The Death of a Hoax

[GenSeneca]

I don't believe, in God. See the trend?

I see a trend among Anti-Theists - such as yourself - They are all Leftists.

 

[bobgnote]

Care to explain how you believe CO2 causes warming? Try explaining without violating any physical laws if you don't mind. By the way, your graph is a fraud. It has been well known for some time that CO2 lags increasing temperatures and the newest research confirms that fact.

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/

Here is a link to the published paper.

http://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.pdf

From the article:

The gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2 helps to intensify the natural climate variations.

It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.

“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

What part of basic greenhouse effect is contradicted, here, by one ice-core study?

Hey! CO2 forces temperature, generally, but temperatures are subject, to all sorts of forcers, including solar intensity, orbit variation, etc., while CO2 is forced, by plant respirations, and the whole picture has a reciprocity, consistent with the graph I posted, which can be found at either the Brighton, UK publisher OR at wattsupwiththat.com.

I trust you HOP natives have heard, of Anthony Watt? Since we shouldn't be in disagreement with HIM, let's see if YOU can explain some law of physics, which disagrees, with the greenhouse effect, which is a relative warming effect, caused by atmospheric molecules, of three atoms or more, such as CO2, H2O, and CH4.

The composite media which resulted in the plots, of CO2 concentrations and temperatures included both proxies and available instrument media, but the trend to cycles of CO2 concentration and temperature are evident, since CO2 is a forcer, which remains more stable, as temperatures jump around CO2 fluctuations, since CO2 is the main forcer, of many, at play! If that isn't easy enough, consider, how the Earth would be a lot cooler, with no GHGs.

This warming phenomenon is observed, over many hundreds of thousands and then billions of years, which were analyzed, which attempts to get to all kinds of times, before your religions were invented. Your religions may comfort you, in the times, of climate change, which are certain to come.

We don't have any religion, here, folks, despite the fact more mentally adept persons have helped me, to think. We have global warming, which exceeds the solar intensity AND the allowance, for heat exchange, during time of glacial and cap ice MELT. We have climate changes, including more and intensified droughts, wildfires, floods, storms, and sea level rise.

Do you have some law of physics, to specify, which disagrees, with your own source media? Otherwise, your reference to physics is deflection, since the spokesperson for the study you linked agrees, with me, Physics Magazine is going to agree with me, and I don't have time, to argue about this, for long. Rants which include a lot of deflection are evident, here, from people I wouldn't have anything to do with, on the street. And I don't go, to church.

The religion is YOURS. The science is MINE.

The research results show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere followed the temperature in Antarctica closely throughout the shift from ice age to interglacial in the period 19-11,000 years before the present. The green curve shows the temperature from measurements from the 5 ice cores marked on the map. The red and blue curves show the atmospheric CO2 content in the air bubbles in the ice cores from the two bores at Siple Dome (red) and Byrd (blue). The analysis shows that the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic temperature so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.

Climatic impact

The global temperature changed naturally because of the changing solar radiation caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the Earth’s tilt and the orientation of the Earth’s axis. These are called the Milankowitch cycles and occur in periods of approximately 100,000, 42,000, and 22,000 years. These are the cycles that cause the Earth’s climate to shift between long ice ages of approximately 100,000 years and warm interglacial periods, typically 10,000 – 15,000 years. The natural warming of the climate was intensified by the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

“What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen adding “That is why it is even more important that we have a good grip on which processes caused the climate of the past to change, because the same processes may operate in addition to the anthropogenic changes we see today. In this way the climate of the past helps us to understand how the various parts of the climate systems interact and what we can expect in the future.”

So what are you trying to say, about either physics OR this paper? Your study doesn't have any modern instrument data, and the researcher agrees, with my theory. See you, at another thread.

You are referring to proxy media, which the study suggests should concern our arrival, at the present Pleistocene-Holocene Thermal Maximum.

No laws of physics are cited, which dispute the greenhouse effect. Instead, a researcher named Rasmussen adds CO2 has risen as much, in 150 years, as it rose over 8000 years. I wrote, how some of you seem ignorant, about CHAINSAWS. You guys posted deflection media, with a link, to a study, where a researcher stops well short, of explaining how much out-gassing happened, since CH4 is issuing, from warming lands and waters, so the greenhouse effect will do what it has in the PETM and P-T extinctions, which is to make the Earth, into a hothouse.

We are issuing GHGs well in excess of any rate, which preceeded those two kep extinctions. If you have some sort of media, connected to anything interesting, or if you have some sort of physics, I will review and reply, but I think I should probably start another thread, since this one looks like a low bridge, nothing more.

 

[palerider]

What part of basic greenhouse effect is contradicted, here, by one ice-core study?

First the fact that warming preceeds increased atmospheric CO2 which tells us that increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of increased temperatures, not the other way around.

Second, I asked you to describe how you believe CO2 causes warming and to describe that cause without violating any of the laws of physics. The greenhouse effect described by climate science violates several.

Hey! CO2 forces temperature, generally,

Describe how you believe it accomplishes that task. Again, without violating any of the laws of physics.

I trust you HOP natives have heard, of Anthony Watt? Since we shouldn't be in disagreement with HIM, let's see if YOU can explain some law of physics, which disagrees, with the greenhouse effect, which is a relative warming effect, caused by atmospheric molecules, of three atoms or more, such as CO2, H2O, and CH4.

I disagree with anyone who claims that the cooler atmosphere is capable of warming the surface of the earth.

since CO2 is a forcer,

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. How does CO2 force heating?

Do you have some law of physics, to specify, which disagrees, with your own source media?

My postion on AGW isn't a result of media information. My position on AGW is a result of scientific study. Climate science describes a greenhouse effect as the result of CO2, and other so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorbing IR radiating from the surface of the earth and radiating that IR or some portion of that IR back to the surface where it is then absorbed causing further warming. Off the top of my head, such a senario violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states explicitly that heat can not move from cooler objects (the atmosphere) to warmer objects (the surface of the earth). Then there is the law of conservation of energy. If any energy radiated from the surface were then reradiated back to the surface where it were absorbed, the output of the surface would then be larger than the energy provided by its only energy source (the sun). Perpetual motion, I'm afraid, isn't possible. Then there is the Sefan-Boltzman law which has been corrupted by climate science in an attempt to create backradiation where backradiaon is not possible.

But by all means, I would like to hear how you believe the cooler atmosphere can warm the warmer surface of the earth.

While you are at it, perhaps you can name at least one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.[/quote]

 

[bobgnote]

Good post, pr.

Why isn't back-radiation possible? The atmosphere functions as a blanket, even if all that were in the atmosphere were N2 and O2. But a lot of GHGs join the N2 and O2, so the Earth is warmer, than it would be, with only 2-atom molecules, in the atmosphere. Do I have to repeat this?

Why do clouds function, as blankets, to keep the Earth warmer, at night? Get in your car, park in the sun, see what happens. Back-radiation is going to roast you, if you are in the sun. Do you agree back-radiation is what is heating up your car? If not, what is happening? How do convection ovens work, if not by back-radiation?

The GH effect is not as efficient, as sitting in your car and letting IR heat you up, but this is what happens. The inside of your car gets a lot hotter, than the outside atmosphere, if you don't exchange the air, inside.

 

[palerider]

I trust you HOP natives have heard, of Anthony Watt? Since we shouldn't be in disagreement with HIM, let's see if YOU can explain some law of physics, which disagrees, with the greenhouse effect, which is a relative warming effect, caused by atmospheric molecules, of three atoms or more, such as CO2, H2O, and CH4.

Interesting that you reference Anthony Watts and state that you agree with him. I can only wonder whether or not you have read his latest release concerning the claimed warming since 1979.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

Seems he and a few others have submitted a paper for publication that exposes the magnitude of the data manipulation that has been going on.

CLIP: The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward.

Spuriously doubled. Seems that when one accurately accounts for the heat island effect, the trend is +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data.

0.155 C per decade. Now here's a kicker...Can you tell me what the margin of error is?

Good to know that you know and trust Mr. Watts and will now cease and desist your hysterical handwringing over the claimed disaster of AGW since it is now clear that it has been a fabricated hoax.

 

[dogtowner]

While you are at it, perhaps you can name at least one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.

Good post, pr.

Why isn't back-radiation possible? The atmosphere functions as a blanket, even if all that were in the atmosphere were N2 and O2. But a lot of GHGs join the N2 and O2, so the Earth is warmer, than it would be, with only 2-atom molecules, in the atmosphere. Do I have to repeat this?

Why do clouds function, as blankets, to keep the Earth warmer, at night? Get in your car, park in the sun, see what happens. Back-radiation is going to roast you, if you are in the sun. Do you agree back-radiation is what is heating up your car? If not, what is happening? How do convection ovens work, if not by back-radiation?

The GH effect is not as efficient, as sitting in your car and letting IR heat you up, but this is what happens. The inside of your car gets a lot hotter, than the outside atmosphere, if you don't exchange the air, inside.

I notice you did not answer Pale's request.

 

[palerider]

Good post, pr.

Thanks.

Why isn't back-radiation possible? The atmosphere functions as a blanket, even if all that were in the atmosphere were N2 and O2. But a lot of GHGs join the N2 and O2, so the Earth is warmer, than it would be, with only 2-atom molecules, in the atmosphere. Do I have to repeat this?

You can repeat it ad nauseum, but it won't make it true. You could pile blankets over yourself 3 feet thick, but you wouldn't be able to give yourself a fever with them.

The blanket analogy is particularly telling. Do you know what a blanket really does? Here is a hint, it doesn't cause you to generate more heat.

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Apply the Stefan Boltzman Law

The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.[ Skin temperature is about 33 °C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 °C when the ambient temperature is 20 °C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about

"

If you put a 20C blanket (which is colder) on a warmer 33C body, the surface temperature is going to reduce to about 28C. Heat flowed from the warmer body to the cooler blanket just as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. It is true that the blanket will trap warm air between the body and itself, but that heat will not increase the temperature of the body. The atmosphere as a blanket hypothesis just doesn't work because your blanket's (the atmosphere) averages about -20C. What do you think happens when you wrap a -20C blanket around a -18C earth? Just as the surface temperature of a human body drops from 33C to 28C when you wrap a blanket around it, the earth's temperature will drop as well. Wrapping a -20C atmospheric blanket around it certainly won't cause its temperature to increase by nearly 33C up to 15C.

Why do clouds function, as blankets, to keep the Earth warmer, at night? Do you agree back-radiation is what is heating up your car? If not, what is happening? How do convection ovens work, if not by back-radiation?

Clouds are made of water vapor. Water vapor, unlike CO2 actually has the capacity to absorb and retain heat.

Get in your car, park in the sun, see what happens. Back-radiation is going to roast you, if you are in the sun.

What happens in a greenhouse (or your car) in the sun has nothing to do with backradiation. It has to do with the glass preventing convection and conduction with the open atmosphere. There is no backradion in a greenhouse either. Those early experiments done by Arrhenius et. al. which later morphed into the greenhouse effect hoax we all know and love today were quite quickly proven to be false by Professor Woods. His experiment showing that there was no trapping of IR in a greenhouse and the heating was due to a suppression of convection and conduction with the open atmosphere was done relatively soon after the first greenhouse experiments although the press doesn't much like to mention them. Here is a repeat of Professor Wood's experiment described in detail with the same results as Professor Woods noted.

http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

The greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is non existent. If you want to know why the temperature of the earth is what it is, you need not look much further than the ideal gas laws for an explanation.

 

[palerider]

I notice you did not answer Pale's request.

He isn't likely to either. None of them ever answer that request.

 

[dogtowner]

He isn't likely to either. None of them ever answer that request.

can't. at least PLC gave it a go.

 

[Cruella]

Isn't a steamy bathroom the same as the greenhouse effect?

 

[palerider]

Isn't a steamy bathroom the same as the greenhouse effect?

If you mean steamy because the warmth from the hot shower is trapped in the bathroom, that is to say the heat can not mix with the open atmosphere of the earth, then yes, it is like a greenhouse effect except in the bathroom example, the heat came from your hot water heater rather than the sun. Most greenhouses are fairly humid as well but the greenhouse effect in your car is dry unless you have spilled liquid into your carpet or upholstery.

The greenhouse effect in those examples are all due to the fact that the enclosed spaces can't conduct/convect the heat into the open atmosphere.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere. The ideal gas laws in conjunction with the distance earth is from the sun explain the temperature here on earth and on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere. For example, if you go down into the atmosphere of venus (a planet whose atmosphere is almost entirely so called greenhouse gasses) to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is the same as here on earth, the temperature is nearly identical to earth and if you go to jupiter (a planet with virtually no so called greenhouse gasses) and go down in the atmosphere to a point where the atmospheric pressure is equal to earth, and adjust for the much greater distance from the su, again the temperature is nearly the same as that of earth.

 

[bobgnote]

You don't believe in the greenhouse effect, in the "open atmosphere."

You will never convince me, of any need, to respond to any more of your posts, given tennis or dinnertime.

You people go ahead and vote how you are going to vote, since I see no need to disturb that.

 

[palerider]

You don't believe in the greenhouse effect, in the "open atmosphere."

Of course not. I am quite convinced of an atmospheric thermal effect as the laws of physics support and predict it but it is nothing like the so called greenhouse effect as claimed by climate pseudoscience.

You will never convince me, of any need, to respond to any more of your posts, given tennis or dinnertime.

Of course not. Like all warmers, when the discussion actually gets down to science, you turn tail and run. I suppose this thread will be shortly abandoned soon, like all the others.

 

[Cruella]

For example, if you go down into the atmosphere of venus (a planet whose atmosphere is almost entirely so called greenhouse gasses) to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is the same as here on earth, the temperature is nearly identical to earth

So what's causing the so called greenhouse gas on Venus?

• You don't believe in the greenhouse effect, in the "open atmosphere."

  That actually makes sense. If you open the car window with the greenhouse effect, pull up the vents in the greenhouse and open the bathroom window in the shower, the green house effect disipitates up, up and away.

 

[dogtowner]

You don't believe in the greenhouse effect, in the "open atmosphere."

You will never convince me, of any need, to respond to any more of your posts, given tennis or dinnertime.

You people go ahead and vote how you are going to vote, since I see no need to disturb that.

as you refuse to offer up any actual science to back up your claims why should anyone take you seriously ? If its so plain and simple it should be easy.