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.
As usual the same type of argument is used when those who believe in global warming say don't use weather patterns as a means to disprove climate changes. Yet they turn around and will even take an anomaly, much less a weather pattern and try to use it as evidence.
They cannot have it both ways.
The Lack Of Greenhouse Gases
...
Is the Earth really in danger of HEATING UP from "Greenhouse gases"?
Let us look at our neighbor, which does not have an atmosphere.
...
The lunar surface (equator) -
minimum : 100 K (-279.67 F)
maximum : 390 K ( 242.33 F)
By observation, one may note that despite almost equal energy input from the Sun, the Earth enjoys a substantial COOLING effect (-60K) from the presence of its atmosphere.
“A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.”
WAIT - the Earth with atmosphere is 60° K cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere.
But they’re saying the greenhouse gases are keeping us 30 K warmer (K and C are the same interval), so we should be 90 K cooler without the “greenhouse” gases.
(Huh?)
....
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
Earth’s albedo is about 0.30, while the Moon’s albedo is only about 0.11.
ALBEDO - The fraction of incident electromagnetic radiation reflected by a surface, especially of a celestial body.
. . .
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
. . . http://wstannard.wordpress.com/the-g...nergy-balance/
One of the comments summed it up : “I postulate => the net result of GH gasses is to cool the Earth!”
Come on, folks, let’s albedo friends.
Despite EQUAL solar input, the Earth maximum is 60 K (108 F) cooler than the moon maximum. How does atmospheric insulation “cool” the Earth, trap heat and contribute to “global warming” all at the same time?
"WHAT Global Warming from Greenhouse gases?"
● Earth max : (134.33 F) {“heat trapping atmosphere”}
● Space station max : (250 F) {“no atmosphere”}
● Lunar surface max : ( 242.33 F) {“no atmosphere”}
Solar irradiance (W/m2) : 1367.6 (Moon) 1367.6 (Earth)
Wow. I honestly don't think I've ever seen a discussion on global warming with more misinformation.
1. One event - one temperature reading, one storm - does not prove or disprove global warming.
2. No one "renamed" the phenomenon. The term "climactic change" was introduced in the 1950s and "climate change" has been in regular use since a journal article in the mid 1970s. Global warming is a result of climate change, but both terms have been used by scientists consistently for decades. That long debunked myth just will not go away.
3. Scientists know how much CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere by volcanos, forest fires, and other natural phenomenon. It's a small fraction of what humans pump into the atmosphere every year. Humans produce in 3-5 days as much CO2 as volcanoes do in a year. Natural CO2 is also a different consistency so researchers can identify the difference. Also, natural CO2 is absorbed in a cycle by vegetation and oceans. Manmade CO2 disrupts that cycle. CO2 is not inherently toxic. It is critical to life on the planet in limited quantities. We are in excess of those limited quantities.
4. Scientists know the solar output of the sun. It has remained remarkably consistent and is not a factor in the warming of our planet. We are actually supposed to be in a cooling cycle right now.
5. Many believe there is "a" data set from which all research emerges and that it is compromised, but in reality there are literally tens of thousands of studies across diverse disciplines that point to a warming planet. As studies become more accurate, they point to a planet warming faster than anticipated. There was no pause. Plant and animal ranges are shifting. Trees are growing faster. These studies are funded by a vast array of sources, including the conservative Koch brothers whose research found a warming planet by human cause. Every major scientific organization in the world has reviewed the research and concluded that anthropogenic global warming is happening. If new research emerges that changes that conclusion, they will review and adjust.
6. A warming planet creates more extreme and unseasonable weather, not warmer weather everywhere. An unusually brutal winter in the Northeast and a warm winter in Alaska could - could - both be the result of a warming planet. Sometimes a warming planet generates more snow in some areas, so to toss a snowball in Congress or point to a cool summer somewhere is to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. The eastern U.S. was one of a small handful of places in the northern hemisphere that saw lower than normal temperatures this past winter, and we've had record warm years worldwide pretty consistently since the turn of the century.
7. The reason so many go to great lengths to reject global warming is because they are motivated by politics rather than science. The rise in famine, war, economic instability, insurance claims, etc. that result from a warming planet drives a fear of more government so they try to shut the topic down altogether. But there's no reason governments need to solve this problem. We could do it ourselves for the most part with innovations and better lifestyles (eating, commuting, etc) but we have to stop denying it is a problem and get to work. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with only liberal solutions, and those often don't go well.
So how many events does it take? - If you don't have this answer then the point is meaningless.
Both terms are incorrect. What they DON'T say is "human controlled climate change". They leave that part off, because they don't want to be held to account that it's actually human activity changing it.
So how much CO2 released by mankind is OK? Crickets on that, because nobody knows and furthermore nobody even knows if it actually a problem. The Earth went through long periods of time in its history with far higher levels of CO2 than now.
Nonsense on that one.
So? Not one of these studies prove that it's due to human activity.
Nope. The most stable period of weather in the planet's history occurred in the planet's history when the average temperature was far higher & less than now.
See #2. People demand to see the scientific proof that it's humans which are responsible AND that humans can control it. This has yet to happen.
7. The reason so many go to great lengths to reject global warming is because they are motivated by politics rather than science. The rise in famine, war, economic instability, insurance claims, etc. that result from a warming planet drives a fear of more government so they try to shut the topic down altogether. But there's no reason governments need to solve this problem. We could do it ourselves for the most part with innovations and better lifestyles (eating, commuting, etc) but we have to stop denying it is a problem and get to work. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with only liberal solutions, and those often don't go well.
Is it possible that those promoting global warming have a like motivation?
Is it possible that those promoting global warming have a like motivation?
I dont get the impression any one is promoting Global warming its more like agreeing with what the scientists are saying, I'm not a climatologist, i do not record or study weather data,if those scientists at NASA/NOAA that are responsible for studying the climate come out en masse saying mans activity is screwing up the climate then i have no evidence to refute what they are saying just like i cant refute their assurance that the Earth is a Sphere and not flat.
However what i do find puzzling is the American rightwings desperate/ obsessive and even maniacal need to refute the scientists claims to the point of saying all the scientists warnings are all lies and their conclusions on global warming is all a hoax.And all publications on the issue are not to be believedReally?
Lets face it if you believe these 2 institutions and related scientific communities are all lies and deceit then how can you believe anything science says
Corrupt government politicians and bureaucrats confiscating wealth, resources and freedoms will not affect the weather or the planet one way or another.
So how many events does it take? - If you don't have this answer then the point is meaningless.
Both terms are incorrect. What they DON'T say is "human controlled climate change". They leave that part off, because they don't want to be held to account that it's actually human activity changing it.
So how much CO2 released by mankind is OK? Crickets on that, because nobody knows and furthermore nobody even knows if it actually a problem. The Earth went through long periods of time in its history with far higher levels of CO2 than now.
Nonsense on that one.
So? Not one of these studies prove that it's due to human activity.
Nope. The most stable period of weather in the planet's history occurred in the planet's history when the average temperature was far higher & less than now.
See #2. People demand to see the scientific proof that it's humans which are responsible AND that humans can control it. This has yet to happen.
I don't understand why your post is so full of rage when you're simply asking questions so you can become better informed on this complicated topic:
1. Climate is measured over time, not just an event. So, depending upon what one is measuring, it could be anywhere from 10 years to 10 million years with ice core samples, tree rings, and geological layer analysis. Having an understanding of different scales is not meaningless.
2. Many factors influence the climate, humans being one of them. They don't say "human controlled" because there are various other factors. The sun could account for no more than 10% of the warming we've seen, but it is a factor. Same with volcanic eruptions, small as they all may be in comparison to the role of humans.
3. Why do you say crickets before giving me a chance to answer? 350 ppm is considered a safe level of CO2. We're over 400 ppm now.
4. According to NASA, solar output studies since 1978 show the sun has decreased in irradiation recently and can only account for as much as 10% of the warming over the 20th century. I don't think many who dismiss science realize how much it has looked at all the factors.
5. Researchers isolate natural influences and eliminate them as possible causes because there's not relationship shown in the data between the warming we're seeing and their inputs. There is, however, a strong relationship between human output of greenhouse gases and a direct relationship to a warming planet.
7. There's ample scientific proof that it's humans causing most of this warming and it's published as well as summarized online for your review. I recommend NASA and NOAA as initial sources, but research from around the world has been done. As for whether we can influence it, isn't that really up to us? Why not let your blind rage go and join us in creating the solutions? Imagine the economic boon these efforts could unleash!
Is it possible that those promoting global warming have a like motivation?
When you look at the funding sources of the research, it becomes highly unlikely. Of course, there are some radicals and such trying to capitalize for their own purpose, but in the end we have tens of thousands of research studies pointing in one direction: a warming planet driven largely by human factors.
What we do with that information is up to us. There's no reason to assume the solution requires big government. That's simply the leading one put forward to date because others are pretending it's not even real. So long as they remain in denial, we will never create a marketplace of ideas to consider and will have to default to higher tax solutions.
The Lack Of Greenhouse Gases
...
Is the Earth really in danger of HEATING UP from "Greenhouse gases"?
Let us look at our neighbor, which does not have an atmosphere.
...
The lunar surface (equator) -
minimum : 100 K (-279.67 F)
maximum : 390 K ( 242.33 F)
By observation, one may note that despite almost equal energy input from the Sun, the Earth enjoys a substantial COOLING effect (-60K) from the presence of its atmosphere.
“A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.”
WAIT - the Earth with atmosphere is 60° K cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere.
But they’re saying the greenhouse gases are keeping us 30 K warmer (K and C are the same interval), so we should be 90 K cooler without the “greenhouse” gases.
(Huh?)
....
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
Earth’s albedo is about 0.30, while the Moon’s albedo is only about 0.11.
ALBEDO - The fraction of incident electromagnetic radiation reflected by a surface, especially of a celestial body.
. . .
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
. . . http://wstannard.wordpress.com/the-g...nergy-balance/
One of the comments summed it up : “I postulate => the net result of GH gasses is to cool the Earth!”
Come on, folks, let’s albedo friends.
Despite EQUAL solar input, the Earth maximum is 60 K (108 F) cooler than the moon maximum. How does atmospheric insulation “cool” the Earth, trap heat and contribute to “global warming” all at the same time?
"WHAT Global Warming from Greenhouse gases?"
● Earth max : (134.33 F) {“heat trapping atmosphere”}
● Space station max : (250 F) {“no atmosphere”}
● Lunar surface max : ( 242.33 F) {“no atmosphere”}
Solar irradiance (W/m2) : 1367.6 (Moon) 1367.6 (Earth)
This is an easy one. it's all about the right ratios. We have an atmosphere that has evolved naturally with a relatively stable amount of greenhouse gases that protect the earth from overly intense solar radiation (unlike the planet and moon you referenced). Obviously, life depends upon CO2 (trees absorb it to live and convert it into oxygen).
It's when we put the equivalent of a blanket over the planet by adding too many greenhouse gases that it loses that critical balance and begins to warm.
I think a lot of people who doubt the research are looking for very clean "good versus evil' type answers, such as "CO2 is bad", but that's not how it works. Too much CO2 is bad. The right amount of CO2 is very, very good for us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
Really?
