|
Author
|
Topic: Current IPCC Scientist Refutes That Global Warming Has Effect On Jet Stream
|
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 26, 2014 08:17 PM
  
Whether warming records were set or not is up for debate. Man being the cause of the alleged warming records is irrational. People far smarter than I agree. As far as teaching the jury something technical goes, the judge may instruct the jury regarding legal matters, and the jury may choose to disregard it all.IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 26, 2014 09:35 PM
I don't know what you mean to imply with your first line. Your second line is ironic in that the consensus thinks precisely the opposite. That people smarter than you agree with you doesn't mean that those people are right. People far more knowledgeable than me are what I've presented to you, and they largely disagree with you. quote:
As far as teaching the jury something technical goes, the judge may instruct the jury regarding legal matters, and the jury may choose to disregard it all.
That statement was nonsense. Teaching the jury something technical would occur in the midst of a trial. A judge wouldn't have anything to say or instruct about it. Both sides are welcome to ask questions in the process of educating a jury. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 26, 2014 09:54 PM
Your advice applied to you. Just because people smarter than you think man causes warming doesn't mean it's true. CO2 is a small percentage of greenhouse gasses, and human actions contribute but a fraction of that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce the obvious. The judge instructs the jury as to the legal issues at task and what is and isn't to be considered. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 27, 2014 11:43 AM
My advice didn't apply to me. You continue to state something as factual that is known to be otherwise. Your position is neither obvious nor warranted, rationally speaking.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 27, 2014 02:17 PM
Then let me directly give you advice. Instead of blindly following the reasoning of those whom you feel are more qualified than yourself, try thinking rationally of your own accord. Surely, you can see how man's miniscule contribution to an infinitesmally small amount of CO2 (relative to the amount present) cannot have any impact whatsoever. Furthermore, the doubling of CO2 cannot have anything to do with man, since man contributes such a tiny percent of overall CO2. It came from somewhere, but it wasn't the activities of man. To think otherwise is illogical. Forget what the IPCC and NOAA say for a moment, and just do the math. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 27, 2014 04:26 PM
I think more rationally than you do. That's abundantly clear. quote:
Forget what the IPCC and NOAA say for a moment, and just do the math.
What math, precisely? You are once again acting as if you know some basic, fundamental thing, but there's still absolutely no evidence to back such an assertion. Evans 2006 proved the ability of even trace elements in the atmosphere to contribute to warming: 4. CONCLUSIONS
Measurements of the downward radiative flux have been made for several important greenhouse gases. At mid-latitudes in summer as compared to winter, our measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200 W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times. Table Two in the piece shows rather conclusively that CO2 is the most active in trapping heat. The flux (the flow of a physical property in space) is 26 W/m2 (radiative forcing) flux for CO2. By comparison, the second trace most effective greenhouse gas listed provides 3.26 W/m2 flux. This is the piece of information you don't understand. You're trying to simplify things to fit your preconceived notion. The flux measurements presented in Table 2 provide important experimental verification of the driving radiation that is responsible for global warming. I don't know that I can expect you to understand any of this. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 27, 2014 04:32 PM
Incidentally, if you try searching for criticism of Evan's work above, you won't find any. You'll find criticism of a skeptic named David Evans, but not Wayne F. J. Evans.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 27, 2014 07:54 PM
How can trace amounts by man contribute when the majority of the CO2 in question is not caused by man? That would mean we have no control over most of it. I can't expect you to understand that, because the IPCC didn't tell you so. Most of the trapped heat goes into space anyway. The Earth is not a closed system.IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 27, 2014 11:54 PM
I just provided you with the how, and predictably you didn't understand. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 12:13 AM
A number of scientific minds from physicists to geologists to meteorologists and several other disciplines agree with me. They are far from ignorant of the science involved.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 12:22 AM
Assuming that warming corresponds with an increase in CO2 (of which there is no conclusive evidence, since CO2 keeps rising but temps do not), causes other than man account for all but a statistically insignificant amount of it; therefore, these causes of higher CO2 would be behind the warming, not man, because as CO2 rises, it is these other causes involved, making man's contributions as part of that overall CO2 increase rather uneventful. In short, there's nothing we can do about those increases. But that fact is rather inconvenient to the power mongers who would lose their grip of control should the truth come out. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 01:23 AM
Oh, I understand the study, pal. Apparently, you don't understand. If trace elements affect warming--in this case CO2--man's contributions to that is tiny. The natural causes of CO2 are the culprit. But you will never get it till your priesthood tells it to you. With another 20 years of no warming, they will have to face it themselves. Posting that study just shows you are still missing my point. It's not about the ability of trace elements to affect warming. That's not my point at all. As it relates to this matter, you are never going to think for yourself. I guess you figure you are not qualified to question those whom you defer to. But it doesn't take any scientific background to understand the simple math involved in the aforementioned. If only 2 percent of CO2 is man made, and CO2 levels have doubled, we can do nothing about the 98 percent. Eliminating man's entire contribution to CO2 will result in little impact if any at all. The other 98 percent would still be there. The alarmists act as if man caused CO2 to double. You just don't get it. You will probably be the last to get it. You will defend the authorities till the very end when their theories fall apart. They are already beginning to unwind. Even if CO2 caused warming 17 years ago, man had nothing to do with it. It would be mathematically impossible. But you can't allow yourself to understand that, because you can't get past what people whom you feel have advanced or superior knowledge tell you to believe, no matter how irrational. You blindly accept it. That's faith on your part, not science. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 6989
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 09:04 AM
There is no scientific evidence humans are causing global warming.There is overwhelming evidence sun spot cycles/activity cause global warming and cooling...but even that warming and cooling is within the historical temperature ranges established over at least 750,000,000 years when the earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is now and CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere have been much higher than now...when it was much cooler than it is now. CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere do not cause global warming. Global warming causes rising concentrations of CO2 in earth's atmosphere. We're dealing with a nutty religious cult in the man made global warming religion...and their brain dead followers.  IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 10:36 AM
I totally agree. CO2 is the byproduct, not the cause. Thanks for clearing it up quite succinctly, Jwhop. Love the way you worded that. The planet has been cooler with more CO2 in the past, and we are well within the range of natural variability. I presume those cooler periods with higher CO2 levels might have been when several volcanoes were erupting, but that is just a rational guess. Rationality isn't the alarmists' strong suit. And by rather consistent and predictable sun activity, we are going to enter a cooling period, and CO2 levels will still be quite high. It will be interesting to see the nutty professors and mad scientists scrambling trying to explain that!IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 6989
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 12:16 PM
Yes Randall, it will be interesting to see what the nutty professors come up with to explain global cooling and why we still need to contain carbon dioxide.They will explain why we're going through global cooling..instead of their predicted global warming with a 3 word explanation. BUSH DID IT  We can help write their explanation for their continued war on CO2 in the face of global cooling. "The world's leading climate scientists in conjunction with the UN have written new peer reviewed computer models which show 431.001ppm of atmospheric CO2 is the tipping point at which global cooling will reverse and run away global warming will destroy the earth." IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 12:36 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 12:59 PM
A flurry of posts. Why am I not surprised?IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 01:12 PM
quote:
A number of scientific minds from physicists to geologists to meteorologists and several other disciplines agree with me. They are far from ignorant of the science involved.
Except that they are as evidenced by the fact that they're not able to publish in credible journals findings that legitimately disprove the science. quote:
Assuming that warming corresponds with an increase in CO2 (of which there is no conclusive evidence, since CO2 keeps rising but temps do not)
There is evidence. I just posted it for you. CO2's insulating factor has been measured. You mistake a lack in the rise of surface temps as being evidence that there is no warming, disregarding that there has been significant warming of something other than surface temps: the oceans. The heat didn't go away or dissipate. quote:
causes other than man account for all but a statistically insignificant amount of it; therefore, these causes of higher CO2 would be behind the warming, not man, because as CO2 rises, it is these other causes involved, making man's contributions as part of that overall CO2 increase rather uneventful.
Wrong once again. Natural CO2 is largely balanced out via natural factors. Manmade CO2 isn't able to be fully balanced out. There's not enough of a natural system to deal with the excess. This being the case, the extra CO2 just continues to grow causing an increasing impact over time. You would know this if you were legitimately curious about the subject. quote:
Oh, I understand the study, pal.
You clearly don't if you're going on the way you are. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 01:53 PM
That's the biggest crock of fecal matter I have ever seen. Are you implying that there are different forms of CO2? FYI, CO2 is CO2. Human created CO2 differs somehow from natural CO2? The small 2 percent created by man can't be balanced out somehow? But the other 98 percent can? And by what wizardry is this accomplished?  The ocean excuse is a stretch, because they are desperate to try and explain what the data can't. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 02:07 PM
There's not enough of a natural system to deal with the excess? What excess? Two percent? It deals with the excess of the doubling of CO2 but can't deal with man's trivial contributions? You sound ridiculous.IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 02:56 PM
It's not. That may be want you want to see from it, but it most certainly isn't as you describe. quote:
Are you implying that there are different forms of CO2?
No, I wasn't. I have heard that before, though. It's when different forms have different atomic makeup. You can read about it here. According to Wikipedia's version of what I was talking about above: That was current as of 2007. I don't know if that measurement continues today. Skeptical Science puts it at only 40% of manmade emissions are able to be absorbed by natural processes. quote:
The small 2 percent created by man can't be balanced out somehow? But the other 98 percent can? And by what wizardry is this accomplished?
Nope [it can't be balanced out], and I'm not certain you have the percentage right. It's 3% - 4% at any given time. quote:
The ocean excuse is a stretch, because they are desperate to try and explain what the data can't.
It's neither a stretch nor an excuse. It's a measured phenomenon. Here's how they measure it. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 6989
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 03:55 PM
Their computer models didn't work, don't work and won't work because they've imput flim flam to achieve their desired result. That's not science.Their predictions have all fallen apart and didn't come to pass. This is faux science at it's worst and yet, here's acoustic still arguing for the discredited, absurd theory of man made global warming. And this, after 17 years of no warming have confounded the high priests of his own religion...and their fraudulent computer models. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 28, 2014 07:16 PM
There is no different atomic make-up. You really should stop while you are behind, AG. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of 2 oxygen atoms each covalently double bonded to a single carbon atom. Atoms aren't different due to being exhaled by humans. You cannot distinguish the CO2 from human activity from any other. First, Leftist math, then Leftist linguistics, and now Leftist chemistry.  IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 8579
From: Dublin, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2014 11:54 AM
I think you should have learned by now that denying things doesn't improve your position, especially while you're not offering up any proof. Apparently, you didn't go to the link I provided, which states:
Carbon is composed of three different isotopes 14C, 13C and 12C of which 12C is the most common and 14C (used for dating purposes) is only about 1 in 1 trillion atoms. 13C is about 1% of the total.Over the last few decades, isotope geochemists have worked together with tree rings experts to construct a time series of atmospheric 14C variations over the last 10,000 years. This work is motivated by a variety of questions, most having to do with increasing the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating method. A byproduct of this work is that we also have a very nice record of atmospheric 13C variations through time, and what we find is that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is no surprise because fossil fuels have lower 13C/12C ratios than the atmosphere. Roll eyes is appropriate, but not from you. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 38250
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2014 02:31 PM
Ah, isotopes. I will confer with a chemistry professor and see what she says about that. Fossil fuels are still just a smidgen of overall CO2.IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
