http://www.petitionproject.or...
Is man made global warming a farce dreamed-up by left wingers to facilitate wealth redistribution from western countries to Africa, in particular?
Tee Quake
2012/07/18 22:29:20
|
|
|||||
|
30 votes
|
|
73% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
17% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
10% | |||
Yes Global warming caused by man made greenhouse gases is so infinitesimal that it has essentially no influence on the earth's temperatures
Top Opinion
-
Philo-OOO For 3 weeks! 2012/07/19 19:41:05
Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, and Methane, or CH4, each have different infrared spectra. Satellites recording the infrared spectra of our planet's atmosphere can tell how much infrared energy each gas in our atmosphere traps. The fraction of Earth's greenhouse effect from CO2, CH4, and many other gases is therefore directly measurable. These measurements have been taken for more than three decades, now. Please see:
http://www.nature.com/nature/...
Carbon 14 only has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years. It is limited to dates less than about 60,000 years. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Other Radiometric dating methods can go back billions of years. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So said Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, UK.
And I am the man who broke that to the world.
http://www.skepticalscience.c...
I've got THREE THOUSAND pieces of e-mail from those guys. They paint a picture of cronyism, scientific prejudice, manipulation of data, *falsification* of data--why, their crimes would have gotten them thrown out of any university with any honor, had they committed them as students.
I published my first article on the subject two days after the link for the archive appeared in the obscure skeptic blogs. Thirty-five thousand page views later, I bore mention in The Wall Street Journal.
So WHOM DO YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING TO? HUH?!?
Let me share another quote. This one is from Kevin Trenberth, also of Phil Jones' unit:
"We cannot show a warming trend and it is a travesty that we can't."
No, Kevin. The travesty is that you continue to insist that the trend is there when you know d__n well that it isn't.
And in any case: I will not accept anyone's instruction to stand down from my activities. I repudiate any suggestion that I am bringing harm to anyone. If you think that you can bring a case against me for some kind of global harm, SUE ME. That, of course, will entitle me to PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY.
Put your money where your mouth is.
And tel...
I've got THREE THOUSAND pieces of e-mail from those guys. They paint a picture of cronyism, scientific prejudice, manipulation of data, *falsification* of data--why, their crimes would have gotten them thrown out of any university with any honor, had they committed them as students.
I published my first article on the subject two days after the link for the archive appeared in the obscure skeptic blogs. Thirty-five thousand page views later, I bore mention in The Wall Street Journal.
So WHOM DO YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING TO? HUH?!?
Let me share another quote. This one is from Kevin Trenberth, also of Phil Jones' unit:
"We cannot show a warming trend and it is a travesty that we can't."
No, Kevin. The travesty is that you continue to insist that the trend is there when you know d__n well that it isn't.
And in any case: I will not accept anyone's instruction to stand down from my activities. I repudiate any suggestion that I am bringing harm to anyone. If you think that you can bring a case against me for some kind of global harm, SUE ME. That, of course, will entitle me to PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY.
Put your money where your mouth is.
And tell Phil Jones to put HIS money where HIS mouth is.
And Michael Mann, the inventor of the Nature Trick.
And Kevin Trenberth.
And James Hansen at NASA.
I defy you all!
So, not only did Dr. Jones not say that, you made it all up.
That's quite an admission!
And guess what else? He admitted it! Inside of that first twenty-four-hour period, he was forced to admit that the quotes were genuine.
And I've got a copy of Kevin Trenberth's e-mail talking about "travesties."
(One might guess that if one knew that most of global warming happens at night.)
During a period of measured increases in the global mean near surface temperature, net solar irradiance, as measured by satellites carrying dual cavity radiometers, has very slightly decreased.
(Please click to enlarge the graph.)
The green line is the computed long term trend with the first harmonic removed.
The red line is the first harmonic and the linear trend.
IF THE SUN IS SLIGHTLY COOLING, WHY IS THE EARTH WARMING?
Hint, CO2.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisi...
Also note that the reported solar change is too small to explain global warming. For global warming you need about 3 Watts meter squared.
Finally, note that global mean near surface temperature does not contain any significant 11 year cycles, like the solar data shows.
FOR EXTRA CREDIT:
Please explain how the Sun can create more warming at night than in the day. This is what is measured. CO2 does that. Arrhenius predicted that back in 1896.
The Earth has a lot of heat capacity. What is the time constant for long-term temperature changes?
Also, speaking of solar cycles, I couldn't help but notice that your graph two posts above only shows three cycles, conveniently leaving out the 1963-74 cycle, which would have changed your linear term from a downtrend to an uptrend.
EXTRA CREDIT: If the average Earth temperature is increasing for ANY reason, it seems obvious that the warming effect will be relatively greater in the seasonally (or diurnally) colder areas, because at lower temperatures, all heat removal processes (convection, conduction and radiation) are less than they are in the warmer areas.
Perhaps you can explain why this effect should be unique to greenhouse-driven warming?
Somewhere between 30 and 50 years, depending on definitions.
- - - -
"I couldn't help but notice that your graph two posts above only shows three cycles,"
My graph starts when the satellite measurement record starts. Please see:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.ph...
I try to avoid the reconstructions and stick with actual measurements.
- - - -
The colder, high latitude, areas are warming faster, but not for the reason you cite. H20 and CO2 nearly share an important peek in their infrared spectra. CO2 warms more when there is less H20 in the air. Colder air holds less H2O. The scientific term for this process, predicted by Arrhenius in 1896, Is "Polar Amplification." That this process is observed, is a very strong evidence that CO2 is doing the warming.
(Please click on the graph to enlarge it.)
“My graph starts when the satellite measurement record starts.”
Nevertheless, the best (non-satellite) data from 1965-74 (and before) indicate that the trend was rising; Three cycles are not very reliable for establishing a trend, particularly when the Earth may be lagging by 30-50 years, and given the notorious variability in solar activity from one cycle to the next.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
BTW, you have not yet answered my question of what caused the little ice age, if it was not diminished solar irradiance.
Polar amplification is a catchall expression for ANY effect that may accentuate climate change at the poles. You have not yet shown why it should be UNIQUE to CO2-driven warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/in...
"Now correlate that with planetary mean near surface temperature and you will discover that the two are out of synch."
The synch looks pretty good to me.
"
“My graph starts when the satellite measurement record starts.”
Nevertheless, the best (non-satellite) data from 1965-74 (and before) indicate that the trend was rising; Three cycles are not very reliable for establishing a trend, particularly when the Earth may be lagging by 30-50 years, and given the notorious variability in solar activity from one cycle to the next.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
"
Wilson erred when he pasted the data form various satellite missions together. Follow the comments on his publication.
And so far, you haven't corrected anything.
The Indians told Hillary (in not exactly polite diplomatic language) to go to hell when she scolded them about their carbon emissions.
"Even as Clinton expressed optimism about an eventual climate change deal to India's benefit, its minister of environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, told her: "There is simply no case for the pressure that we – who have among the lowest emissions per capita – face to actually reduce emissions."
"And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours," he added.
U.S. officials had expected the discussions to focus more on cooperation in related areas of energy efficiency, green buildings and clean-burning fuels."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The long and the short of it is that even if the climate science you quote is true, it is more an economic and political question.
Meanwhile, the Chinese get richer selling us solar panels and windmills, while they build a new coal-fired power plant every week or two.
Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now:
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Energy, 10th July 2012 11:44 GMT
Americans sweltering in the recent record-breaking heatwave may not believe it - but it seems that our ancestors suffered through much hotter summers in times gone by, several of them within the last 2,000 years.
A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.
A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.
The study...
http://www.nature.com/nclimat...
http://www.petitionproject.or...
(One might guess that if one knew that most of global warming happens at night.)
During a period of measured increases in the global mean near surface temperature, net solar irradiance, as measured by satellites carrying dual cavity radiometers, has very slightly decreased.
(Please click to enlarge the graph.)
The green line is the computed long term trend with the first harmonic removed.
The red line is the first harmonic and the linear trend.
IF THE SUN IS SLIGHTLY COOLING, WHY IS THE EARTH WARMING?
Hint, CO2.