Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Global Warming (by man) is a LIE!
Correcting this data, correcting that data, eliminating this data, and estimating all over the place because it's very limited data--insofar as you can still call it data after all the corrections and estimations.
Yes! The methodology is confirmed by duplicating it in another scenario!
Wornstrum there is even less observational data for the upper 700m of ocean than there is for atmosphere. World militaries have been observing weather since at least 1900, in peace and in war.
I'm going to save that site though, because it represents the lunacy of global warming theorists and will be erased shortly.
When you boil water, do you use the stovetop, or the oven? Why?
Are you seriously contending that Hot Atmosphere raises the heat of the ocean? That hot air is heating water AT THE SAME RATE?
Although if the ocean were heating up like the atmosphere, it would A) signal which was heating what and B) signify we were all in big, big big trouble
HEH! Wornstrum fell into another trap except I did not have to set it up.
This is getting fun!
http://www.greenhousetruth.com/blog/2006_09_22_ocean_cooling.shtml
Oops... NOAA says no heating but instead COOLING of the Oceans. Damned evidence is hard to manipulate huh?
or we all could be wrong, and the earth is getting warmer because of seismic activity on the sea floor, heating the oceans and therefore the atmosphere
The Yell, you've got your laws of thermodynamics wrong. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is actually a wording usually associated with Newton's third law of motion and is actually really just a statement of the conservation of momentum.
"Out of curiousity, I wonder if anyone has tested heat trapping properties of CO2 in a lab...just straight out testing with actual particle concentrations that are observed (and predict with current trends what they will be like"
Yes, the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide along with any other material you wish to choose can be measured in a laboratory with a conceptually very simple experiment. If you can generate electromagnetic radiation of a known wavelength (and adjust the wavelength through a spectrum) and detect it with an appropriate detector of known spectral response you can fire your beam of radiation through your material (e.g. carbon dioxide) and see how much radiation has been absorbed on the other side of the test material. It is known that carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases are transparent to optical radiation coinciding with the peak in the radiation spectrum from the sun's photosphere is in the optical range, at about yellow, but are opaque to longer wavelengths in the near infra-red which approximately coincide with the peak in the Earth's blackbody emission spectrum.
The Yell, you are on the right lines thinking about thermodynamics and the conservation of energy. As long as there is an equilibrium between the amount of energy in and the amount of energy out then the temperature will remain constant. If there were no greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere then a relatively simple calculation (although requiring some numbers which I can't be bothered to look up) will show that the Earth's surface temperature would be around -20 degrees celcius (I can't remember the exact number). If we take our bare Earth and suddenly give it an atmosphere then the equilibrium will shift, the Earth will not irradiate to space as much as is incident upon it because there is an atmosphere full of greenhouse gases on top of it, so the Earth will warm up until the energy in = energy out again, which, assuming incident radiation remains constant, will happen when the Earth starts irradiating more energy (which is effectively the same statement as saying "the temperature will rise"). The global warming theory is that if we increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect will be increased, we will once again shift our equilibrium position and the Earth will have to heat up again (assuming all other things stay constant).
This is the theory and it would be pretty hard to dispute. People in this thread are now looking at data and trying to see if it fits with the theory. Whether or not (and how much) the Earth will get warmer is hard to predict because of other effects such as feedback mechanisms, variation in solar output, variation in Earth's orbit amongst a range of other factors, some of which are cyclical and others which may not be. - I've unfortunately got to run off and leave my post without a conclusion but I hope it makes sense so far
I'm pretty sure my internet readings make me superior to a university grad student of physics
> The Yell wrote:
> Didn't you mention the albedo of sea ice in your post? Where do you think the sea ice is at, the poles, or off the coast of Kenya?
Nope. I never mentioned Sea ice once. I only mentioned Glacial Ice.
@Einstein. Your still not grasping the difference between Sea ice, Ice shelves, and Ice Sheets.
"This is the theory and it would be pretty hard to dispute."
Nobody's disputing that it'd be accurate if the earth was a simple system in a lab that small minds could understand all the workings of.
But it's not. And anyone who thinks such an overly-simplistic understanding is "hard to dispute" is a hack.
Wait Kemp, are you saying that the science works? All I needed to do was reference SD? That was easier than trying to find the science papers...
Also yes i know I was talking about other things too, but I did start at "the science says it works" by which I meant what SD is talking about, though I prehaps wasn't clear... It is good to see you agree, that the science of man made global warming is correct ('Greenhouse gasses' effect the temperature of the earth.)
...? Are you retarded?
The science that CO2 can trap heat in a can works. The earth is not a can. There's no parallel. This was my point. It was obvious. It just wasn't obvious enough for you.
Ahh so you are still denying science... excellent, as you were....
I'll take that as a "yes."
Proof of something happening in box or a can with only nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide is not proof of it happening on a planet, with alllllll kinds of other substances and systems reacting.
I'd go on, but you're either trolling or believably stupid. The irony of you making appeals to science while raping it is obviously lost on you.
Did you check my link Wornstrum?
Your ignorance would be able to be seen from distant planets Kemp...
Kemp has a point actually.
Cities produce carbon 'bubbles' with thicker amounts of carbon ppm, where rain forests and plankton regions have 'oxygen blooms'.
Other regional differences happen as well near volcanoes, deserts and the likes.
Then atmospheric differences from a variety of sources as well including humidity, temperature, night/day, jet stream, la nina and counterpart, and clouds.
So honestly he had the better point... just less skill in speaking of it.
the reason you don't boil water in an oven is the oven would heat the water by heating all the air around the water much hotter than the boiling point of water. It's much faster to put the pot on the stovetop and heat the pot--the pot transmits the heat right to the water more efficiently than surrounding air.
it is ridiculous to say the upper levels of the earth's oceans are being heated by the air above them. heard the one about boiling ice water? You know how hot you'd have to get the sky, first? So no, NO thermal energy gets trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas pollution, and is then transferred ( underwear:???:profit) to water.
Either the same solar radiation that heats the air passes through into the sea and heats that at the same rate --most unlikely since air would heat faster than the sea- pot of water in the oven --
or
if the sea and sky heat at roughly the same rate -- the earth is heating up from the inside out, and the sea is heating the air above it. Pollution, nuthin, you're talking more energy than we generate industrially since, ever.
You_Fool,
You're entirely wrong and you know it. Hypothesizing and testing to confirm that increasing carbon dioxide in a carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and dioxide mix increases energy retention in a box does not, to any extent, magically prove it has such a simple effect on earth.
This presumption first ignores that it's a matter of comparison. Not all retained EMR would have been reflected away from earth otherwise.
Then this presumption ignores that there are systems on earth which promote balance. If more EMR trapped increases heat, increased heat vaporizes more water, more vaporized water forms more clouds, more clouds reflect more EMR and decreases heat. Your proof-in-a-box-proves-things-on-earth claim completely ignores complex systems like this on earth.
Maybe you're right. Maybe increased carbon dioxide will cause a magical heat explosion. But any claim that a test in a box proves anything about earth is ridiculously ignorant and unscientific. The substances and systems in a box are drastically different than those of earth. Duh.
Einstein,
I made the simple point just fine. Others' lack of reading comprehension of ignorance of basic scientific principles is not my problem. I don't care if a first-grade reading level is appropriate, I'm not going to go that low.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Global Warming (by man) is a LIE!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.