In the global warming debate, the science vs politics debate, what has been consistently missing is the actual scientific understanding that is at play. The underlying science is rather straight forward and not all that difficult to understand. It is based upon the wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulating since before the American Revolution. It is the scientific understanding that has made possible lighting rods, radio waves, the transistor, computers, wi-fi, and your smart phone, along with improvements in agriculture, medicine, and nuclear power. Except for a few gravitational and geothermal effects all the energy on earth comes from the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The electromagnetic radiation comes in the form of little packets of energy called photons. Although some of the photons will bounce around between the atoms/molecules in the atmosphere few are absorbed and eventually fall to the surface of the earth, where they are absorbed, causing the surface to warm. As the earth spins on its axis and the previously heated surface turns away from the shower of photons from the sun, the surface begins to cool by radiating photons of a much lower frequency than what had come from the sun. Without an atmosphere, like on the moon, those radiated photons would simply float out into space taking their energy (heat) with them. As is turns out there are certain molecules in our atmosphere that absorb the lower frequency photons and re-radiate them back to the surface. This causes a warmer atmosphere near the surface, and as warm bodies only give up energy to cooler bodies, the slightly warmer surface atmosphere cause the surface to radiate at a slower rate, leading to a retention of heat. It is that retention of heat that prevents the earth from getting as cold as the moon at night. Research has shown that CO[SUB]2[/SUB], CH[SUB]4[/SUB], and H[SUB]2[/SUB]O are the primary substances responsible for this heat retention. H2O doubly so because the oceans absorb so much more heat than does the rocks and vegetation of the land masses. In the years leading up to the founding of the United States, alongside new ideas on political freedoms, the industrial revolution and scientific thought were making their way to the forefront. In Britain, the industrial revolution began in earnest, fueled by coal. The ensuing soot that filled the air and the poor health of coal miners, those who worked in and around coal fired plants, and the plants, animals, and humans living in the vicinity; led scientists, curious as to the natural processes at play, to begin to do research into the effects on things by the burning of coal. It was at this time when it was first noted that the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere could lead to warmer surface temperatures on earth. Since that time data has consistently shown that as fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum are burnt, that there is a corresponding increase in the density of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere, and that this increase in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] density there has been a corresponding increase in the surface temperatures around the earth. Actually though, it isnt really so much that it gets warmer. It is more that it doesnt get as cold at night, that is it freezes less. The temperature increases have been just a small fraction of a degree a year yet when one considers the size of the earth, that represents a considerable amount of energy. Remember it takes much more energy to heat a large pot of water than a little one. Another thing that is lost in the discussion is the large number of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] molecules in the atmosphere. The often-touted number of 400 parts per billion gives one the false impression that it is a small number. There are so many particles in our atmosphere that a rate of 400 ppb translates to around 160,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] per cubic inch a density that exceeds, by a third, what has been the highest since human like creatures have existed on earth.
So, what's your point other than we are having some sort of effect on our environment? Of course we are. So, are you saying we are doomed unless we change things? So, what do you think we should do about it? What are you, personalty, doing about it? Are you off the grid and cooking your dinner over cow chips in the woods? Do you know that the Earth has been both warmer and cooler in the past without human help? Do you know that we are still in the last few thousand years of a geological warming period? Are you fighting to have fossil fueled power plants replaced by the new nuclear power plants that do not emit CO2? Why is it that the people that shriek and scream about the end of our civilization due to global cooling/warming/change can only come up with solutions that have us putting on another sweater in the winter when we settle down to read their latest book and make them rich so they can turn up the heat in their thirty-two room mansion?
I see you have the standard denial reaction down. Kind of sounds like the standard rant given by right-wing propaganda peddlers. My purpose here is primarily intellectual honesty. Deniers like to claim the issue is entirely political. Yet there is almost no scientific honesty coming from your side. So here I am giving deniers the opportunity to get down and dirty and discuss the actuall science. As to my personal life, I live partly off the grid and my primarily form of transportation is my bicyle. I live a very green lifestyle. Even though I am very well aware of the global warming I also fully expect the ignorant masses to fully resist any changes in behavior. Therefore I chose to live in an area where the warming will benefit. Turns out the best place to live in America during a warming earth just happens to be in a wonderfully bright blue liberal oasis.
I notice you evade everything except saying you ride a bicycle. Good for you! However, have you read up on the what happened at East Anglea University where this whole mess got started? Basically, it was "follow the money" and it still is. If the problem is as big as you say it is, then there is nothing we can do about it. Prince Charles once said that the Earth would be better off without humanity. Is it it your belief that we should all commit suicide? Will you lead the way? I used to be an Air Force Weather Observer, so I have training and experience in this field. When I look at the details of the rantings by the Warmists, there are a load of logical and factual flaws. Are we producing a lot of CO2? Sure! Are we shutting down the two biggest offenders - China and India? No! Why not? Politics and money! As I asked before, what can we do about it? To what extreme are you willing to go to? Is there a possibility that you have it wrong and that clearer thinking rests on the other side of this? Why do you think I should go for something that Barbara Streisand and Al Gore are getting rich off of telling us to turn our thermostats down and ride bicycles while they burn ten times the electricity and fossil that I do? You believe, without question, what has not been proven. That is why they use the word "consensus", not "proof". When the next prediction of doom comes your way, try checking in with the opposite viewpoint.
Did you not read the title of this thread? Does it not say, "The Science of Global Warming"? And is this not the science part of the forum? If you want to have a discussion about your silly conspiracy theories why don't you start your own thread?
Personally there appears to be little doubt that man is contributing to global warming. But looking at yhe bigger picture ( in other words not human centric ) does the warming of the planet really matter. Some species may rise and some may fall, change will happen, but that is just evolution on a global scale. Species have overbred and fouled their environment before. No big deal on an evolutionary timetable.
You have swerved into a real problem here; this thread belongs in a political forum because the hysteria about global whatever has little to do with science. When the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglea University in England was asked to present the raw data so that their analysis that produced the "hockey stick" report could be verified, they claimed that all of their raw data had to be destroyed because there was no room for it at their new facility. When was the last time you heard of a real scientist destroying years or decades of critical raw data that backs up their conclusions and assertions? Global whatever has become a political football that has obscured reality in the field. I have heard of politicians and "scientists" planning to bring legal action against researchers that do not support the "consensus" on global whatever. Since when is a threat of a lawsuit part of the scientific method? With my background and interest in the field of weather, I have kept an eye on this situation. There is so much political energy and outright flaws in the method and logic that you have to be a fool to suck up this fad.
The problem you have is that I have presented the science and you completely refuse to address it. The reason I know that I am correct on this issue is because when I was a college studying physics, like thousands of others, I did experiments that gave me great insight into the interaction between matter and energy. I've also designed instruments that test for certain molecules in the air and in water. If the increased concentration of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] was not causing the earth to warm all of physics would be in the wrong. That it isn't makes you science deniers look a little silly. That and the fact that you rely on falsified, thus fraudulent data.
This man from England swiped down an educated Left winger who discussed global warming. I think he nailed it. It could get missed, but he actually worked in Germany doing climate research. [video=youtube;bE0PWFnHo_8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE0PWFnHo_8[/video]
I am one curious sort of person. See, I am older than you. I spent decades of life never hearing that man warmed Earth. Al Gore sprung that surprise on me. I took the weather course as required by one of the FARs, current in 1980 and nobody but nobody mentioned man warms earth. Back in high school in my physics course. There they might have informed us all. We would have been warned. Fairly warned. But nope, not in Physics nor General science were we informed we were like parasites to planet earth. We were not told. Well, in college the teachers could have gave us all the heads up. NOPE No teacher brought up man heats the climate. Gee, in my FAA weather course that taught weather globally and of course climate is just weather, it failed to inform us so we could be better pilots. Noise abatement? Definitely. We were trained on noise abatement techniques. But man made climate? I was skeptical when in the post VP Gore era to learn with tears flowing down both cheeks we were ruining earth. My god, with all the science I studied, why did they all let me down? You have a trained former Air Force Weather observer posting. When he tells you what he knows, why is your argument that he is just a denier? I think you know very well how much money is made off this sloppy job done to the public. But you persist. And with no shame. To true scientists. i have asked the alarmists many times, just what altitude is this carbon dioxide? I bring up it is a heavier than air gas and they shrug it off. One gal says it is diffusion. What the heck? If I mention inversion layers, they also shrug and say, I will get back to you on that.
My interest with Global Warming is not the Science. This for me is proven. The Geopolitical "Fix" will Global Warming be used as a pawn in the geopolitical game. Ie Global Warming becoming the biggest nuclear bomb on earth wielded by Russia, China, America, Europe who on whims decide to cut emissions or threaten each other with increasing emissions.
Science Global Warming ate my data We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests reddit Twitter Facebook linkedin 13 Aug 2009 at 14:35, Andrew Orlowski The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data. The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science". Get out your Google and type in CLIMATE RESEARCH UNIT DESTROYS RAW DATA.
There is no 'science' of global warming or climate until there is a single model that includes all factors that effect climate. Until that time any attempts to blame man or anything else are irrelevant and nothing more than arrogant ranting to push a political agenda...
Your credentials are impressive even if you seem to forget that "scientists" once said that the Earth was flat and the stars and sun rotated around the Earth. Science requires an open mind and people threatening to sue people that deny global warming does not seem to fit that vision. Also, why did the Medieval Warm Period occur without SUVs and a petroleum based economy? Okay, let's say that your computer models are correct (GIGO) and humanity is destroying the Earth, and we only have ten, fifteen, twenty, flip a coin, years to live. What is it that you want everyone to do about it? What are you, personally, going to do about it?
Scientists Return Fire at Climate Skeptics in 'Destroyed Data' Dispute By Robin Bravender of Greenwire Published: October 14, 2009 Climate scientists are refuting claims that raw data used in critical climate change reports has been destroyed, rendering the reports and policies based on those reports unreliable. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/1...return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175.html
And the raw data is available . . . where? Anyone can access it at . . . where? I can file a request that will be granted within 72 hours . . . where? It was Global Cooling in the 70's. Then it was Global Warming when Global Cooling didn't pan out. Then it became Climate Change when the fanatics couldn't find consistent indications of rising temperatures. Since Global Climate Disaster became a thing, predictions of THE END have come and gone. In fact, Al Gore's latest doomsday prediction just came and went. So far, all the Warmists have is predictions and the opinion that humanity is destroying the Earth, and those predictions are housed in computer models. If you watch TV weather when they try to predict the path of a hurricane, you can see that they have multiple computer models that are seldom right even though the area and time involved are very small. What makes you believe that computer models of global disasters decades in the future are dead on when the best people and programmers we have can't model the path of a hurricane accurately over a few hundred miles and a few days? Anyway, what is it you think that everyone on Earth should do about it? What are you, personally, going to do about it?
Had you read the article you would know where the data is available. True, there were some predictions of an imminent ice age in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and todays reveals a huge difference. In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. Quite simply, there is no comparison.
Then you can start by admitting you are clueless about the original atmospheric composition of Venus.
Its so funny for anyone to claim that politics only effects one side of this debate. Im sick of the lefts holier than tho attitude on this. Only they believe in science and have no political reason for backing this nonsense . Us conservatives are only in it to wipe out mankind and make the oil companies rich Oh I left out poison the water and air and throwing grandma off the cliff while burning down black churches and returning to the days of Jim Crow
" According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." The above statement sounds like "Pick and Choose". Other scientists and data sets say that there has been no warming of the Earth for something like the last eighteen years. I have heard that the computer models that predict our doom do not consider the effects of solar activity. That seems to be a huge error. The term GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) means that incorrect or incomplete data fed to a computer algorithm will result in incorrect conclusions from that algorithm. Add in the certainty that the algorithms are lacking in total understanding of the mechanisms involved and you have the overwhelming probability of GIGO. All of Global Whatever is locked up in computer models that cannot possibly know everything about the function of the Earth because humans don't know everything and humans created those computer models. How about the Medieval Warm Period? How is it possible that the Earth was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today? You still haven't told us what you expect everyone else to do about doomsday or what you are going to do about it.
There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth, Europe, for example, but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.
As I understand it, the MWP lasted for something in the area of 300 years. WOW! That is some regional effect. You also seem to be dodging the point that long term warming occurred without the slightest chance of human assistance. You also seem to be dodging the fact that the horror of Global Whatever is nothing but predictions--many of which have come and gone without realization. You have also dodged the question of what you want humanity to do about it and what you are prepared to do about it. As far as I understand the Warmist movement, you want the entire world to stop using fossil fuels or commit suicide. Good luck with that. Also, it seems that the biggest advocates and profiteers in this business have no intention of leading the way by doing what they preach. Humanity is a bit of a rum lot. There are huge swaths of us that will believe anything they are told without any evidence to prove it no matter how contrary to common sense it may be. My two favorite examples are the Heaven's Gate cult and Jones Town. Even today, the U.S. is saddled with Liberal idiots that believe that we have always let in anyone that ever wanted to come here and that Trump is going to destroy us. Facts and history are just as hard as math for some people. So, when the purveyors of the "consensus" of "settled science" threaten legal action against anyone with a contrary opinion, alarm bells go off in my head; I am not aware that the functioning of the Universe is something that is subject to a court decision.
I see nothing in your commentary that demonstrates the possibility of having rational discussion with you on the subject. Moving on.
Of course your not. I thought you might be interested in this story from the UK Daily Mail that came out yesterday. Just Google NOAA+UK Daily Mail for the whole thing. The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the worlds leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change. A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that Americas National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. The report claimed that the pause or slowdown in global warming in the period since 1998 revealed by UN scientists in 2013 never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the worlds media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers. But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, unverified data. It was never subjected to NOAAs rigorous internal evaluation process which Dr Bates devised. His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a blatant attempt to intensify the impact of what became known as the Pausebuster paper. His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trumps determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessors green policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal so triggering an intense political row. You have to get it through your head that anywhere that politics and money are involved, you will have an uphill struggle to find the truth. Maybe we do face a climate problem that we can do something about, but we'll never reach that day with this kind of crap going on.
