Thanks to the 72 hardy souls who participated.
Only 7 die-hard AGW supporters voted (9.7%).
The poll did exactly what it was designed to do, which is prove that the science of AGW/Climate Change is hardly settled, as evidenced by the fact that AGW supporters don't understand it, and cannot agree on it. This following comment is a classic example of how the Church of Climate Change works....
Quote:
Stupid options because nobody is predicting such elevated CO2 levels....
Rising temperatures are mainly caused by burning fossil fuels, and the feedback effects of a warming planet....We have already reached a level that is causing problems.
|
//www.city-data.com/forum/37314727-post15.html
It's not really amusing when the most vocal supporters of AGW are the least educated and informed.
So, I want to show you the theory so that you can see where the fraud is being committed by the IPCC and also, I think it will answer some questions that many of you have touched on in different threads.
AGW is predicated on Black Body Law. It requires only high school physics, since it is covered in the same chapter of the text-book as Stephan-Boltzman's Law. The point being that everyone from high school student to PhD uses the same theory/law and same formula.
Any object (body) that can absorb energy, may also re-transmit some of that energy.
The chart is from Columbia University, and illustrates several points, including fraud.
Earth receives energy from the Sun in order of increasing intensity: Ultra-Violent B (UV-B), Ultra-Violet A (UV-A) and soft X-rays (SRX). SRXs are low energy as opposed to high energy hard X-rays (such as those used when radiology first started).
The graph is fraudulent in typical AGW propaganda fashion to mislead the scientifically illiterate, due to the fact that it appears Earth re-emits an amount of Black Body Radiation equivalent to the Sun.
The following graph from Illinois Central College is absent propaganda and disinformation:
As you can plainly see, the energy re-emitted by Earth is far less in intensity than that of the Sun.
The theory behind AGW/Climate Change is that this Black Body Radiation emitted by Earth is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere at the following band-widths/frequencies:
2.7 Microns
4.3 Microns
15.0 Microns
That is part of the fraud.
There is nothing on Earth in the 2.7 micron band-width and the Columbia University and Illinois Central College graphs prove that. They also prove there is nothing substantial in the 4.3 micron band-width. There are perhaps a few anomalous square kilometers on Earth that might emit at that frequency. At 15 microns, yes, certainly.
If their computer models are including infrared at the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands, then that will skew all of their data, and they'll make spectacularly stupid predictions, like all of the arctic sea ice will be melted by September 2013.
Do you now see where the fraud is?
Okay, now that you have a foundation in the theory, how is it applied?
4] tolerable if CO2 is kept under 540 ppm
IPCC estimates put CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at ~ 270 ppm at the start of the 20th Century. The claim by IPCC is that increasing atmospheric CO2 to 540 ppm will cause the average global temperature to increase by 1.2°C (2.16°F).
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.
Source: IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Summary for Policymakers (SPM), page 3
Note that 0.85°C corresponds to an increase of 1.53°F
Clearly, an alarmist attitude.
The average global temperature is 53.4°F and when we reach 64.2°F then we will have tied the average global temperature in the previous Inter-Glacial Period that took place 120,000 years ago.
5] harmful to Humans/Earth if CO2 doubles from 1080 ppm to 2160 ppm
Here AGW supporters demonstrated their ignorance.
In order to increase average global temperatures by an additional 1.2°C (2.16°F), then atmospheric CO2 must
double reaching a level of 1080 ppm.
To increase average global temperatures by an additional 1.2°C (2.16°F) --- 2.4°C (4.32°F), then atmospheric CO2 must
double reaching a level of 2160 ppm.
That would make the average global temperature 57.0°F which is nowhere near 64.2°F in the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
And yet Earth would still be colder than 7 of the 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods.
6] destructive to Humans/Earth if CO2 doubles from 4320 ppm to 8640 ppm
That is CO2 concentration doubled twice, once from 2160 ppm to 4320 ppm, and then another doubling from 4320 ppm to 8640 ppm. In another words --- in theory --- another increase of 2.4°C (4.32°F)
And yet Earth is still colder than 4 of the 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods.
Coming back to this comment...
Quote:
Stupid options because nobody is predicting such elevated CO2 levels....
Rising temperatures are mainly caused by burning fossil fuels, and the feedback effects of a warming planet....We have already reached a level that is causing problems.
|
If no one does anything, the CO2 levels will continue to increase and nothing will happen very slowly.
Again, it's nothing but extremist fear-mongering.
Now, that thing that a lot of you have picked up on....
UV-A, UV-B and SRXs are ionizing radiation. In addition to that, you get a small amount of neutrons, protons and fission fragments entering the atmosphere from the Sun, as well as from the Space around us, especially from other Stars and nova remnants.
Your atmosphere developed over time to screen out this harmful radiation. There is a time in the far past where you would have died within a few minutes just being on Earth, due to the radiation. This is Natural Background Radiation, consisting of Solar Radiation, Cosmic Radiation, plus the radiation from the decay of nuclear isotopes on Earth. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission can explain more about that, here:
NRC: Natural Background Sources
Anyway, too many UV-A/B rays or SXRs will destroy Life on Earth, while too few will not generate enough heat to sustain Life on Earth.
The ionosphere is a region overlapping the Stratosphere and Mesosphere. UV-A/B rays and SXRs strike the electrions of atmospheric gases, resulting in ionization, which wreck havoc with Short-Wave and AM radio waves and to a lesser extent FM radio waves.
Your next line of defense is the Ozone Layer, which is simple O3 or three Oxygen atoms bonded together.
What does increasing CO2 do?
Same thing Ozone does.
Is CO2 as efficient as O3? No, obviously not since CO2 has fewer electrons than O3.
Yet, CO2 does reflect UV-A/B and SRXs back into Space. And when it doesn't do that, it scatters that energy, decreasing it, so that less energy reaches Earth. What doesn't get reflected or scattered ends up heating Earth.
If less energy is reaching Earth, will Earth cool? Of course. That's the other part of the fraud.
The IPCC has no explanation for Glacial Cycles; no explanation for Inter-Glacial Periods; no explanation as to why temperatures naturally increase during Inter-Glacial Periods and so on.
The IPCC cannot explain why it is colder during this Inter-Glacial Period than in any of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods.
Which brings us to the Null Hypothesis:
In the absence of burning fossil fuels adding CO2 to the atmosphere, would temperatures on Earth increase or not?
The IPCC has nothing but Wishful Thinking.
The paradigm is "The Ends Justify the Means" and if you read what IPCC panel members have said over the years, there's 3 Schools of Thought. The first is that ending oil dependence will end wars. The second being ending oil use will eliminate all sorts of "inequalities." The last is just Green Party nutters.
When you read their material, you see the total absence of Science.
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
[emphasis in original]
Ibid page 5
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting
for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence).
It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure
SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.
[emphasis in original]
Ibid page 8
When you mix Hydrochloric Acid with Potassium Hydroxide is it "
likely" "
virtually certain" "(
medium confidence)" that you will get H2O and Potassium Chloride?
No, it's an absolute certainty 100% of the time, all the time.
I hope that's been instructive.
Definitively...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
