me try this to help you get a grasp on reality.

syn·o·nym [sin-uh-nim]
a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.

So synonyms are words that mean the same thing (you understand that definition or does you academy have its own definition of that too) and we use a thesaurus to find these words. Now watch this magic...

theory
n hypothesis, belief

Synonyms for theory
approach, argument, assumption, code, concept, doctrine, idea, ideology, method, philosophy, plan, position, premise, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, speculation, suspicion, system, thesis, understanding, base, basis, codification, conditions, conjecture, dogma, feeling, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, impression, outlook, postulate, presentiment, presumption, shot, stab, supposal, supposition, surmise, theorem, formularization, suppose, systemization

Theory Synonyms, Theory Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Now please don't let all these synonyms for theory get in the way of your relentless belief I do not know what a theory is. Maybe if I show you the antonyms (those are words with opposite meanings) you might start to catch on.

How, exactly, is directly quoting the definition of a scientific theory according to one of the premier scientific orgqanzaitions on the planet making stuff up?

How is your little academy changing the dictionary definition not making sh*t up? If you cannot understand the difference between the real definition of theory in every dictionary around the globe and the one made up by a small group of science geeks you are beyond all hope.

You seem quite deluded.

Yes you are!

I can see why you have the troll avatar.

Can you? You can't see hypothesis in the definition of theory even when highlighted 3 differnt times.

You've really got nothing, Nick, except making the same fallacious statements

And of course a dictionary and a thesaurus that prove you wrong.

 

[darkbeaver]

Is that because you don't buy the spectral properties of CO2 (that it absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum). IOr you don't think the CO2 is actually increasing? Or the heating from additional CO2 is overwhelmed by another response?

The whole thing is a diversion of human resources for purposes other than remediation of climate. It matters not,we cannot control solar output with dollars or prayer. It's a political issue and nothing but. I'm very sure the greenhouse gas theory was junk from day one and there is loads of science to support my thinking in that case.

IPCC Officially Erases The MWP

Posted on October 1, 2013 by stevengoddard

IPCC participant Jay Overpeck said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
http://drtimball.com/
​

They have done just that, and renamed it the Medieval Climate Anomaly

New paleoclimate reconstruction efforts since AR4 (Figure 5.7; Table 5.4; Table 5.A.1) have provided further insights into the characteristics of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA; Table 5.1)
almost all reconstructions agree that each 30-year (50-year) period from 1200 to 1899 was very likely colder in the NH than the 1983–2012 (1963–2012) instrumental temperature.
FinalDraft_Chapter05.pdf

Greenhouse Gas Effect and the 2nd Law.

Posted on May 15, 2011 by Louis Hissink
John Ray posted an interesting comment today: Oddly, though, any comprehensive defence from Warmists against that view is very hard to find. They seem very much afraid of opening that can of worms. So it is mainly a subgroup of … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, Geophysics, Plasma Universe

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas

Posted on May 11, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Hilton Ratcliffe (Astronomer Astrophysicist) writes: I had a most amazing, serendipitous meeting with Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria. He is a world authority on hydroponic culture, hydrology, and greenhouses. He acts as a consultant all over the … Continue reading →

My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.” Posted in Climate, Science | 1 Comment

Earth Greenhouse Gas Fallacy

Posted on April 24, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Astronomer V.A. FIRSOFF’S OBJECTIONS Let us examine several other interesting problems with Sagan’s greenhouse theory. V.A.Firsoff, the British astronomer, raised the following objection to Sagan’s hypothesis:“Increasing the mass of the atmosphere (Venus has 91 Earth atmospheres) may intensifythe greenhouse effect, … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, Science

As I said previously, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, let along a greenhouse gas effect

Posted on May 28, 2010 by Louis Hissink


​

The Shattered Greenhouse – How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".

Posted on May 21, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Helps to repeat this basic fact – there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect

Abstract

This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism is identified as a key aspect of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its original proposition by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.
​

 

[Zipperfish]

I wonder why they ignore that?

Becasue one year is not indicative of a trend.

So yeah, gained a bunch of ice this year, but look at the trend over 40 years.

 

[EagleSmack]

The whole thing is a diversion of human resources for purposes other than remediation of climate. It matters not,we cannot control solar output with dollars or prayer. It's a political issue and nothing but.

Wow DB...thumbs up.

 

[Zipperfish]

The whole thing is a diversion of human resources for purposes other than remediation of climate. It matters not,we cannot control solar output with dollars or prayer. It's a political issue and nothing but. I'm very sure the greenhouse gas theory was junk from day one and there is loads of science to support my thinking in that case.

So I'll ask you the same question that I asked Petros then--if there is no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect, why is the earth at night time not the same temperature as the moon at night time?

 

[EagleSmack]

Becasue one year is not indicative of a trend.


So yeah, gained a bunch of ice this year, but look at the trend over 40 years.

How does it look over 10,000 years?

We humans have such a high sense of importance to think we can stop the climate from changing.

 

[captain morgan]

I don't think the anthropgenic input is a pittance.

Weight of atmosphere: 5 x 10^15 tonnes

1 ppmv CO2: 7.5 x 10^9 tonnes

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2009: 29 x 10^9 tonnes which equates to about 4 ppm.

In actuality, the CO2 concentration is going up by about 2 ppm/year. Based on that, it isn't a stretch to say that anthropgenic emissions are pushing the CO2 concentration up.

Compared to the volume of recurring natural sources, the anthropogenic element is too miniscule to count.

While I agree that the CO2 trapped in fossil fuel was, in the past, a part of teh carbon cycle, it has not been for several million years. It is being re-introduced now at an enormous rate.

The flip side of that argument is that paleo events that caused massive swaths of organics to be sequestered on a rapid basis resulted in a huge concentration of carbon to be removed from the system.

In the recent past (geological time wise), the oilsands are being unearthed via natural causes and volatilizing into the atmosphere... A few Earth quakes, seismic shifts and volcanic eruptions will release huge volumes of HCs back to the atmosphere... There is no consistent release via natural circumstances

So I'll ask you the same question that I asked Petros then--if there is no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect, why is the earth at night time not the same temperature as the moon at night time?

I'm interested in hearing your response relative to the Medieval Warming Anomaly and if that was a cyclical anomaly then, how is the current example different

 

[PoliticalNick]

The whole thing is a diversion of human resources for purposes other than remediation of climate. It matters not,we cannot control solar output with dollars or prayer. It's a political issue and nothing but. I'm very sure the greenhouse gas theory was junk from day one and there is loads of science to support my thinking in that case.

IPCC Officially Erases The MWP

Posted on October 1, 2013 by stevengoddard

IPCC participant Jay Overpeck said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
http://drtimball.com/
​

They have done just that, and renamed it the Medieval Climate Anomaly

New paleoclimate reconstruction efforts since AR4 (Figure 5.7; Table 5.4; Table 5.A.1) have provided further insights into the characteristics of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA; Table 5.1)
almost all reconstructions agree that each 30-year (50-year) period from 1200 to 1899 was very likely colder in the NH than the 1983–2012 (1963–2012) instrumental temperature.
FinalDraft_Chapter05.pdf

Greenhouse Gas Effect and the 2nd Law.

Posted on May 15, 2011 by Louis Hissink
John Ray posted an interesting comment today: Oddly, though, any comprehensive defence from Warmists against that view is very hard to find. They seem very much afraid of opening that can of worms. So it is mainly a subgroup of … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, Geophysics, Plasma Universe

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas

Posted on May 11, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Hilton Ratcliffe (Astronomer Astrophysicist) writes: I had a most amazing, serendipitous meeting with Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria. He is a world authority on hydroponic culture, hydrology, and greenhouses. He acts as a consultant all over the … Continue reading →

My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.” Posted in Climate, Science | 1 Comment

Earth Greenhouse Gas Fallacy

Posted on April 24, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Astronomer V.A. FIRSOFF’S OBJECTIONS Let us examine several other interesting problems with Sagan’s greenhouse theory. V.A.Firsoff, the British astronomer, raised the following objection to Sagan’s hypothesis:“Increasing the mass of the atmosphere (Venus has 91 Earth atmospheres) may intensifythe greenhouse effect, … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate, Science

As I said previously, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, let along a greenhouse gas effect

Posted on May 28, 2010 by Louis Hissink


​

The Shattered Greenhouse – How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".

Posted on May 21, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Helps to repeat this basic fact – there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect

Abstract

This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism is identified as a key aspect of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its original proposition by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.
​

:thumbleft::wav:ccasion5::thumbleft:

 

[Zipperfish]

How does it look over 10,000 years?

We humans have such a high sense of importance to think we can stop the climate from changing.

The math clearly indicates that we have added a significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 reflects heat. It's not reallly a matter of a high sense of importance.

 

[EagleSmack]

Bummer!

 

[Zipperfish]

Compared to the volume of recurring natural sources, the anthropogenic element is too miniscule to count.

What do you mean "recurring natural sources"? Despite an active carbon cycle the concentration of CO2 has been pretty steady around 280 for at least 1000 years but starting since 1850 or so it has increased geometrically to 400 ppm. According to the Vlostok ice core data, we haven't seen CO2 concentration this high in the last 800,000 years.

I'm interested in hearing your response relative to the Medieval Warming Anomaly and if that was a cyclical anomaly then, how is the current example different

The current example is different because the CO2 levels are much higher, and are still rising geometrically. When you double the CO2 in the atmosphere, the radiation forcing is about 1 deg C. It's not the temperature that's the big difference--it's the CO2 concentration. That is what is unprecedented--both the absolute value and the rate of change.

We're easily matching, if not exceeding the MWP now. When we get to a CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm, I imagine we'll see significantly warmer temps than the MWP over the long term. probably 1 to 2 deg C.

 

[PoliticalNick]

The math clearly indicates that we have added a significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 reflects heat. It's not reallly a matter of a high sense of importance.

Not to try to make you look more stupid than you already do with your divergence from accepted dictionary definitions but....

Even if CO2 reflects heat it does not just reflect it towards the surface of the earth but also back out to the upper atmosphere and into space. Given that the scope of possible reflective direction is greater away from the surface than towards it wouldn't this actually have a net cooling effect. This would seem to be evidenced in DB's link.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas

Posted on May 11, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Hilton Ratcliffe (Astronomer Astrophysicist) writes: I had a most amazing, serendipitous meeting with Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria. He is a world authority on hydroponic culture, hydrology, and greenhouses. He acts as a consultant all over the … Continue reading →

My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.” Posted in Climate, Science | 1 Comment

Unless of course your science academy has now changed the properties of matter as well as dictionary definitions

 

[EagleSmack]

1 to 2 degrees... significantly warmer.

Wake me when its over would you?

 

[darkbeaver]

An interesting thing about ice core data is that it has been proven to not reflect annual accumulations but rather individual precipitations.

 

[PoliticalNick]

1 to 2 degrees... significantly warmer.

Wake me when its over would you?

Don't you want to be awake to see the palm trees growing at the north pole? I personally am soooo looking forward to not working outside in -40c this year! ;-)

 

[Zipperfish]

Not to try to make you look more stupid than you already do with your divergence from accepted dictionary definitions but....

Even if CO2 reflects heat it does not just reflect it towards the surface of the earth but also back out to the upper atmosphere and into space. Given that the scope of possible reflective direction is greater away from the surface than towards it wouldn't this actually have a net cooling effect. This would seem to be evidenced in DB's link.

It reflects 50% of the heat back towards the earth, which is all energy that would have gone upwards if it hadn't been intercepted by CO2. And yes, there is a net cooling effect in the upper atmosphere. More heat in the tropospehere, more cooling in the stratosphere.

1 to 2 degrees... significantly warmer.

Wake me when its over would you?

Ah, the denier dance. "There isn't any global warming and even if there is we have nothing to do with and even if we do who cares anyway."

An interesting thing about ice core data is that it has been proven to not reflect annual accumulations but rather individual precipitations.

I'm still waiting for you (and Petros) to expliain to me how the planet retains heat at night time when it isn't facing the sun. If there is no greenhouse effect from the atmosphere, the night time on earth should be around the same night time temperature as the moon, right?

 

[darkbeaver]

So I'll ask you the same question that I asked Petros then--if there is no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect, why is the earth at night time not the same temperature as the moon at night time?

Because it has a very weak magnetic field.