Weather Today and Yesterday

[kvuo75]

First of all, I will not deny that the Earth could possibly be warming, nor will I deny that the Earth could possibly be cooling. In my experience some proponents of ACW approach it with religious fanaticism yet have little or no understanding of chemistry or physics relating to such ideals. Furthermore in my opinion Climatology is a borderline bogus science. I posted a condensed opinion a few days briefly explaneing the complexities of quantitatively proving the ACW theory, and yes it is just a theory. With this being said I will attempt to explain certain actual scientific aspects to ACW without delving into the political or financial intricacies pertaining to ACW.

Atmospheric Content.
1. N2, ~78% molar mass of ~28
2. O2, ~20.94% molar mass of ~32
3. Ar, ~.93% molar mass of ~36
4. H20 vapor, ~.4% molar mass of 18 "varies upon geographic location and altitude"
5. C02, .04, molar mass of 42. (Note that the molar mass of CO2 is significantly higher then that of other gasses excluding Argon. Furthermore, the atmosphere is not a solution, it is more of a colloid then anything.)
6. CH4, .00018% molar mass of 16.4

Now, N2, O2, and Ar are not green house gasses, where as H20, CO2 and CH4 are. Atmospheric green house gasses are an aggregate of roughly .44% of atmospheric content but they vary greatly in insulation properties and man is only responsible for variations of CO2 and CH4. There is however some correlation between an increase of C02 and a corresponding increase of atmospheric H20, but it really is like the chicken or the egg deal.
CP levels of Atmospheric Greenhouse gasses
1. H2O, 1.850
2. CO2, .709
3. CH4, 2.01

The higher the CP, the greater the insulator.

Now, if one took an example of the atmosphere at roughly 1000 feet, extracted the greenhouse gasses, and then compared the content both by percentage and its total effect on aggregate CP of the respective greenhouse gasses it would be as follows.
(Note, I fudged the percentage of H20 slightly downward in order to do a base 10 calculation)
1. H2O, 90.87%
2. CO2, 9.087%
3. CH4, .04089%
A quick glance shows that water vapor is by far the most prevalent atmospheric greenhouse gas. Now we will look at percent of CP.

1. H20, 96.265%
2. CO2, 3.831%
3. CH4, .0470%
Again, Water vapor.
Per the IPCC, humans have contributed roughly 18.18% of total carbon emissions. Although I find this organization to be dubious due to past scandals, I will use their information anyways.  By taking in account that humans contributed 18.18% of global CO2 emissions, and then recalculating the CP for that respective CO2 I conclude that human caused CO2 emissions are roughly .69% of total greenhouse gas CP. The only reason I even listed Methane CH4 is because someone earlier mentioned it. As you see it is insignificant.

As for climatology, as stated earlier, quantitative data pertaining to climate and weather in terms of temperatures have only existed for the past 110 or so years. Our current climate epoch is roughly 11700 years old which is directly related to the retreat of the glaciers following the Younger Dryas. Following the Younger Dryas the Earth has entered a period of fairly chaotic climatology  patterns. Although there is no empirical evidence to support this,for the last 1500 observation made mainly though clergy who for the most part were the only literate people for a long period of time supports this. For about the last 1500 years, there has been maximums and minimums, for instance there was a minimum that coincided with the fall of Rome. Afterwards there was a maximum around the time of the Viking expansion up toward the renaissance, then a long minimum ranging from 1550 to 1815 called the little ice age. Finally we are currently in the modern maximum. In between these long patterns there is some speculation that there are shorter 40 periods, one 20 year cooling trend and one 20 year warming trend. As for the cause of these climate patterns I have yet to be convinced on any one cause, although I am pretty certain its not HARP or Chemtrails. One thing I am certain of, is that there has been significant climate swings both on the cold and warm end of the spectrum long before the industrial age and the subsequent human population explosion.

My skepticism.
Certain organizations and scientists, have taken data collected pertaining to climate for only .94% of the current climate epoch, then conclude that human CO2 emissions will cause the Earth to warm to near catastrophic proportions, in which the man made portion of said emissions accounts for .69% of the insulating properties of .4418% percent of the atmosphere. It goes on, they will detract, degrade, slander, silence and in some cases threaten arrest for those whom disagree. If ACW theory is so absolutely sound and its proponents so ideological pure then it ought to stand well enough on its own. I have not even touched on the poor methodology in which they conduct their climate models, or the amount of wealth and power certain people and organizations have procured over this fiasco. Now I consider myself an educated man, other then threatening my standard of living and those of my fellow citizens I have no dog in the hunt. History have proven many things, humans fare better when its warmer, worse when its colder, and maybe in 5, 500, or 5000 years the ice will again relentlessly march south.

this is kinda my point. you think you've disproved the entire scientific literature about agw in a single post on an internet forum.

no, you don't have any dog in the hunt.


you don't think they know about the chemistry?

are you as motivated about the standard model of particle physics? after all, it's just a theory.

[kvuo75]

Correlation does not imply causation.

absolutely correct.

i love those charts from that site.

agw theory isn't just a correlation though.

[FLOOB]

Speaking of correlations.. In america very frequently global warming deniers are often also evolution deniers. In fact I just read a depressing statistic that more americans believe in angels than believe in global warming.

[Zimme83]

absolutely correct.

i love those charts from that site.

agw theory isn't just a correlation though.
[/quote

One problem with the charts is that the scales are chosen so that the correlation seems bigger than it really is. 

[PR3D4TOR]

One problem with the charts is that the scales are chosen so that the correlation seems bigger than it really is. 

And that's how everyone who wants to show a correlation does it.

[Zimme83]

And its easy to reveal. But im glad we have u that are smarter than the scientist and can tell us that all their research is just bogus...

[PR3D4TOR]

I haven't said that anyone's science is "just bogus". A personal attack like yours is a typical response from the pseudo-religious proponents and detractors of the climate change debate.

[Zimme83]

Since u refuse to accept the scientific consensus on the subject it means that u think u know better than the scientists.

[PR3D4TOR]

No. That's another typical response: If you're not with us you're against us.

I don't think I know more than they do, or that I'm smarter than they are. I don't trust them with being honest and objective. If you can't see the difference I don't know how to better explain it to you.

[Chris79]

Interesting visuals

[earl1937]

Interesting visuals

I do not know what is happening to our earth's atmosphere, but the charts you have presented do make a certain point, that the earth's temperature goes up and down! the only thing that I think no one knows for sure, is how the addition of all the people on earth today is going to affect the atmosphere in the long run. The reason I say this is just this, there a lot more people on earth today, driving cars and other things than there were 100 years ago. I think they are going to have to measure the average temperature over the next 25 years and measure it against the last 25 years to get a trend, if any. I know a lot of people look at the ice cap collapsing into the oceans and everyone hollers global warming, but what they are not pointing out is that is a glacier which is moving all the time and as ice gets out over the water with no ground support, it falls into the ocean.

[ghi]

I remember watching this video , French foreign minister in a meeting with John Kerry, last year May 2014,; "We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos " . I'm thinking; Do they know more at high level ? Is this warming trend more urgent and sinister than rest of  population is allowed know?  What chaos? 

[Chris79]

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/04/30/845-am-the-sun-is-now-virtually-blank-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century/

Interesting read

[Mickey1992]

I remember watching this video , French foreign minister in a meeting with John Kerry, last year May 2014,; "We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos " . I'm thinking; Do they know more at high level ? Is this warming trend more urgent and sinister than rest of  population is allowed know?  What chaos? 

In the early 90's scientists said we had a decade to stop rising CO2 levels before there would be a point of no return and the earth would become inhabitable.  In the early 70's scientists said that global cooling was going to usher in a new ice age.

San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989

"A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect...."

[kvuo75]

the good thing about science is it's self correcting.

better estimates come by doing more science. real science builds on itself.

or we could just go by: "they said in 1989 this -- therefore no" and never question it.

that's not science.

all the actual science that's been done since, and is still being done every day, points towards the theory of agw.  if you could prove otherwise, it would be a revolution, probably nobel prize worthy.