Global Warming: For Experts Only
- Thread starter julianVGS
- Start date
Not much point in linking vids like Don "Denier" Easterbrook's when the interweb is chock full of reasons why, how, and where his claims are factually incorrect and have been thoroughly debunked.
He's a conspiracist.
He claims everyone, including the whole of science is out of step, except him.
This Keith Strong is an all over the map expert. Here he weighs in Trump's medical condition.
https://twitter.com/drkstrong?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Shocking
https://twitter.com/drkstrong?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Shocking
"Effects" [of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions] don't last for hundreds of years. that's a major mistake assumed in early IPCC reports! In fact the effect of adding additional CO2 diminishes with CO2 concentration and approaches a limit near 600 ppm, i.e., 1200 ppm has virtually the same effect on radiative warming as does 600 ppm. The relation ship is exponential (logarithmic in other words); not linear! There is an unmeasurable effect of Anthro CO2, and if Anthro emissions stopped tomorrow it would still be unmeasurable after 1 hour, 30 days or 30 years. Any effect from Anthro CO2 must be estimated by calculation (it can't be measured directly) and is found to be very small. That is what the latest work is telling us. Half life only applies to large numbers of molecules. It is not defined for individual molecules. whether it is 5 years or 30, it is NOT hundreds of years as originally assumed. (We can measure total CO2 concentration at any one location just fine, it varies both by location and time. The problem is the natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 is three orders of magnitude greater than the estimated anthro emission, so unless both the natural sourcing and sinking are held exactly equal and constant (they are no where near constant and the time varying difference overwhelms estimates of anthro CO2 contribution.) we cannot observe anthro CO2 contribution directly. The anthro contribution is estmated from fossil fuel consumption.
"what you are... say[ing] [is] the extraordinary steep and profound rise in global temperature has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions "
No. I am saying the rise in temperature has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions. We are most likely near a cyclic maximum. That is what the data is telling us. Note that I am not saying anything at all with regard to whether man's activities in general contributing to warming. I am only saying man's emission of CO2 is contributing a negligible amount to warming. That's it period. I'm not saying anything else. I am Not using the "words extraordinarly steep and profound" .
"the only thing it can be, as there is nothing else that to account for it"
This is precisely the argument used by a few theologians, but mostly poorly educated followers of this religion or that, to "prove" the existence of God. And you know what we both think about that argument. So don't use it anymore. It's ridiculous.
Stu, CO2 is going up because mean temperature is rising . Atmospheric CO2 concentyration is strongly correlated with temperature. Temperature is the independent variable, CO2 the dependent. Hansen had this backwards. A beginners mistake. I attribute this to Hansen having been an administrator and putting to much trust in young enthusiastic, but inexperienced, scientists in his lab at GISS. And now Hansen has committed the one unforgivable sin any scientist can commit. He's become emotionally involved, and his objectivity has gone out the window.
Last edited:
In response to someone else, DTB2 posted this informative chart.
That's correct. And thank you for posting it. The last I heard the antarctic region is part of the "Globe".Sorry bud,
Last edited:
Sorry bud,
What do you mean "Sorry bud" ? I was right. We were talking about polar bears. They live in the Arctic. And Antarctic ice is mostly on land, which isn't doing as well. In fact the sea ice there is partially due to melting of the land ice. Huge sections of the ice shelf are breaking off.
As far as ice around the world? It's melting. Because of this......
Perhaps piehole doesn't understand that ice melts as it get's warmer, but I assume that you do.
Last edited:
Wow, you are going full-on climate denying machine talking points now aren't you? What's the matter, your bosses giving you grief?
Let's look at some of piehole's bullshit from above...
"There is an unmeasurable effect of Anthro CO2"
This is simply wrong. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Continuing to ignore the facts doesn't make them go away.
We can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.
"There is an unmeasurable effect of Anthro CO2"
This is simply wrong. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Continuing to ignore the facts doesn't make them go away.
We can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.
Last edited:
Some more piehole. Despite being surrounded by some impressive verbage, statements like this simply aren't credible.
"Stu, CO2 is going up because mean temperature is rising"
To say that the CO2 increase is due to temp rise is simply absurd.
Of course, some think tank operatives would also say just that.
"Stu, CO2 is going up because mean temperature is rising"
To say that the CO2 increase is due to temp rise is simply absurd.
Of course, some think tank operatives would also say just that.