Dude,
I'm just fuckin with you. Notice how I use the concept of heat and energy transfer?
I don't know, maybe you have another definition. This is the one I've use all my working life and it's served me well.
Have a good one.
.
2014 was definitely the hottest year on record
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Dude,
I'm just fuckin with you. Notice how I use the concept of heat and energy transfer?
I don't know, maybe you have another definition. This is the one I've use all my working life and it's served me well.
Have a good one.
.
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
If you read what I said I made it very simple how heat moved. While I could have added a little more on conduction I see little reason to until it has shown that they know what heat is. As for radiation only heckler has shown apparent evidence of thinking on that level.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think you have the answer already. These guys are smart but not knowledgeable. Overconfidence in one's ability doesn't equal expertise.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
@heckler73 From many other posts that you've written, we agree on most issues. Which is why I wanted to learn why you were a science denier in this area. Everything you've written on this topic is faux science. I will say that your black body example put you over the edge in terms of how you can make stuff up. Really dude, you dismissed 200 years worth work by planetary physicists and just made up your own stuff. Its wrong and no matter how much text you write you can't make it right.
In the words of others, its not clear you understand the subject.
Its easy to refute you diatribe on the moon. After couple of checks around the web I could easily show the hole in your argument but I won't waste my time. Or yours. Or bore anybody that comes to this site because its not really interesting to them. The reason why I won't is because the question of AGW and what to do is no longer a technical issue. The science is settled and has been for more than 20 years. The real issue is how much control industry and paid lobbyists have in this country.
Science denial provides big time pay days for a few lobbying groups that are well paid to cast doubt on work of diligent professionals. The better the work is and the clearer the results are, the more money is put into attacking first the professional then that person's work. These lobbyists work to cast doubt and delay action on tobacco-caused cancer, second hand smoke causing health problems, ozone depletion, AGW, acid rain, DDT and any other issue that an industry wanted to delay or push under the rug. The tactic is always the same: find somebody with a nice looking resume -- almost never expertise in the field under critical attention -- and get them to post a few articles in a newspaper or other unreviewed media source. Then get the echo chamber of right wing loudmouths like Limbaugh to shout out the outrage that this was ignored by the establishment. Never mind that it was ignored because it was never reviewed and wouldn't because the argument was wrong. Just shout out the doubt. It works every time.
Here is a link to a movie documentary based on a book by a professional that got attacked by those lobbyists and she found the topic worth studying: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/merchants_of_doubt/trailers/11203458
Its clear you don't understand the problem of AGW and don't want to. All you are doing is regurgitating lies spread by these lobbyists. And embarrassing yourself in the process.
Last edited:
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The fact that you feel the need to start slinging insults indicates to me you are intimidated and unsure of your position. I think this post discredits you.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I was only speaking blunt truth. Not a single slur or insult was present. I was harsh but I know you read Heckler's messages and they were full of patronizing and insulting language. Mine was blunt, direct and respectful. I stand behind every word.
You too have bought into the lies and deception of lobbyist groups. What do you really know about this issue other than some right wing nonsense paid for by industry lobbyists? I don't understand why anybody would believe the oil industry's paid for deceptions over work done by diligent scientists.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You never addressed my points about the graph above.
I am not buying into the lies or deceptions of anyone. I have examined the situation and come to a number of conclusions. First is that the global warming alarmists have an economic agenda to their results. If things are not bad they make less money for research, etc. That means there is bias. Maybe not across the board but certainly there is bias on both sides of the argument.
The earth is heated by the sun. Small variations in the distance between the earth and the sun can result in great differences in temperature. Volcano's and other natural effects also can have an overwhelming effect on the atmosphere and thus the earth's temperature. These are proven facts as shown over geological time. In fact, the amount of carbon dioxide that man is contributing to the atmosphere is 5% of the total meaning 95% is coming from other sources.
I believe that most of the heating and cooling of the earth is caused by variations in orbit and if you look to the graph above I believe it is related to very long cycles of time.
But lets address some things. In fact you never answered me in another post. If we agree with AGW theorists and do EVERYTHING THEY WANT... What will be the total result? What are we going to spend trillions of dollars on again? At best a degree of cooling over a century?? If you look again at that graph the earth has swings of tens of degrees of temperature over geologic time.
Now, how are we going to achieve this temperature savings? We are going to tax the shit out of producing nations to bribe developing nations NOT to develop.... Yes, we are going to shift a massive amount of wealth from here to there with no real return.
The plan is crap. First of all nobody can prove how much the earth's temperature is being affected by the 5% of carbon dioxide that we are producing. Secondly, the USA is producing less and less carbon dioxide while China, India and Russia are building coal fired power plants at record speed. We dont control them and therefore cannot control what they do.
My point is and always has been that we need to invest in learning how to adapt to the changing climate on the planet rather than some voodoo about trying to stop climate change in it's tracks.
So Fogdog,
Lets start with Question #1.
Do you see a steady state for the earth's temperature over the last 400,000 years when referencing the graph above?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
No
Next question?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Why are we trying to stop the earth from warming up?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I thought you said the earth was about to go into an ice age. Have you changed your mind?
In any case, how much of a temperature change before catastophe is a better question than stop it. Here's a graphic that you'll hate but spells out the general effects due to AGW:
Last edited:
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
We are pursuing your line of thought here. I see a graph that says bad things will happen if it gets warm. Bad things will happen if it gets cold. Bad things happen all the time actually. Where we disagree is regarding whether more bad things will happen with a 4 degree change in temperature.I thought you said the earth was about to go into an ice age. Have you changed your mind?
In any case, how much of a temperature change before catastophe is a better question than stop it. Here's a graphic that you'll hate but spells out the general effects due to AGW:
You have already agreed there is no steady state for the average temperature of the earth. How did we determine that right now is the perfect temperature and that we need to prevent it from getting warmer? According to the graph the earth is constantly warming or cooling.
Are bad things not supposed to happen if we stop the temperature change?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Three things:
First, you deny the veracity of taking measurements and averaging them to produce an average temperature that can be used to track trends. Yet you produce a graph that goes back like 400,000 years and talk about it like its important. So which is it? Is average temperature a useful metric or not?
Second, the speed of temperature change is very important with regard to the ability of an ecosystem to adapt. We are talking about 3-4 degree temperature rise in 50-100 years. Look at the scale of your graph. Very few times if any did the temperature rise that fast in geologic history. When temp rise is abrupt, as is happening now, systems get out of balance and are dominated by the few critters that can handle that temperature change. This happened this year on the Pacific NW where a rapid rise in temperature is now causing massive bird die-offs low survival of salmon, mass poisoning of sea lions and other pinnipeds and who knows what all else. This with a temperature change of about 1 degree.
Third, if its man made then we can avoid it. So the upheaval in agriculture, species die offs, drought, forest fires and so forth caused by AGW is avoidable. You talk of cost of the change but the cost of this systematic and rapid change to our environment will cost many times more. Again, we cause it, we can avoid it or at least avoid the worst of it.
Lastly, you also say that we should just lay back and accept the rape of AGW. Adapt to it. So, again, what is it? Are you saying AGW is happening or are you saying it is not. Right now, you say whatever fits your argument.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Climate change is happening. It has happened for thousands of years. Look at the graph of geologic time. We have already agreed there is not a steady state to the climate. Where we diverge is this stupid thing you have labelled AGW. The CAUSE is what is up for debate.
I dont deny the veracity of taking measurements. I have said again and again, we dont have enough data. We have a century and a half of flawed surface data and a few decades of satellite data. That is not enough to extrapolate the climate of the earth for thousands of years. We cant fix this except with observation over a long period of time, like THOUSANDS of years. So, taking measurements is good, taking one measurement and extrapolating all others is bad...
Why are birds dying? Is it because they cant adapt? Maybe we should learn how to do that eh?
We dont know if it is man made or not. Disasters have happened since the earth was created and we have not been here that long. Fire happens without humans. Floods, volcanoes, tsunami's... All not our fault.... There have been massive floods and droughts and ice ages.... All still not our fault.
Everyone wants to save the planet. That sounds so cool!! However, it is not what the politicians are doing right now, it is a big charade. At the end trillions of dollars will have been wasted for nothing. And that is my issue.
You cannot stop climate change. Look at the 400,000 year old graph and tell me that man is gonna create a steady state for the planet cause global warming.... *sigh*
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
You dog need to show this AGW. So far it has avoided the USA like the plague,.. I mean where is it ?, C`mon, show me it so I can point and say, That`s because of AGW, and shouldn`t be.
Settled By who, scientists, the same one`s that said matter cannot be created or destroyed ? Well that turned out to be settled, then bang, New Elements are created by destroying others.
Settled means a group has agreed, nnot that they are correct.
You need to come up with a Visual and not text about the effects of AGW. Can you do that for me, on a stoner site where some may have used LDS too.
I don`t want theorys,...
http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2015-11-30/amid-global-warming-north-america-has-a-new-glacier
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Lets start with your mistaken version of the earth. Can you trust photographs from NASA? If you take a look at the photos taken from space of the earth, you'll see that your cartoon concept is completely wrong.
Earth and the Moon Together (NASA, Moon, 6/16/09) by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
Note: Half the earth is illuminated. Everything driving the earth's temperature derives from the sunlight intercepted as shown in this image. Please note that energy density from the sun is the same regardless if the sunlight strikes water or solid earth. Also, the energy density is the same whether the earth has a tilt or not. You can turn that ball however you like in the sunlight and the energy density is always the same.
The earth's temperature is distributed according to the angle at which the sunlight strikes the earth, as shown below. This is where the tilt comes into play. As the earth wobbles, some areas see a broader or narrower spread of radiation depending on the angle presented to sunlight. The total amount of radiation striking the earth and its atmosphere is the same but energy distribution changes towards the poles.
Half the earth is illuminated by the sun but the other half is not. Only the side facing sunlight is heated. The entire earth emits thermal radiation.
In practice, the earth heats and cools according to where sunlight is absorbed:
Given these variables, surface temperature varies greatly depending on location, time of day, day of year and weather patterns. Climate science is the study of how these variables affect weather and weather patterns across the planet. One metric used to assess global climate change is the earth's average surface temperature, which is the grand average of the average water temperature of the first few meters below the ocean's surface and the temperature found between the earth's land surface and 1.5 meters above.
Now, moving on to your strange idea of the shape of the earth. This is what you said the earth looks like:
This is what the earth looks like from space. Note that the earth is shaped more like a globe than an egg:
NASA Blue Marble 2007 East by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Although the image shows the earth is very much round-shaped in appearance, there is a small flattening of the earth through its axis of rotation. The earth has a very small broadening at the equator and minor flattening through the poles. The aspect ratio is about 1.003-to-1 and nothing like your drawing, either in magnitude or orientation.
Summary:
!) The earth is not egg shaped and oriented like you say.
2) Surface temperature is colder at the poles and warmer at the equator because sunlight strikes the earth at broad angles at the poles and sunlight strikes the earth directly (90 degree angle) at the equator.
3) Tilt and wobble cause the earth's surface to shift about relative to the sunlight but the total amount of sunlight remains constant.
4) The sunlight energy density striking the earth is independent from whatever it strikes, be it cloud, air, water or rock.
5) The average earth surface temperature is the grand average of the average water temperature of the first few meters below the ocean's surface and the average temperature found between the earth's land surface and 1.5 meters above.
These are facts and not theory. Do you agree that these are facts?
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"It's also worth pointing out what they get that money for, as exemplified by a fairly typical program announcement for NSF grants. Note that it calls for studies of past climate change and its impact on the weather. This sort of research could support the current consensus view, but it just as easily might not. And here's the thing: it's impossible to tell before the work's done. Even a study looking at the flow of carbon into and out of the atmosphere, which would seem to be destined to focus on anthropogenic climate influences, might identify a previously unknown or underestimated sink or feedback.
So, even if the granting process were biased (and there's been no indication that it is), there is no way for it to prevent people from obtaining contrary data. The granting system is also set up to induce people to publish it, since a grant that doesn't produce scientific papers can make it impossible for a professor to obtain future funding."
If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong
How Money Changes Climate Debate
"a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?
"Although volcanoes are active around the world, and continue to emit carbon dioxide as they did in the past, the amount of carbon dioxide they release is extremely small compared to human emissions. On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. By burning fossil fuels, people release in excess of 100 times more, about 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere every year (as of 2005). As a result, human activity overshadows any contribution volcanoes may have made to recent global warming."
Is Current Warming Natural?
""Volcanic eruptions cause short-term climate changes and contribute to natural climate variability," says Georgiy Stenchikov, a research professor with the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University."
"By comparing the climate simulations from the Pinatubo eruption, with and without aerosols, the researchers found that the climate model calculated a general cooling of the global troposphere, but yielded a clear winter warming pattern of surface air temperature over Northern Hemisphere continents."
Volcanoes and Climate Change
"Overall, volcanoes release about 5 percent of the equivalent amount of CO2 released by humans. Quite small. However, about once every 20 years there is a volcanic eruption (e.g., Mount Pinatubo, El Chichon) that throws out a tremendous amount of particles and other gases. These will effectively shield us enough from the sun to lead to a period of global cooling. The particles and gases typically dissipate after about 2 years, but the effect is nearly global."
What do volcanoes have to do with climate change?
NASA scientists react to 400 ppm carbon milestone
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2013, CO2 accounted for about 82% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."
CO2 Emissions
Is the sun causing global warming?
"No. The sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades.The sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity. In fact, recently (2005-2010) the sun has become less active, while temperatures have marched upwards."
"Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country in the world. The
80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international
action to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act
will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost
of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four
global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and
water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion
annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.
We know how to avert most of these damages through strong national and
international action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But we must act
now. The longer we wait, the more painful—and expensive—the consequences will be."
NRDC: The Cost of Climate Change
"Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Kyoto Protocol
2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference
The current warming trend is unnatural, human activity is causing it and it is negatively affecting every statistical metric including economic growth, agriculture, disease and international distress, we have a responsibility and a moral obligation to change it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
In order to deny the existence of AGW, you must claim there is a conspiracy among thousands of scientists in agencies across the planet, some from countries such as China and Russia with very different points of view than the United States. All of which agree to one extent or the other that anthropogenic global warming is very real and in full effect right now. The kind of conspiracy required pull off your hoax is impossible.
What is possible, is a very open and disingenuous effort by oil industry and others that profit by delaying action on global warming. I don't know why you suck up the faux science from these very self interested parties and deny the work of hard working and diligent scientists.
Regarding the ability to prove AGW with existing data, its already been done. All you need to do is look beyond the crap put forward by your conspiracy theorists and merchants of doubt.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This is a great summary and collection of links worth reading. Its going to take some time to go through but thanks for this.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Lets just stop right there.
You keep accusing me of this and I keep denying it.
Climate is changing, our contribution is in debate.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming, or translated, human caused global warming, which is something you most certainly deny.
So, I'll just repeat:
In order to deny the existence of AGW, you must claim there is a conspiracy among thousands of scientists in agencies across the planet, some from countries such as China and Russia with very different points of view than the United States. All of which agree to one extent or the other that anthropogenic global warming is very real and in full effect right now. The kind of conspiracy required pull off your hoax is impossible.
What is possible, is a very open and disingenuous effort by oil industry and others that profit by delaying action on global warming. I don't know why you suck up the faux science from these very self interested parties and deny the work of hard working and diligent scientists.
Regarding the ability to prove AGW with existing data, its already been done. All you need to do is look beyond the crap put forward by your conspiracy theorists and merchants of doubt.