UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade

[PoliticalNick]

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.

I don't think you get it. You seem to just make sh*t up as you go. Are you saying that CO2 molecules have special properties that result in their reflectivity having a directional bias towards the earth? What? Is the reflected heat drawn by gravity?

I think you make a rather large (and not so smart) assumption that the molecules do not reflect evenly in a spherical pattern. We know that if one sphere is next to another sphere the surface area seen by each one is significantly smaller than the surface area that faces away. So now hoe does a CO2 molecule reflect equal amounts of heat to the earth as it does to space when the significantly greater surface area of the molecule is facing away from the planet?

Is this another of those scientific academy notions?

 

[darkbeaver]

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.



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."



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?

At no time is the earth isolated out of the solar circuit. I can post another article with actual photos of the phenomena if you like. Once you have been convinced by science of the electrical connection and the billions of amps being pumped into the globe every day you should change your thinking. If that does not happen you do not serve science but some other master.

 

[Tonington]

As expected.

I have seen the offerings that you have posted on the matter and can even appreciate the significance of such.

Hardly. If you could appreciate it, you wouldn't be making claims for total unequivocal proof.

As for the alternatives, I`ve quizzed both DB and Petros before on the specifics. There`s a big difference between the alternatives, and what the scientific literature is suggesting. I can find evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. All kinds of it. Anyone who knows how to use google, and understands the difference between evidence and a blog can do likewise.

The greenhouse effect is responsible for an amount, let`s call it X. Z is the total, and Y is what is left when you subtract X from Z. The amount of radiative forcing in Y is less than X. So, if the alternate theories are correct, they have to show that X is in fact much smaller. But they can`t. The satellites measuring the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance are in agreement with ground-based observational methods. X is well established.

Further, the electric cosmos from DB, and the shifting geomagnetic field surrounding Earth favoured by Petros, cannot explain the facts on the ground or in the air. They cannot explain why the lower troposphere warms, while the upper atmosphere cools. Petros even asked for paleo-magnetic-climate studies, and I showed him one which contradicted the phenomenon we know are happening right now. His response was to stick his head in the sand.

And if you accept that the satellite data from UAH-which are favoured by Dr. Christy, Dr. Spencer, Anthony Watts, and all the other so-called skeptics- are correct, and that the the discrepancy between upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere is explained by an enhanced greenhouse effect, then that doesn`t leave any room for X to to be eliminated by competing explanations.

This is really not difficult stuff.

 

[EagleSmack]

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."

You're seriously going to try that?

Do you need a lesson in what sarcasm and mocking is as well?

 

[darkbeaver]

And here we are right back to square one, one camp of scientists crapping on another camp of scientists while they've all come through the same programs and use the same methods. So I ask you what could possibly account for the discord? We will have to admit the possibility that the problem does not lie within the realm of science at all. FLM follow the money

 

[Zipperfish]

I don't think you get it. You seem to just make sh*t up as you go. Are you saying that CO2 molecules have special properties that result in their reflectivity having a directional bias towards the earth? What? Is the reflected heat drawn by gravity?

No 50% would be the opposite of a bias. 50% of the radiation would be directed above the horizontal axis and 50% below. A bias in neither direction. However, had that CO2 molecule not been there, the abosorbed infrared photon would have continued upwards, and not had a 50% chance of being reflected back towards the surface.

 

[EagleSmack]

This is really not difficult stuff.

How many bits and bytes will it take again?

 

[Zipperfish]

At no time is the earth isolated out of the solar circuit. I can post another article with actual photos of the phenomena if you like. Once you have been convinced by science of the electrical connection and the billions of amps being pumped into the globe every day you should change your thinking. If that does not happen you do not serve science but some other master.

If you have an article with the math, I'd prefer that to the photographs. Cheers.

 

[PoliticalNick]

No 50% would be the opposite of a bias. 50% of the radiation would be directed above the horizontal axis and 50% below. A bias in neither direction. However, had that CO2 molecule not been there, the abosorbed infrared photon would have continued upwards, and not had a 50% chance of being reflected back towards the surface.

50% would be the opposite of bias IF it were reflecting onto the surface of a plane, but it isn't. It is reflected to the surface of a sphere which means that some of the reflected energy below the equatorial line of the molecule will miss the surface of the earth. The higher in the atmosphere the molecule is the more energy will not be directed to the surface of the planet. This is a pretty simple concept. I would imagine a great scientist like yourself would understand it. :roll:

 

[Zipperfish]

You're seriously going to try that?

Do you need a lesson in what sarcasm and mocking is as well?

Why? Sarcasm and mocking reflect more poorly on your position than mine.

 

[PoliticalNick]

If you have an article with the math, I'd prefer that to the photographs. Cheers.

How about a photograph showing the math of AGW...

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Why? Sarcasm and mocking reflect more poorly on your position than mine.

He's doing what he can.

 

[Zipperfish]

And here we are right back to square one, one camp of scientists crapping on another camp of scientists while they've all come through the same programs and use the same methods. So I ask you what could possibly account for the discord? We will have to admit the possibility that the problem does not lie within the realm of science at all. FLM follow the money

Except we don't really have that. What we have is the vast majority of scientists saying that AGW is a solid theory, and a small minority of scientists saying it isn't.

Which is the point I made originally, some pages back. I can't help but notice that it is the guys with strong science background on this site (as on dozens of others) who are saying that AGW is a strong theory, and mostly the guys who don't know much about science who say it isn't.

The question is: Who should know better? Are there opinions equal?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Except we don't really have that. What we have is the vast majority of scientists saying that AGW is a solid theory, and a small minority of scientists saying it isn't.

Actually what we have is a bunch of scientists employed by those who benefit from the AGW scare saying it's true and a bunch of others with no vested interest saying it might be true but the higher likelihood is it isn't.

Which is the point I made originally, some pages back. I can't help but notice that it is the guys with strong science background on this site (as on dozens of others) who are saying that AGW is a strong theory, and mostly the guys who don't know much about science who say it isn't.

You don't have a clue what kind of background anyone has on here, it is an internet forum. Now regardless of whether I have a science background or not (and I'm not telling) I have consistently managed to poke holes in your theory that are big enough for a bus to fit in. Right down to how you want to change the definition of words to suit your purpose.

The question is: Who should know better? Are there opinions equal?

Well, opinions are like a$$holes....everybody has one and they are normally full of sh*t! The better question to ask is why is there a difference in the opinions of those with a vested financial interest in AGW and those who will not benefit no matter what the result? I certainly know which opinion I would give more credence to in that circumstance.

 

[Zipperfish]

50% would be the opposite of bias IF it were reflecting onto the surface of a plane, but it isn't. It is reflected to the surface of a sphere which means that some of the reflected energy below the equatorial line of the molecule will miss the surface of the earth. The higher in the atmosphere the molecule is the more energy will not be directed to the surface of the planet. This is a pretty simple concept. I would imagine a great scientist like yourself would understand it. :roll:

Fine--49.997% is reflected back to the surface of the Earth. About one in every 31,000 CO2 molecules misses the earth due to curvature.

That is still infrared energy that was bound for space that is now reflected back towards the earth. Even if it were only refelcting 10% back towards the earth, you would still expect a resulting temperature differential between the lower and upper atmospheres--a Greenhouse Effect.

I don't know what it is baout you guys that you just think you can dismiss 100 years of electromagnetism physics with some pithy "Oh Yeah!" observation.

 

[darkbeaver]

Except we don't really have that. What we have is the vast majority of scientists saying that AGW is a solid theory, and a small minority of scientists saying it isn't.

Which is the point I made originally, some pages back. I can't help but notice that it is the guys with strong science background on this site (as on dozens of others) who are saying that AGW is a strong theory, and mostly the guys who don't know much about science who say it isn't.

The question is: Who should know better? Are there opinions equal?

ZF we both know that you cannot possibly show any proof whatever that this vast majority of PRO AGW exists.
Your second point is valid only if we accept that those in opposition cannot read and have no grasp of reason. Or will you maintain that reading and reason are only to be found in the heads of card carrying scientists. I will concede that your word should and does trump mine but I did not write those articles that I posted and they are your opponents as well and they outnumber you very heavily and they are some of the planets finest minds while you are relatively unknown, at this time. You are arguing against some very strong positions.
I expect you will refrain from the usual lament that we just do not understand how science works, when we bloody well do.

 

[Zipperfish]

Actually what we have is a bunch of scientists employed by those who benefit from the AGW scare saying it's true and a bunch of others with no vested interest saying it might be true but the higher likelihood is it isn't.

You don't have a clue what kind of background anyone has on here, it is an
internet forum. Now regardless of whether I have a science background or not
(and I'm not telling) I have consistently managed to poke holes in your theory
that are big enough for a bus to fit in. Right down to how you want to change
the definition of words to suit your purpose.

OK, first off you're saying that I don't have any clue what background people have here, and yet a moment ago you were confidently predicting that teh backtground of anyone here who supprots AGW is "employed by those who benefit from teh AGW scare." Which is it?

Actually, I do. When I read Cobalt and Tonington and others I can tell that they know what they are talking about. They, for example, know what a scientific theory is, how science works with models, what uncertainty means in a quantitative sense. They understand the basic physical processes involved, they don't confuse single events with statistical trends.

Well, opinions are like a$$holes....everybody has one and they are normally full of sh*t! The better question to ask is why is there a difference in the opinions of those with a vested financial interest in AGW and those who will not benefit no matter what the result? I certainly know which opinion I would give more credence to in that circumstance.

That would be a better question is it were true. But it ain't. tehre's plenty of people who, conversely, benefit from scaring people about teh AGW scare. Why are they not factored into your equation. I mean if AGW scinetists are lying so thaty can get another $100K in research funds next year, wouldn't oil exectuives be lying to reap another few billion more in profits next year.

Your argument just doesn't make any sense.

ZF we both know that you cannot possibly show any proof whatever that this vast majority of PRO AGW exists.
Your second point is valid only if we accept that those in opposition cannot read and have no grasp of reason. Or will you maintain that reading and reason are only to be found in the heads of card carrying scientists. I will concede that your word should and does trump mine but I did not write those articles that I posted and they are your opponents as well and they outnumber you very heavily and they are some of the planets finest minds while you are relatively unknown, at this time. You are arguing against some very strong positions.
I expect you will refrain from the usual lament that we just do not understand how science works, when we bloody well do.

I'm a scientist Beaver. I understand numbers. Simply stating that a competing theory exists is not good enough. You have to demonstrate why such a theory is superior to the existing (greenhouse effect) one.

What I do know is that on this site, and on sites such as these, I've noted that posters who clearly have a strong scientific background generally support AGW. And, for those interested in knowledge, that should count for something in my opinion.

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm a scientist Beaver. I understand numbers. Simply stating that a competing theory exists is not good enough. You have to demonstrate why such a theory is superior to the existing (greenhouse effect) one.

What I do know is that on this site, and on sites such as these, I've noted that posters who clearly have a strong scientific background generally support AGW. And, for those interested in knowledge, that should count for something in my opinion.

I respect your credentials, I'm a mechanic I understand numbers too. I enjoy the argument ZF and I think having accredited scientist engaged enriches the subject matter and it certainly does count for something. However being a free thinking person of some reason I do not have to bow to your opinion however it has been arrived at but I do have to surrender common courtesy. I remain disagreeable. I think I'm right and I've read nothing yet to dispel that feeling..

 

[PoliticalNick]

OK, first off you're saying that I don't have any clue what background people have here,

You don't! I could be a 12 year old girl for all you know.

and yet a moment ago you were confidently predicting that teh backtground of anyone here who supprots AGW is "employed by those who benefit from teh AGW scare."

I have no idea of anyone's background here. Well that isn't quite true because I do know some on here reasonably well. What I said was I see a trend that the scientists who are proponents of AGW are much more likely to directly benefit from it and those who are against the theory will not benefit regardless of it being true or not. That says nothing about anybody on this forum in particular, it speaks to the authors of various reports on the topic and their opinions.

Actually, I do. When I read Cobalt and Tonington and others I can tell that they know what they are talking about.

Oh, so if someone agrees with you they know what they are talking about, the rest of us are clueless. :roll:

They, for example, know what a scientific theory is,

So do I...it is a guess about how something works or a prediction of the results of a specific set of circumstances.

what uncertainty means in a quantitative sense.

I understand some guesses are more educated and realistic than others. I am well aware of how probablities work.

They understand the basic physical processes involved, they don't confuse single events with statistical trends.

Like the historical statistical trend of 30-50 year cycles of warming & cooling. Like statistically we are actually still in the cooler part of the cycle that has been apparent over the last 10,000 years.

That would be a better question is it were true.

Answers are true or false, not questions. :roll:

tehre's plenty of people who, conversely, benefit from scaring people about teh AGW scare.

HUH? You want to try that again so it can be understood.

I mean if AGW scinetists are lying so thaty can get another $100K in research funds next year, wouldn't oil exectuives be lying to reap another few billion more in profits next year

.
I never said the oil execs weren't lying. I actually believe they lie all the time for profit. So do scientists and the UN.

Your argument just doesn't make any sense.

I make perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is your belief that nobody but you can really understand the subject. What doesn't make sense is how every time I poke a big hole in your explanation you suddenly change your tune and rebut with a different explanation until I (or someone else on here that isn't a 'scientist') poke a hole in that theory then you change it again. What doesn't make sense is you believing something radiated in a spherical pattern will hit another sphere with 50% of the radiation. If that were true we would experience 50% of the earth in full sunlight at all times.

I'm a scientist Beaver. I understand numbers.

I'm not sure you do.

You have to demonstrate why such a theory is superior to the existing (greenhouse effect) one.

You can't actually prove your theory is true and there is 10,000 years of empirical evidence to suggest you are full of sh*t.

that should count for something in my opinion.

Do I have to repeat the awful truth about opinions.

Just a footnote....Do you think it's time you got some help for your dyslexia or complete lack of proofreading, whichever your problem is.

 

[captain morgan]

Hardly. If you could appreciate it, you wouldn't be making claims for total unequivocal proof.

I can simultaneously appreciate that there are probably more variables that we don't know about active in this equation than what we do know.

I don't believe that you have that kind of cognitive flexibility to consider that reality

As for the alternatives, I`ve quizzed both DB and Petros before on the specifics.

No... You sermonize.

All other suggestions are in one ear and out the other

The greenhouse effect is responsible for an amount, let`s call it X. Z is the total, and Y is what is left when you subtract X from Z. The amount of radiative forcing in Y is less than X. So, if the alternate theories are correct, they have to show that X is in fact much smaller. But they can`t. The satellites measuring the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance are in agreement with ground-based observational methods. X is well established.

It's just that simple is it?

All of the variables known, fully understood and the interactive dynamic completely detailed in the 'models' as proposed by the IPCC.

Almost makes you wonder why the IPCC would even use the word 'likely' in any of their documents?

Further, the electric cosmos from DB, and the shifting geomagnetic field surrounding Earth favoured by Petros, cannot explain the facts on the ground or in the air. They cannot explain why the lower troposphere warms, while the upper atmosphere cools. Petros even asked for paleo-magnetic-climate studies, and I showed him one which contradicted the phenomenon we know are happening right now. His response was to stick his head in the sand.

I notice that the UN/IPCC (and yourself) inexplicably fail to recognize the sun as having any real role in this... Talk about sticking your head in the sand

This is really not difficult stuff.

It isn't... This is more about politics and finance than it is about Mother Gaia.

As ES has asked so effectively on many occasions: "How many bank transfers will it take to reverse global warming?"

And here we are right back to square one, one camp of scientists crapping on another camp of scientists while they've all come through the same programs and use the same methods. So I ask you what could possibly account for the discord? We will have to admit the possibility that the problem does not lie within the realm of science at all. FLM follow the money

Bingo