General Climate Discussion

[Sabre]

Dang, Wrag, you beat me to it.  I was just about to post the same link.  So, are all these scientists shills of Big Oil?  Or should we hold off commiting to radical attempts to manipulate the environment via CO2 control, while we hold an honest and transparent debate about the science?

[Ripsnort]

When beetles knash their teeth together, does it make a noise?

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

[Bodhi]

Rip,
Stop posting lies.  We all know Al Gore is the world premier scientist who would never lie or mislead us.

[JBA]

The great Hoax is coming home to roost.

[Airscrew]

come on Rip, you know that all those scientist are paid off by big oil companies and used to work for tabacco companies,  all lies,  lies.... Al Gore is our savior, he shall lead us to salvation from the terrible man-made global climate, warming/cooling end of the world... it is so because the UN said so... resistence is futile... prepare to be assimilated...

[indy007]

Originally posted by AKH
Try again Lazs.  Your maths fails to account for the spectral overlaps of absorbers, natural sinks, non-linearity and feedback.

Calculating the greehouse effect

Only out by a factor of 10. Oh well.

If you're using the term "greenhouse effect", you're already wrong.

The atmosphere and a greenhouse do not operate on the same principles. Atmosphere is an open system with lots of convection. A greenhouse is a closed system that ramps up heat by blocking convection. To say the atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect" is an intentionally misleading lie perpetuated by alarmists.

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
akh... read this site instead..  the numbers do not add up for man made global warming so far as co2 is concerned.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Sheesh - the page I linked is a debunk of your favourite CO2 maths page, or did you fail to notice that fact?

one underground coal fire in china puts out more co2 than all of the cars and light trucks in America..  put it out if co2 is such a big deal.

Here we go again...  

[AKH]

Originally posted by Sabre
Oh, come on, AKH.  You got to admit, your timing as a straight man was dead on.  And that serious, dead-pan delivery? Priceless, dude! I'll see your  and raise you .

I'm glad you enjoy working together.

I dunno, but I bin told
Global Warming means no cold
I dunno, but I heard it said
It's all a plot by the reds

[Gunthr]

This should finally cause some on the left to reconsider their position.  Gore should be stripped of the NOBEL prize, along with the UN.

[AKH]

Originally posted by indy007
If you're using the term "greenhouse effect", you're already wrong.

The atmosphere and a greenhouse do not operate on the same principles. Atmosphere is an open system with lots of convection. A greenhouse is a closed system that ramps up heat by blocking convection. To say the atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect" is an intentionally misleading lie perpetuated by alarmists.

You'll find definitions in many science dictionaries.  The analogy is poor, but the term is commonly used.  For example:  

The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Going by your logic, the NOAA are also wrong? Do you also insist that the term greenhouse gases is incorrect?

[straffo]

Originally posted by indy007
If you're using the term "greenhouse effect", you're already wrong.

The atmosphere and a greenhouse do not operate on the same principles. Atmosphere is an open system with lots of convection. A greenhouse is a closed system that ramps up heat by blocking convection. To say the atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect" is an intentionally misleading lie perpetuated by alarmists.

How open is the atmosphere ????

Is earth releasing tons of gas in space now ?

[indy007]

Originally posted by AKH
You'll find definitions in many science dictionaries.  The analogy is poor, but the term is commonly used.  For example:  

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Going by your logic, the NOAA are also wrong? Do you also insist that the term greenhouse gases is incorrect?

Yes. It's like calling a Democrat a liberal, when in fact most of their agenda is socialist. Popularity does not make it right. If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.

How open is the atmosphere ????

Is earth releasing tons of gas in space now ?

Depends what you define as open. Atmospheric gasses don't really block incoming radiation, and only delay outgoing radiation. Calling the atmosphere a greenhouse implies that it "traps heat". "Trapping heat" says that it can get in, but cannot get out. That's incorrect.

[AKH]

Originally posted by indy007
If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.

For historical reasons, courtesy of Jean Fourier, 1827: "un effet de verre."  I don't know if he was a socialist though.

[CptTrips]

Interesting Read



In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.”

...

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)

[Airscrew]