Is news coverage of stories global?
-
Here's a nice chart... http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/RadiationSpectrumEmittedFromSun.html[^] The curve on the left is the radiation coming in from the sun, mostly in the visible and near-infrared range. Light, not heat. The curve on the right is what the earth is sending back out, notably WAY over in the infrared spectrum. For reference, this chart[^] from Wikipedia shows just the sun's incoming radiation, along with where infrared starts. Note that most of the absorption is actually from water vapor, but we're discussing CO2 here... CO2's absorption is centered on a relatively narrow band way over in the far-infrared range... Not much comes in from the sun at this wavelength, but a significant amount radiated by the earth. So basically, most of the radiation from the sun comes right in, while a lot of the radiation from the earth is trapped by the atmosphere. That's the greenhouse effect, and that's why more CO2 heats us up instead of cooling us down.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Now I am betting before even looking at the graph you linked to that it is the one with an arbitrary y axis scale... Yep. Bingo. If the y axis scale was set then this graph implies te earth emmits the same energy as the sun. Its a qualitative rather than a quantitative representation, commonly used, but misleading. For graphs with a y axis look at this form wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blackbody-lg.png[^] And another link from wiki that shows the solar radiation at top of atmosphere and at sea level. You can see the energy absorbed by GH gasses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png[^] Oh, and really do check out Planks law. Here is a calculator I found: http://www.fing.edu.uy/if/mirror/TEST/testhome/javaapplets/planckRadiation/blackbody.html[^] Here are the absobtion bands for CO2 to use in the calculation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_absorption[^] This link includes another graph showing the solar energy at TOA and at the surface also showing energy absorbed by CO2. So you can now calculate the difference in energy absorbed by CO2 emmitted by the earth and by the sun. --edit-- Oh, and by the way, I studied Planks law at college as part of thermodynamics. I wont claim to be an expert in GW though, unlike the guy with the Environmental Science degree.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Hold up a second. You have been throwing around some numbers about how we have increased CO2 in the air already. You also say it helps crops. But why hasn't this been evident all over the place then? If us dumping that much CO2 has not had any real impact on the environment, then how could it help crops? What, it selectively helps plants but doesn't do anything else? What levels of CO2 are we talking about? And has anyone bothered looking to see how much that level will change things? You can't have your cake and eat it too, this is pretty much a universal truth. If this stuff does one thing positively, I want to see what the side-effects are.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
But why hasn't this been evident all over the place then?
Here is some evidence. For more than 20 years forest ecologist Geoffrey Parker has tracked the growth of 55 stands of mixed hardwood forest plots in Maryland. The plots range in size, and some are as large as 2 acres. Parker's research is based at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 26 miles east of the nation's capital. Parker's tree censuses have revealed that the forest is packing on weight at a much faster rate than expected. He and Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute postdoctoral fellow Sean McMahon discovered that, on average, the forest is growing an additional 2 tons per acre annually. That is the equivalent of a tree with a diameter of 2 feet sprouting up over a year. [^] As for crops, perhaps the effect has been hidden by the increase in use of fertilizers. After all, global crop yields have gone up by a huge amount since the 50's. However, and I have already told you this, CO2 has been used in greenhouses for a long time in order to increase crop yields.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If us dumping that much CO2 has not had any real impact on the environment, then how could it help crops?
Go back and read again what I have written. You will see that I state that there is evidence of increased plant growth.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
What, it selectively helps plants but doesn't do anything else?
Is that so surprising to you?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
What levels of CO2 are we talking about?
Well, the Canadian government talks about 1300 ppm as an optimum for plant growth. I am talking about curent CO2 levels, so thats 380 ppm, abd the effect they have already had on forest growth.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And has anyone bothered looking to see how much that level will change things?
Yes. Many studies have ben done.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too, this is pretty much a universal truth
What, like f=ma, or s = u
-
Ah such well-founded debate. Thank you for that...gave me a little chuckle this morning! Did I say anything about how you make your money? Umm...no...I was talking about educational background. As in, what is your formal training in? And you're question about how much "meteorology" have I studied shows just how little you understand what "environmental science" is or this debate. Meteorology is the study of weather. From Wikipedia: "Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology)." Note the "in contrast with climatology". We're talking climate not weather. And, you can bet that anyone with an environmental anything degree has had the basics of the greenhouse effect and the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]." EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale. And, yeah, I'm "trained" to "test" theories using scientific techniques. But to begin to "test" a theory, you first have to understand it, which you clearly do not. And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:39 PM
Ohm and by the way I studied black body radiation and Planks law as part of thermodynamics so, according to your criteria that makes me an expert on GW theory. In fact more of an expert than an environmentalist I would say.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
OK, maybee my response was bit strong, but it anouys the heck out of me when peoplel say 'I am quallified and therefore everythign you say is wrong'. Its so arrogant, and wrong. There is every reason why anyone can make a study of GW and on looking at the evidence decide for themselves. Hey, its not like the climate system is understood anyway, so even the 'experts' dont know a lot more than the rest of us. And, and for me this is the kicker, his qualificaiton is in Environmental Science. Tell me, I wonder if this course has a slight vias? Also, since it is to do with biology and ecosystems I wonder just how much meterology there is in it, which is why I asked him. Of course he stated it isnt necessary to study weather to uunderstand climate. You think he is an expert? I think is credibility is suspect. Very suspect. The fat ge doest even understamd the basics of GW teory says as much. Tell me, how can the troposphere HEAT the earths surface if it isnt HOTTER? And as for the cold periods and regions warming the most this is commin knowledge and I proved it by linkuing to a quote from Nature. Although pur so called expert looked at the site the quote as on and stated that it wasnt from Nature so he didnt even bother to look before attacking me and accusing me of lying. Anyway, back to black bodies on your other post.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Hey, its not like the climate system is understood anyway, so even the 'experts' dont know a lot more than the rest of us.
They know what they know, and they know what they don't know. They understand the building blocks of the theories, which is more than I can say about either of us.
fat_boy wrote:
And, and for me this is the kicker, his qualificaiton is in Environmental Science.
Seems pretty relevant to me.
fat_boy wrote:
Tell me, I wonder if this course has a slight vias?
Bias? You think a scientific field of study is a political agenda? I can't even begin to explain how stupid that is. I'm going to check out your other post, and I certainly hope it's more intelligent than this one...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Now I am betting before even looking at the graph you linked to that it is the one with an arbitrary y axis scale... Yep. Bingo. If the y axis scale was set then this graph implies te earth emmits the same energy as the sun. Its a qualitative rather than a quantitative representation, commonly used, but misleading. For graphs with a y axis look at this form wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blackbody-lg.png[^] And another link from wiki that shows the solar radiation at top of atmosphere and at sea level. You can see the energy absorbed by GH gasses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png[^] Oh, and really do check out Planks law. Here is a calculator I found: http://www.fing.edu.uy/if/mirror/TEST/testhome/javaapplets/planckRadiation/blackbody.html[^] Here are the absobtion bands for CO2 to use in the calculation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_absorption[^] This link includes another graph showing the solar energy at TOA and at the surface also showing energy absorbed by CO2. So you can now calculate the difference in energy absorbed by CO2 emmitted by the earth and by the sun. --edit-- Oh, and by the way, I studied Planks law at college as part of thermodynamics. I wont claim to be an expert in GW though, unlike the guy with the Environmental Science degree.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Yep. Bingo. If the y axis scale was set then this graph implies te earth emmits the same energy as the sun.
No, the earth emits about as much energy as IT RECEIVES from the sun. This is basic conservation of energy. If the earth is going to remain at a relatively constant temperature, then the energy going in and the energy going out must be about equal.
fat_boy wrote:
And another link from wiki that shows the solar radiation at top of atmosphere and at sea level. You can see the energy absorbed by GH gasses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar\_Spectrum.png\[^\]
Yes, I know, that's one of the other graphs I looked at... Thought I had included that one in my post, but I guess not. Note that only a tiny amount is absorbed by CO2 coming down, because very little of the incoming radiation is of the right wavelength for CO2 to catch. The energy going back OUT (Radiated from the earth) is more concentrated in CO2's absorption band, so a large amount is blocked.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
fat_boy wrote:
Hey, its not like the climate system is understood anyway, so even the 'experts' dont know a lot more than the rest of us.
They know what they know, and they know what they don't know. They understand the building blocks of the theories, which is more than I can say about either of us.
fat_boy wrote:
And, and for me this is the kicker, his qualificaiton is in Environmental Science.
Seems pretty relevant to me.
fat_boy wrote:
Tell me, I wonder if this course has a slight vias?
Bias? You think a scientific field of study is a political agenda? I can't even begin to explain how stupid that is. I'm going to check out your other post, and I certainly hope it's more intelligent than this one...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
They know what they know, and they know what they don't know.
4/5ths of factors afecting climate have a "very low level of scientific understanding" to quote an IPCC graph. I would provide a link to it on their website but they have recently moved a lot of stuff around and broken it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They understand the building blocks of the theories, which is more than I can say about either of us.
Well, the fundamentals of GW theory are not hard to understand. I just believe they have completely overloofed solar IR, as you will no doubt agree with if you looked at the informaiton I gave you earlier. As for our friend with the environmental qualification you yourself replied saying that you thought he was wrong that only qualified people are capable fo discussing a subject. I agree with you, and I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics. And really, this ia what GW is all about. Heat. And its transfer.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You think a scientific field of study is a political agenda?
Yes. AGW is nothing but a political agenda. Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed. That might be a little hard for you to swallow, and I am not a right wing loonie, but I do seriously believe that the damning of CO2 was carried out entirely to attack western consumption and bring about a redistribution of wealth on a global scale through carbon taxation. In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data. Anyway, back to education being pliticised... OK, lets take it from another angle. The UK government wanted to show Al Gores An Inconvienient Truth in all schools. In fact, in some private schools it was being shown as part of I believe three different courses. The government was taken to court by a lorry driver (admittedly funded by a group). Al Gores film was hence judged to contain 9 seriou
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They know what they know, and they know what they don't know.
4/5ths of factors afecting climate have a "very low level of scientific understanding" to quote an IPCC graph. I would provide a link to it on their website but they have recently moved a lot of stuff around and broken it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They understand the building blocks of the theories, which is more than I can say about either of us.
Well, the fundamentals of GW theory are not hard to understand. I just believe they have completely overloofed solar IR, as you will no doubt agree with if you looked at the informaiton I gave you earlier. As for our friend with the environmental qualification you yourself replied saying that you thought he was wrong that only qualified people are capable fo discussing a subject. I agree with you, and I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics. And really, this ia what GW is all about. Heat. And its transfer.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You think a scientific field of study is a political agenda?
Yes. AGW is nothing but a political agenda. Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed. That might be a little hard for you to swallow, and I am not a right wing loonie, but I do seriously believe that the damning of CO2 was carried out entirely to attack western consumption and bring about a redistribution of wealth on a global scale through carbon taxation. In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data. Anyway, back to education being pliticised... OK, lets take it from another angle. The UK government wanted to show Al Gores An Inconvienient Truth in all schools. In fact, in some private schools it was being shown as part of I believe three different courses. The government was taken to court by a lorry driver (admittedly funded by a group). Al Gores film was hence judged to contain 9 seriou
fat_boy wrote:
Well, the fundamentals of GW theory are not hard to understand. I just believe they have completely overloofed solar IR, as you will no doubt agree with if you looked at the informaiton I gave you earlier.
Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.
fat_boy wrote:
Yes. AGW is nothing but a political agenda. Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed. That might be a little hard for you to swallow, and I am not a right wing loonie, but I do seriously believe that the damning of CO2 was carried out entirely to attack western consumption and bring about a redistribution of wealth on a global scale through carbon taxation.
No. The people ADVOCATING a certain theory may have political viewpoints, but science is science. I don't care whether you agree with it, but IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I can see you are a firm AGW belilever and will not be shaken. You will interpret everything I write according you your belief and will not look ay one sinlge link I provide to back up my claims. You do not want to be aware that the ex Clmate chief, Phil Jones called the recent warming 'stastically insignificant1 and that there has been no significanty warming since 1995 and that the scientific debate is far from over. That Bob Waton of DEFRA states that there is no way to explain the recent warming and therefore it must be due to man made CO2. You do not want to know that GISS and NCDC use 90% less stations today to prepare their data sets than they did in 1980 depite GW being spposedly the most important issue in the history of mankind. You do not watn to know that the IPCC has used non peer reviewed worl for its 4th AR and intentionally lied about glacier shrinkage in order to gain attention, and thus funding in exactly the samer way the UN did with aids. You will ignore all this and continue to insult me because it runs counter to your belief system. You needent bother to respond to this, I am not going to discuss GW with someone so intentionaly blinkered.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You do not want to be aware that the ex Clmate chief, Phil Jones called the recent warming 'stastically insignificant1 and that there has been no significanty warming since 1995 and that the scientific debate is far from over.
You know what gets me, this gets quoted a lot. Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!
fat_boy wrote:
You will ignore all this and continue to insult me because it runs counter to your belief system.
and you insulted someone that knew a lot more than you did about the subject when you realized you couldn't beat him. The kettle called, it wants you to look in a mirror.
-
fat_boy wrote:
You do not want to be aware that the ex Clmate chief, Phil Jones called the recent warming 'stastically insignificant1 and that there has been no significanty warming since 1995 and that the scientific debate is far from over.
You know what gets me, this gets quoted a lot. Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!
fat_boy wrote:
You will ignore all this and continue to insult me because it runs counter to your belief system.
and you insulted someone that knew a lot more than you did about the subject when you realized you couldn't beat him. The kettle called, it wants you to look in a mirror.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!
So true... Look! The Dow Jones has risen about 60% since early March! We must be in a huge economic boom! Oh wait, it's fallen almost 4000 points since October of '07! We're all doomed! But it's more than ten times what it was in 1980! Woohoo!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ohm and by the way I studied black body radiation and Planks law as part of thermodynamics so, according to your criteria that makes me an expert on GW theory. In fact more of an expert than an environmentalist I would say.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Wow, you totally missed my point...and apparently haven't been listening to what I've been saying. To be clear: I never actually said I believed in GW. Nobody's convinced me yet that the current "trend" is a climatic change. And as far as the carbon graphs that have been shown...such as in An Inconvenient Truth, I'd say they're a little blown out of proportion...no, wait, I've already said that in here... Sure, carbon has been increased on an exponential scale since the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure the same thing could have been said regarding an increase in iron weaponry during the iron age. But to assume that that trend is going to continue seems a little ridiculous to me. And tell me where I claimed to be an expert on global warming. This is what I said...
William Winner wrote:
I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it.
Hmm...what else did I say...oh yeah, that the fact that I took classes in computer science doesn't make me an expert on computer science nor does it qualify me to claim to understand everything about it...and you seem to feel you know everything there is to know about GW because you took a thermodynamics course with a professor who probably also didn't believe in GW. Seriously...how are you able to twist what I've said so completely? Are you not able to comprehend what I've said, or do you just not read it? I say, taking a course on a subject doesn't make me an expert and you respond with
fat_boy wrote:
I studied black body radiation and Planks law as part of thermodynamics so, according to your criteria that makes me an expert on GW theory.
I say, "I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied." and you respond with
fat_boy wrote:
SO just because I earn most of my cash by engineering software I am not entitled to discuss anything else? So I also earn cash on stock, does that make me a f***ing financial expert? OK, we also get paid a bit in the band for playing, mostly beer,
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They know what they know, and they know what they don't know.
4/5ths of factors afecting climate have a "very low level of scientific understanding" to quote an IPCC graph. I would provide a link to it on their website but they have recently moved a lot of stuff around and broken it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They understand the building blocks of the theories, which is more than I can say about either of us.
Well, the fundamentals of GW theory are not hard to understand. I just believe they have completely overloofed solar IR, as you will no doubt agree with if you looked at the informaiton I gave you earlier. As for our friend with the environmental qualification you yourself replied saying that you thought he was wrong that only qualified people are capable fo discussing a subject. I agree with you, and I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics. And really, this ia what GW is all about. Heat. And its transfer.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You think a scientific field of study is a political agenda?
Yes. AGW is nothing but a political agenda. Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed. That might be a little hard for you to swallow, and I am not a right wing loonie, but I do seriously believe that the damning of CO2 was carried out entirely to attack western consumption and bring about a redistribution of wealth on a global scale through carbon taxation. In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data. Anyway, back to education being pliticised... OK, lets take it from another angle. The UK government wanted to show Al Gores An Inconvienient Truth in all schools. In fact, in some private schools it was being shown as part of I believe three different courses. The government was taken to court by a lorry driver (admittedly funded by a group). Al Gores film was hence judged to contain 9 seriou
fat_boy wrote:
I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics.
You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like. The Environmental Biology Bachelor's at my school was actually a double major in Environmental Science and Biology. And when did I claim to be an expert on thermodynamics? Oh, that's right, I didn't take a course on it, so I can't be an expert on it like you. Seriously...do you see me making statements for or against GW or trying to pass myself off as an expert?
fat_boy wrote:
Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed.
Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data.
Oh my god...stop the presses...a politician politicized science! How could that possibly be?!?! I don't think that's ever happened in the history of the world! Why don't you back up your claims... Show me in a scientific paper or text where it says "The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface." Why don't you start there. You can make all of the claims you want, but back them up. Here's an interesting statement: "Within the region where radiative effects are important, the presentation of
-
fat_boy wrote:
Well, the fundamentals of GW theory are not hard to understand. I just believe they have completely overloofed solar IR, as you will no doubt agree with if you looked at the informaiton I gave you earlier.
Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.
fat_boy wrote:
Yes. AGW is nothing but a political agenda. Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed. That might be a little hard for you to swallow, and I am not a right wing loonie, but I do seriously believe that the damning of CO2 was carried out entirely to attack western consumption and bring about a redistribution of wealth on a global scale through carbon taxation.
No. The people ADVOCATING a certain theory may have political viewpoints, but science is science. I don't care whether you agree with it, but IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.
Minor, but minor is important. Afgter all CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere and that is aparently a big issue. I'll get back to you with more on solar IR later when I have more time.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science
Thank god you said that. At least you have a scientific understanding. OK, so to the evidence. 1) Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2. 2) Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming. 3) A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends. 4) South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player. So, is the theory of AGW proved or not? In my book it is disproved. Do you agree?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
You do not want to be aware that the ex Clmate chief, Phil Jones called the recent warming 'stastically insignificant1 and that there has been no significanty warming since 1995 and that the scientific debate is far from over.
You know what gets me, this gets quoted a lot. Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!
fat_boy wrote:
You will ignore all this and continue to insult me because it runs counter to your belief system.
and you insulted someone that knew a lot more than you did about the subject when you realized you couldn't beat him. The kettle called, it wants you to look in a mirror.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You know what gets me, this gets quoted a lot. Funny thing about statistics. If I grab the ones I want, from where I want, I can support any theory. What about the stats for warming over the course of 20 years? Whoops, How about 16 years? Wait, there was warming if we use 16 years... 15 years!
Yes ther WAS warming between the 1970a and 2000 (with the notable exception of the south pole) but thisAGW advocate and ex head of the CRU who has spent decades stufying climate science has now stated that it is indifferent to the previous three warmings when CO2 cant have been a factor. Which bit dont you understand? Do you know who Phil Jones is and what CRU do and their involvement with the IPCC?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
and you insulted someone that knew a lot more than you did about the subject when you realized you couldn't beat him. The kettle called, it wants you to look in a mirror.
Oh really? I have studied black body radiation and themrodynamics, what pissed me off is the automatic assumption he made that I dont know what I am talking about all because HE has an environmental qualification. Its arrogant superiority and prejudice, and that grips my shit evey time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics.
You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like. The Environmental Biology Bachelor's at my school was actually a double major in Environmental Science and Biology. And when did I claim to be an expert on thermodynamics? Oh, that's right, I didn't take a course on it, so I can't be an expert on it like you. Seriously...do you see me making statements for or against GW or trying to pass myself off as an expert?
fat_boy wrote:
Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed.
Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data.
Oh my god...stop the presses...a politician politicized science! How could that possibly be?!?! I don't think that's ever happened in the history of the world! Why don't you back up your claims... Show me in a scientific paper or text where it says "The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface." Why don't you start there. You can make all of the claims you want, but back them up. Here's an interesting statement: "Within the region where radiative effects are important, the presentation of
William Winner wrote:
You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like
Ditto. Did your cover black bodies, Planks law and Thermodynamics?
William Winner wrote:
Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.
Good.
William Winner wrote:
"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm.
I'll provide plenty of suport for my claim. In fact I heard yet again this morning on the news a scientist stating that the poles are early indicators of GW. I already provided proof regading the troposphere from Wiki. I am sure you can realise that when it comes to radiation energy transfer takes place from a hotter body to a cooler one, not the other way round. This is pretty basic stuff.
William Winner wrote:
Hmm...did you catch that..."simultaneously cooling the atmosphere". Of course that's a report to the IPCC, so you'll ignore it from the start regardless of the science behind it.
Oh dont be such a tool. Of course heat is radiated in all directions , and the part of that that goes to space provides a cooling effect.
William Winner wrote:
So, the presence of more people and more industrialization in the northern hemisphere won't play as much of a role on the southern pole as the northern.
Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Wow, you totally missed my point...and apparently haven't been listening to what I've been saying. To be clear: I never actually said I believed in GW. Nobody's convinced me yet that the current "trend" is a climatic change. And as far as the carbon graphs that have been shown...such as in An Inconvenient Truth, I'd say they're a little blown out of proportion...no, wait, I've already said that in here... Sure, carbon has been increased on an exponential scale since the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure the same thing could have been said regarding an increase in iron weaponry during the iron age. But to assume that that trend is going to continue seems a little ridiculous to me. And tell me where I claimed to be an expert on global warming. This is what I said...
William Winner wrote:
I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it.
Hmm...what else did I say...oh yeah, that the fact that I took classes in computer science doesn't make me an expert on computer science nor does it qualify me to claim to understand everything about it...and you seem to feel you know everything there is to know about GW because you took a thermodynamics course with a professor who probably also didn't believe in GW. Seriously...how are you able to twist what I've said so completely? Are you not able to comprehend what I've said, or do you just not read it? I say, taking a course on a subject doesn't make me an expert and you respond with
fat_boy wrote:
I studied black body radiation and Planks law as part of thermodynamics so, according to your criteria that makes me an expert on GW theory.
I say, "I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied." and you respond with
fat_boy wrote:
SO just because I earn most of my cash by engineering software I am not entitled to discuss anything else? So I also earn cash on stock, does that make me a f***ing financial expert? OK, we also get paid a bit in the band for playing, mostly beer,
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.
Minor, but minor is important. Afgter all CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere and that is aparently a big issue. I'll get back to you with more on solar IR later when I have more time.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science
Thank god you said that. At least you have a scientific understanding. OK, so to the evidence. 1) Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2. 2) Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming. 3) A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends. 4) South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player. So, is the theory of AGW proved or not? In my book it is disproved. Do you agree?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
- Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2.
Again, you're looking at the change since an arbitrary date. The economy has gone up since last fall, but it's gone down since three years ago, but it's gone way up since ten years ago... All three statements are true, but which one gives the overall trend?
fat_boy wrote:
- Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming.
Yet again... Looking at one decade, when this is a LONG term effect. The climate fluctuates in the short term, so any gains or losses could be overshadowed by these cyclical changes. We're not expecting a ten-degree shift, but even a 1 degree change could greatly affect things.
fat_boy wrote:
- A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends.
After agreeing that we're looking at facts instead of opinions, you've gone right back to quoting ONE man, known for being an "advocate." Look at overall scientific consensus, not single people. I could start quoting people to support the AGW theory, but I don't, because it's irrelevant what one person thinks.
fat_boy wrote:
- South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player.
As William said in the other post, the two hemispheres are somewhat divided by the circulation patterns. The currents push CO2 in each hemisphere away from the equator toward the pole. Since there's MUCH more CO2 production in the northern hemisphere (More population, more industry, less oceans to absorb it), the north pole would be affected much more than the south pole. The arctic ic
-
William Winner wrote:
You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like
Ditto. Did your cover black bodies, Planks law and Thermodynamics?
William Winner wrote:
Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.
Good.
William Winner wrote:
"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm.
I'll provide plenty of suport for my claim. In fact I heard yet again this morning on the news a scientist stating that the poles are early indicators of GW. I already provided proof regading the troposphere from Wiki. I am sure you can realise that when it comes to radiation energy transfer takes place from a hotter body to a cooler one, not the other way round. This is pretty basic stuff.
William Winner wrote:
Hmm...did you catch that..."simultaneously cooling the atmosphere". Of course that's a report to the IPCC, so you'll ignore it from the start regardless of the science behind it.
Oh dont be such a tool. Of course heat is radiated in all directions , and the part of that that goes to space provides a cooling effect.
William Winner wrote:
So, the presence of more people and more industrialization in the northern hemisphere won't play as much of a role on the southern pole as the northern.
Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Now you are making up pet theories. CO2 is distributed almost evenly in the atmopshere.
NASA disagrees with you. http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
OK, so I have already provided the Wiki link that states that it is the troposphere that heats first and then heats the surface by radiation. Here is another link: Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures[^] So, as you now see, the troposphere should, according to basic theory, thats GH gas theory, warm faster than the the surface. Now for polar warming being accelerated: The joint effect of the ice-albedo and dynamical greenhouse-plus feedbacks acts to amplify the high latitude surface warming [^] The enhancement (reduction) of local feedbacks in high (low) latitudes in response to the non-local dynamic feedback further strengthens the polar amplification of the surface warming.[^] Polar Amplification[^] (This is the website run by an emplotyee of Hansen of GISS, so its about as from the horses mouth as you can get. Meteorologists predict greater temperature change in the polar regions than near the equator.[^] So, slam dunk, two points to me, zero to you, point proved, QED, etc etc etc. Next argument please!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, I did at first disregard solar IR, but then I did some research, and learned that it's relatively minor, compared to the other factors involved.
Minor, but minor is important. Afgter all CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere and that is aparently a big issue. I'll get back to you with more on solar IR later when I have more time.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
IF the facts support AGW, then AGW is correct. If the facts oppose AGW, then AGW is wrong. Facts are all that matter. You need to learn to separate the people from the science
Thank god you said that. At least you have a scientific understanding. OK, so to the evidence. 1) Post war cooling while CO2 goes up. OK, cold be related to an increase in SO2 post war that got cleaned up in the 70s. But this indicates that CO2 is not as powerfull a driver as SO2. 2) Falt to cooling for tha last decade. The temperatures ought to be rising if CO2 is causing significant warming. 3) A statement by the AGW proponent Phil Fones, who as recent head of CRU was a AGW advocate and heavilly involved in the science now says that the recent warnming is stastically indifferent to the last four warming periods over the last 150 years. In those other three CO2 cant have ben a factor so the cause is vey likely something else. ie it is very UNLIKELEY that man made CO2 has ben responsible for the last of these identical trends. 4) South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player. So, is the theory of AGW proved or not? In my book it is disproved. Do you agree?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
- South pole cooling. GW theory states that the poles will warm first and fastest and yet only obe is warming. And I have shown you evidence, both qualitative and quantitative that the north pole was as warm in the 1930s when CO2 cant have been a player.
Did you miss the article in Nature that I sent you? The one published after the one you tried to quote saying that there was cooling in Antarctica? Well, here it is again: Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year[^] So you can quit hawking that line.
-
Never said I was an expert, but I can look at observable data and see it doesnt fit the theory. And that, my friend, is basic science.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ok...well, you go ahead and use "basic" scientific principles to an extremely complex and not well understood subject. Since you took an upper-level physics class, I'm sure you are familiar with the Theory of General Relativity...you know the one by Einstein. And I'm sure that you are also aware of the fact that his theory breaks down at the Quantum scale. So, anyone that looks at the observable quantum data would then have to presume that Einstein's theory is incorrect. The problem I have is that you take data and interpret it as if you are an expert on these fields. The rest of us use interpretations put out by highly-qualified "experts" that have studied this intensely. Once again, let's start at the beginning. When I was in college, when we wrote a paper, we had to support our use of any source by proving their credibility on the subject. So, if we used a paper from Science, we had to show why that author was qualified to say what they did. So, once again, what are your qualifications? You say you took a class on Thermodynamics, eh? What other courses in physics have you taken and did you pass them? Did you get all C's? In my Discrete Structures course, there were a lot of people that were getting 20's and 30's on the test, but they can still say that they took it. Of course, there's no way for us to verify anything you say, but that's the way it goes. You're claiming to have looked at data and put it through scientific analysis to come up with your conclusions.
fat_boy wrote:
This is raw unadjusted data. I validated one temperature series, the central England one.
fat_boy wrote:
I found an online Plank law calculator. You can enter the temperature of th eblack body, the wavelength range, and calculate the energy produced. If you do the same you will see what I mean.
fat_boy wrote:
but I can look at observable data and see it doesn't fit the theory.
So, if you want to use your observations, tell us, what are your qualifications?
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar\_Spectrum.png\[^\]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar%5C_Spectrum.png%5C%5B%5E%5C%5D){kind=link}