Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

Mellowman2112 said:
I dont see where you refuted the Maunder Minimum. Why did temperatures drop during the Maunder minimum?
Click to expand...

you've already stated that you either accept the theory of AGW or you are a SHEEPLE who needs to WAKE UP. we don't need to cover AGW anymore, you accept it.
 
UncleBuck said:
how do you suppose that will happen?

we are literally taking tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years sequestered CO2 out of the ground, and putting it all into the air over the course of a couple centuries.

how does millions of years of CO2 get handled?

it only took us a hundred years to drive CO2 levels higher than they have been in 800,000+ years. where are your CO2 sinks coming from in your self-balancing scenario?
Click to expand...

Who's denying the fact co2 level are rising?

Many scientist say that co2 lags temperature.
If that's the case, man is not causing the earth to warm.
How did the levels get so high 800 thousand years ago and how did it drop?
 
jahbrudda said:
Who's denying the fact co2 level are rising?

Many scientist say that co2 lags temperature.
If that's the case, man is not causing the earth to warm.
How did the levels get so high 800 thousand years ago and how did it drop?
Click to expand...

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. it traps heat.

you want to deny that, beenthere?
 
UncleBuck said:
1,386,000,000 x 264,000,000,000 = 365,904,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in the ocean.

1 BTU is the amount of energy it takes to raise one pound of water by one degree.

365,904,000,000,000,000,000 x 8.34 = 3,051,639,360,000,000,000,000 pounds of water.

can i just divide by two here? or does the BTU work on some sort of parabolic curve? like it slowly starts warming at first, and then gets to the end by warming more and more rapidly?

save me, @heckler73 !
Click to expand...

BOOOooooo....hissssss... :lol:
BTUs? What is this? 1800s England? Shall we break out the copper boiler and soot for our experiments? Let me grab my salt block and whale-oil lamp for the spectroscopy analysis! Here young lad, take this half shilling and fetch us some coal-tar and opium from the local chemist. Mind the cobblestones when you rush back, for if you return by mid-afternoon, I shall grant thee a quarter-farthing as reward!
/sarcasm (off)

This blog post discusses it using loose back-of-the-Denny's-Napkin-at-3am-drunk techniques. On the surface, it seems to be functionally correct, but I can't vouch for the numbers exactly (too lazy ATM).
(Note: link at the bottom has similar results with different numbers)

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/234-5/#more-11484_

However, it demonstrates the oceans (theoretically) have a heat capacity which is 3 orders of magnitude greater than the air. So if for some reason the ocean wants to puke out 0.01 K(elvin), it will have an effect of ~10K immediately at the interface with the atmosphere IIRC. "Heat" has to wind up as work at some point, which I believe falls out of Gibbs Free Energy. This is usually reflected in Pressure and Volume changes, and these things can happen under constant temperature.
But a lot of that energy is going to just flow out into space, ultimately...along with all of the assumptions.

And there is a weird effect with salt water, too, that is being neglected (e.g. the solar pond). I don't know how relevant it would be, but it's something which comes to mind, since the thermohaline currents (THC !) operate on a similar principle.
fig6-saltpond.png

Currents will dissipate some thermal energy into mechanical, eventually wiggling around some "equilibrium".

However, this is a ballpark answer to the question, so it's not necessarily on the field (it may even be in the parking lot or the local pub watching it on a big-screen). Shit...it's Friday, I'm trying to get stoned.

FR11_All_500.gif
​
The difference between measured global surface temperature from various sources and the temperatures adjusted to remove the influence of El Nino, volcanoes, and the solar cycle. Note that the massive 1997/1998 El Nino spike is nearly completely the result of ocean El Nino dumping stored energy into the atmosphere. (Image Credit: Skeptical Science)

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/
 
jahbrudda said:
We all cite copy and paste stuff we barely understand, I'll admit it.
But nobody is going to convince me that the debate is settled, there is no proof that man is causing or not causing climate change, I've seen plenty of evidence to support both.
It's not the science that i have a problem with.

It's when I see the government, the media and especially politicians pushing an agenda this hard, I have a natural defense that tells me to question it. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.
If this is a political scam, it's brilliant. They'll have the power to tax us all any time the weather dictates it.
Click to expand...

I share your feelings 're politicians; I can't stand them. I wish we could spank the shit out of them and take their pensions away.
 
UncleBuck said:
was that deflection or evasion?

or are you admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, beenthere?
Click to expand...

How am I deflecting, the conversation is about greenhouse gasses and their ability to trap heat.
There's no denying water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The fact that it is about 60 times more abundant than co2 and it's confirmed that it traps heat, make it relevant to this discussion, do you disagree?
 
god1 said:
I share your feelings 're politicians; I can't stand them. I wish we could spank the shit out of them and take their pensions away.
Click to expand...
NASA, 34 international academies of science, the IPCC and all the other institutions are made up of scientists, not politicians

Which is ironic considering the fact, though citations are few and far between, the ones that have been presented in opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change come directly or indirectly from... politicians and individuals with a vested financial interest in the fossil fuel industry, like James Inhofe, Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Discovery Institute, etc.

The opposition to ACC is purely political, which is why there is no debate about its significance inside the scientific community.

Regardless if you accept that or not is irrelevant to scientific progress, just like denying the theory of evolution, the theory of aerosols depleting the ozone layer and the theory that smoking causes lung cancer
 
jahbrudda said:
How am I deflecting, the conversation is about greenhouse gasses and their ability to trap heat.
There's no denying water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The fact that it is about 60 times more abundant than co2 and it's confirmed that it traps heat, make it relevant to this discussion, do you disagree?
Click to expand...

So do you think NASA is incompetent or lying?
 
jahbrudda said:
How am I deflecting, the conversation is about greenhouse gasses and their ability to trap heat.
There's no denying water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The fact that it is about 60 times more abundant than co2 and it's confirmed that it traps heat, make it relevant to this discussion, do you disagree?
Click to expand...

it was a simple question that you have avoided twice.

is CO2 a greenhouse gas that traps heat?

we can talk about water vapor later if you want, beenthere.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
NASA, 34 international academies of science, the IPCC and all the other institutions are made up of scientists, not politicians

Which is ironic considering the fact, though citations are few and far between, the ones that have been presented in opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change come directly or indirectly from... politicians and individuals with a vested financial interest in the fossil fuel industry, like James Inhofe, Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Discovery Institute, etc.

The opposition to ACC is purely political, which is why there is no debate about its significance inside the scientific community.

Regardless if you accept that or not is irrelevant to scientific progress, just like denying the theory of evolution, the theory of aerosols depleting the ozone layer and the theory that smoking causes lung cancer
Click to expand...

beenthere doesn't beleive in evolution either, i saw it right on his facebook page.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
So do you think NASA is incompetent or lying?
Click to expand...
No not incompetent, far from it.
With that said, I don't think the majority of the scientists are corrupt, but they do have a monetary incentive, there is no disputing that.
Take NASA and NOAA, they are both run by the US government and the IPCC is run by multi governments, their employees (scientists) are just convenient pawns they use to promote a massive taxation agenda.

How can you trust the government politicians and the media, they're both habitual liars.

When you get through all the propagandist garbage they both feed us, you'll understand that most scientists don't make the predictions or fear monger to promote policy, that's the media and the politicians jobs.
The few climate change debates between scientists i've watched, their focus is on data, not policy.

So my argument is not with the scientists, wether they are pro AGW or against it.
I'm just saying the science is clearly divided and the government is trying it's best to try and convince you it's not.

Try having an open mind and follow the money.
You are one of the first guys on here to make that accusation when it comes to the other side of the argument, But you're not using the same criteria in a balanced way, did you know that the petroleum industry shells out $millions to support AGW?

And the government spends $billions, it dwarfs anything close to the other side.
That in itself has me the most concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top