No, it showed there is a difference between good science and poor journalism Something that has the denialists continually confounded - especially given the number of times they have quoted poor journalism and held it up to be good science
So tell me how more light going through clear air than dirty air is a lie. But I guess when an argument gets weak you have to attack the other side non sequitor. An areosol mixed or not mixed still gets into the atmosphere...and things have improved since they have been banned. The only side even talking about global cooling are the deniers....wonder why?
The problem is that its not well mixed. Aerosols in urban China can only cool urban China. They do not mix well enough to have any significant effect on the atmosphere as a whole. I think you need to take logic course again. Saying that a gas isn't well mixed isn't a non sequitor. A gas that isn't well mixed wont have a global effect only a regional effect. Banned? You are confusing cfc's with aerosols that are released in coal power production. CFC's are actually greenhouse gases. Simple, the other side likes to pretend that they never made that mistake. Since so much of the warmmonger argument is an appeal to authority who in their right mind would bring something up that calls the competence of that authority into question.
Evaporation studies have shown that over the last 100 years the sun has been dimming at the earths surface. It would not be far-flung to conclude that this is due to an increase in particulate matter in the atmosphere and if the air is cleared more sunlight will reach the surface of the earth. And a logical conclusion would be...considering sunlight is dimming and the earth is warming...that something is causing the warming and it is not an increase in sunlight at the earths surface. Also logically considering that CO2 is clear to visible light and long wave infrared radiation...but opaque to short wave infrared radiation, Co2 would be suspect.
Without complete information, the results could be way off. How far will a ball travel at 12 mph for 1 hour? If you answer this with 12 miles, you would be wrong. You have to consider gravity and how far up the ball is. Then if you include the direction or vector of the ball, you might find it stops at 1 foot or 12 miles. Then friction has to be included. Wind direction. etc... The list goes on and each variable can change the distance a significant amount. My point is that the variables included in calcuating the heat transfer through radiation and convection or other means is complex with regard the atmosphere of the Earth and the answer to the equation is so variant on these variables that if any are missing or inaccurate the results could be way off from what the scientists previously expected. We cannot get an accurate estimation of the changes in temperature caused by CO2 levels in the atm. The only way to accuratly come to a valid equation is to test the equation in a "real-life" controled enviroment that we can compare results. That is part of what makes a theory valid. The only envirment we have to test our calculations are our own planet but it is far from controlled and we cannot just change the concentrations of gas in the atm to get repeated results that support our theories and calculations.
You are just saying that science cannot predict what the temperature will be in a certain place at a certain time. And no one is claiming that. But they can see trends and " which way the wind is blowing". And even the most hard core deniers are saying that the earth is getting warmer....because it is an inescapable fact. But I have yet to hear a denier (other than Jackdog) predict what the temps. will be in ten years. A ball travelling at 12 mph for one hour will travel 12 miles...you never mentioned direction. There ...I said it!!!!
I would add gullibility and sensationalism... a warmer planet wasn't a scary concept and not newsworthy but an ICE AGE! eeew now that was scary and headline seeking journalists pushed that bit of sensationalism on a gullible public even though a warming planet was the prevailing viewpoint among scientists of the time...
And yet people catch balls that travel even faster than 12 miles per hour all the time - but maybe just not in America - which might also explain why you lot can't play Cricket You we have these things called c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r-s they calculate all kinds of stuff. And just like the batter on a Cricket pitch seem to be able to make the right calculation to get a connection Actually we have - it is called palaeoclimatology
I write computer programs and I can assure you that they are infused with the falability of humanity at the very moment of their creation. They are not godlike and can calculate anything. They can only run the equations we give them and if we are not correct then we get the wrong answer. We have only recently, compared to the lifespan of the earth, gained the ability to accuratly measure variable changes in the Earth. We cannot even be sure of the reasons of the past climates in Earths a million years ago because we don't know everything that was going on. Its all guesses and hardly a controlled enviroment that can be monitored and measured.
But we can come to conclusions that make scientific and logical sense. If ice is white and shiny it reflects sunlight. If the ice is gone and what was under it is a dark color it will absorb light and therefore heat. Ben Franklin proved that. And if the earth gets warmer on land or sea more ice will melt. And when more ice melts the earth gets even warmer. And when you have ground that has been frozen for many years and the ice melts, the rotting organic matter that was frozen in the ground will give off methane gas. It is like having a very thin sheet of plastic covering the whole earth... heat comes in... heat goes out....but less heat comes out than goes in. A lot of heat is captured by our large oceans...but they are also warming...because oceans absorb the heat that ice used to reflect. And since heat travels from hot to cold... ALWAYS...they are taking the "brunt" of the warming. But what happens when the ocean "pumps" shut down? Cold, nutrient rich water stays in the deep oceans and sea life starves.
And when the Gulf stream shuts down...Western Europe will become cooler in the wintertime. Because the warm water from the Gulf Stream warms Great Britain and a lot of Western Europe. Thats why the lucky Brits can grow such beautifull gardens.
Certainly you can. It is still a free country. As long as you do not push into us the idea that we must accept beliefs made up by scientists and pay to the scientists for making up beliefs. Yep, it all makes scientific and logical sense. It is just not related to the observed reality. If ice is white and shiny and reflects sunlight it is called snow with albedo 2 or 3 times as high as ice. The sattelites show increase of area of snow and thus essensial encrease in the total albedo of the area, even if the area of ice decreased (does not mean it is or pics are all inclusive, or can bring up a measured thickness and or heat content.) Ice being gone has not been observed. Athesists think if winter ice is gone it will not come back the next year. Atheists think if glaciers have melted they will not come back. Atheists think if rain is gone they are going to die from drouth. There are 2 things I may try (in vain ) to inform you about. Energy (heat) content of ice cannot be gone, it can transform into another form of heat conent. (1st law of Nature) During such transformations energy (heat) dissapates or in other word everything cools down. (2st law of Nature). P.S. I still have to find your post stating that the earth must be cooling, but instead it is warming, thus… I’d like to show that that atheists cannot do simple math
And yet they are working. If they were as fallible as you claim we would not be so reliant on them We have only recently, compared to the lifespan of the earth, gained the ability to accuratly measure variable changes in the Earth. We cannot even be sure of the reasons of the past climates in Earths a million years ago because we don't know everything that was going on. Its all guesses and hardly a controlled enviroment that can be monitored and measured.[/QUOTE] Depends on the degree of precision you want - we the broad outline and we know, through verification, that the models are correct. Physics tells us they are correct, measurements of outgoing IR radiation tells us that it is correct. Do we know what the temperature will be in Dallas exactly 10 years from now - no but we can give a range of probabilities and THAT is what the modelling is about.
Ok ...I don't know what being an atheist has to do with ANYTHING climate related. Okay...build yourself a little tent...cover it with clear plastic and tell me it does not get warmer. Or better yet...roll up all your car windows during the day and drive around town...it won't get no warmer because the three laws of thermodynamics says so!!!! A friend of mine was telling me how kids these days "don't learn nothin" in school these days. I tend to agree.
And you missread my post...It stated that the earth would be cooling if the sun were the only factor.
You can try to read what you quote. It is not about climate. It is about the need of atheists to make up and to have beliefs, idols and and collective fear aka the religion of AWG. This is what seintists do. They mock and ignore laws of nature. I have to take your answer as acceptance of the fact that you have no objection to me pointing that scientists have no clue about basic laws of Nature. The main task of science is promoting atheism. Here you have no clue what you talking about. You are talking about 2 experements demonstrating basics of heat exchange by convention. In these exprements convection is cut in both experements, in the same way as heat exchange by radiation may be cut by a thinnest screen. But you are on the target.As I’ve pointed so many times I am not interested in scientific and logical conlusions based on observation and empirical evidence. I need a demonstration, an experiment. Atheists want me to demonstrate God as a statistical entity, an object, a flying bearded man to them. I want scientists to demonstrate the greenhouse effect to me. Would you join me? http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387247 I am anti-scientist. In science the key words are logic and evidence and observation. For me the key word is experiment.. or the lack of thereof. FYI. In 1909 a devouted Christian, the man who gave us UV light, black light and many other useful things and who knew about thermal/light radiation more than all scientists combined demonstrated that the greenhouse effect was a pure expression of atheism, a horseshiit. It was, of course, theoretically clear that it was horseshiit, but he did the physical demonstration. I can suggest another simple experiment based on your representation. Somewere in Antartica build a big tent covered with double pane glass filled with 100% of CO2 in double, triple proportion to the scientific scare point and see ice under the tent melting and steaming all way through. Disprove the 2nd law of Nature. Get free green energy. I agree with you and your friend. When the main task of the public education is to promote pederasty and atheism as main movers of freedom and progress kids are better of when they "don't learn nothin".
I don't know what you are talking about. So far none of the models can agree so the "experts" decided to average the outcomes to come up with a model that so far has not predicted the reality. In fact, the models cannot predict the present inputting past data, so in essence, Grayman is correct. I have been in computers since 71 and can tell you GIGO. No scientist worth their salt will predict anything past 10 years and those that do are doing it for publicity, like Hansen.
I did not. You, as well as climate scientists and evolutionists look in the sky and see no stars, no Cosmos, when Cosmos is no less important factor than the sun. The system is not the sun– the earth. It is the Sun - the earth – cosmos. The conditions for evolution and coming of the man and life on the earth started 6000 years ago as some believe. If earth was cooling .51C/100 years ( as scientists suggest it is warming) the earth would had been 30.6 C hotter 6000 years ago. Or 306C hotter 60000 years ago. It would had not be suitable for life. Not so long ago the earth was not suitable for life. In other words thermodynamic cooling has been unnoticable. Such a simple math. When accuracy of thermometers is +-1C +- human error the claim that the earth has warmed by 1C is as good s the claim that it has cooled 1C. Then earth is not warming. There are no measurenments ever done which can suggest such a reality conttradicting basic laws of nature. On other hand all records we have from all areas of the human habitat show that climate has not changed for last 6000 years.
Not in this country, they don't. Our public schools are worthless degree mills. Sadly, colleges seem to be getting there as well.
Oh wow Yes. Wait - it will not take too long until Bowgirl, livetree, mamoth and Co wil join you screaming oh wow not. Atheists do not hold themselves from expressing mentality of kindergarten bullies. It is not like a reasonable objection is expected from an atheist. The opposite of both reason and objection is expected. Thanks for proving my point.
Don't worry about it - just stick him/her/it/whatever on "ignore" I have learnt to do that with those members whose posts are so empty of content that reading them constitutes wasted time
Don't know what you are talking about - have seen the projections and the actual measurements fall within the confidence ranges But if you want to blow us all away and actually link to some proof that would be nice - just please, for the sake of keeping this a serious debate do NOT link to "Lord" Monckton because this is his favourite charge
