You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from futurecurrents:
Piezoe, my first chart has the water vapor filtered out to better show the other GHG's.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
I looked at the Evans paper. Thanks I see where they subtracted the water emission from the 900 region because it would have been on top of the CFC's and the Nitrogen oxides. They were apparently looking for a difference in flux of these minor greenhouse gases over time (is that your impression too?) I read their justification for leaving out water, and I accept it, but it does coverup the the reality that the flux from these minor gases is totally negligible compared to that from water. But then they wanted to know what was happening with the minor gases over time as a marker of human activity. Incidentally, the big water absorbance bands are up field from these lower energy emissions. Is there no downward emission flux above 2000 cm-1? That's interesting.
Another error I caught in my second post was that I am speaking of those bands in the Evans chart as though they were due to absorbance like the ones in the solar spectrum, but of course they are not, they are emission bands. So unless they were due to resonance absorbance and emission, you would naturally expect the emission band to be shifted toward lower energy from the absorbance bands. I shouldn't have been so cavalier in implying that gases in the evan's spectrum would necessarily have absorbance bands at the same wavelength. But emission an absorption could well overlap. They wouldn't normally be congruent though.
Yes, they were looking at the change over time. They come this conclusion
... an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
Here's an idea about the relative contributions of the GHG's
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[15] from wiki
Water vapor and clouds 36 â 72%
Carbon dioxide 9 â 26%
Methane 4 â 9%
Ozone 3 â 7%
... an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
Here's an idea about the relative contributions of the GHG's
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[15] from wiki
Water vapor and clouds 36 â 72%
Carbon dioxide 9 â 26%
Methane 4 â 9%
Ozone 3 â 7%
Quote from piezoe:
It is not the video that matters, and his work won't be judged on the video, it's the paper that counts. He has undoubtedly already submitted it, and it will take a long time to review. Probably several rounds. Stay tuned for the result. There are not enough details in the video to allow others to check his work carefully. There will be much more detail in the paper. I thought his approach to ice core analysis was correct, so far as I could tell. I am totally unfamiliar with how others have approached the problem of CO2 diffusion in ice (I hope this hasn't been ignored in the prior analyses!) I have a background in solution diffusion studies, but never worked in solid state diffusion.
Salby's work is going to make waves, one way or the other. He is not a shrinking violet. And he is most definitely qualified. He is not a quack, but that of course does not mean he can't be wrong.
Well, Salby being no fool as you suggest, surely intended his video and the talk he gives in it to be representative of his work and his paper, seeing they are all about the same subject. By the way, a paper which, as far as I am aware, is still not and appears unlikely to be published.
Salby is fundamentally proposing something that has not withstood the scrutiny of science when it has been previously suggested. Namely that the rise in atmospheric co2 is not anthropogenic but caused by temperature.
Salby does not basically refute any of the established scientific data. But rather than establish any hard scientific evidence of his own, when it suits he hand waves known science away, as he does calling "proxy" the existing extensive scientific data , observations and factual measurements around co2 in ice core samples.
Glaciologists are obliged to scientifically analyze and then explain co2 diffusion in solution if required and solid state with extensive detailed research data. Not just dismiss it all away as proxy. Salby does. In that instance alone he's basing a proposal by ignoring not refuting or improving scientific evidence.
Giving someone the benefit of doubt that such a proposal might be worthy merely because a paper on a fundamentally already failed proposition is being promised is too generous.
Akin to waiting for the second coming while trying to brush aside the ten ton truck hurtling towards you. More like reason to be skeptical of Salby rather than supporter of his.
The detail he does give has not stood scrutiny and is knocked down all over the place.
But currently there is a good marketplace for AGW skepticism, something of which Salby being no shrinking violet will be well aware.
Quote from stu:
No. I don't.
I mean THE scientific facts.
You mean the East Anglia "facts" where they excluded from the data set any temperature readings that did not support their global assertions (over 40% of the data), or do you mean the fabricated temperature readings that East Anglia crowd inserted into the readings from non-existent temperature stations. Which set of THE scientific facts do your assertions represent. The exclusions, the fabrications, or both?
Do you support "hiding the decline" as a valid scientific method?
No. That's what you mean.Quote from gwb-trading:
You mean the East Anglia "facts" where they excluded from the data set any temperature readings that did not support their global assertions (over 40% of the data), or do you mean the fabricated temperature readings that East Anglia crowd inserted into the readings from non-existent temperature stations. Which set of THE scientific facts do your assertions represent. The exclusions, the fabrications, or both?
Do you support "hiding the decline" as a valid scientific method?
I mean THE scientific facts.
I don't do all that ...."it's a scientific conspiracy" nonsense.
Quote from gwb-trading:
You mean the East Anglia "facts" where they excluded from the data set any temperature readings that did not support their global assertions (over 40% of the data), or do you mean the fabricated temperature readings that East Anglia crowd inserted into the readings from non-existent temperature stations. Which set of THE scientific facts do your assertions represent. The exclusions, the fabrications, or both?
Do you support "hiding the decline" as a valid scientific method?
Do you support continuing to maintain a lie perpetrated and promoted by the denier industry when that lie has been completely debunked? Of course you do because 1) You want to believe it and 2) Because you don't have the intellectual rigor or honesty to actually read any further than the out-of context "Hiding the decline" quote, or try to understand why it was actually said.
Do you think, that even assuming this delusion is correct that it therefore invalidates the other 99.99% of the science?
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
But of course in the delusional mind of the denialist all of these committees are in on the hoax.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Do you support continuing to maintain a lie perpetrated and promoted by the denier industry when that lie has been completely debunked? Of course you do because 1) You want to believe it and 2) Because you don't have the intellectual rigor or honesty to actually read any further than the out-of context "Hiding the decline" quote, or try to understand why it was actually said.
Do you think, that even assuming this delusion is correct that it therefore invalidates the other 99.99% of the science?
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
But of course in the delusional mind of the denialist all of these committees are in on the hoax.
Why don't you read the actual emails and try to make the same claims. Being 'cleared' by a bunch of committees funded by govenment global warming grants is completely meaningless - pure whitewash of scientific fraud, not only demonstrating a complete lack of integrity but is completely shameful.
About 30 years from now 'global warming' will be viewed as one of the biggest scientific frauds ever perpetuated upon society. Unfortunately during the past decade it has caused billions of dollars in mis-directed public spending ($22.3 Billion of U.S Federal spending in 2012) on items such as carbon-credits. It is simply a matter of time until 'global warming' is viewed the same way as global cooling alarmism from the 1970s is viewed today.