Cosmos: Global Warming

a reply to: Phage

the mass of the ocean 1,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg or 1.4 x 10 ^ 21 kg

The mass of the atmosphere 515,000,000 kg or 5,15 x 10 ^ 8 kg

The ocean is 2,700,000,000,000 times as massive as the atmosphere.

I don't think 200ppm of anything radiating in the atmosphere is going to change the temperature of the ocean.

A 200ppm item would have to exert an effect 10000 times its normal energy to affect the atmosphere.

The Greenhouse Gas concentration could be a symptom of a change, but it is not an effector.

a reply to: Phage

Plus, everyone working in global warming is being paid to make it true.

And a new, more distant layer of government is trying to use it to materialize.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't think 200ppm of anything radiating in the atmosphere is going to change the temperature of the ocean.

Well, we're a bit more worried about the atmosphere at the moment but the ocean will catch up. Where do you think the heat that doesn't radiate back into space ends up?

A 200ppm item would have to exert an effect 10000 times its normal energy to affect the atmosphere.

What normal energy does a 200ppm item have?

Plus, everyone working in global warming is being paid to make it true.

Really? How do they make it true?

And a new, more distant layer of government is trying to use it to materialize.

Wait. An layer of government is using global warming to materialize itself? That's pretty scary. Are they like, in the phantom zone now or something?

So...did you read the report?

a reply to: Phage

What normal energy does a 200ppm item have?

The same as the gas atoms it collides with, average.

Really? How do they make it true?

OK, I didn't mean that they would attempt to cause global warming. Only that they would swear that they believe global warming is man made.

Wait. An layer of government is using global warming to materialize itself? That's pretty scary. Are they like, in the phantom zone now or something?

Like the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution. Depending on which politicians are in office, it is one media show away.

So...did you read the report?

Did I say each Greenhouse gas molecule would have to exert an effect 10,000 times its normal energy?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The same as the gas atoms it collides with, average.

But we aren't talking about thermal transfer, are we? We are talking about radiative forcing. The amount of solar energy leaving vs. the amount entering.

Only that they would swear that they believe global warming is man made.

They're lying then? They don't really believe it? You're sure about that? How about the scientists that disagree, the ones that are being paid by energy companies? Are they lying too?

Like the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution. Depending on which politicians in office, it is one media show away.

I still don't understand.

Did I say each Greenhouse gas molecule would have to exert an effect 10,000 times its normal energy?

Yes, you did. But I don't know why. Earlier you said:

No explanations or arguments proving indisputable Anthropogenic Global Warming.

If you read the report you will find that it does not prove indisputably AGW. You might learn a few other things too.

a reply to: Phage

But we aren't talking about thermal transfer, are we? We are talking about radiative forcing.

If greenhouse gases radiate heat back to the surface, then they also radiate heat from the sun back out into space.

Maybe greenhouse gases make the Earth cooler.

They're lying then? They don't really believe it? You're sure about that? How about the scientists that disagree, the ones that are being paid by energy companies? Are they lying too?

Possibly, they have motivation to lie.

They can believe whatever they want. Don't demand that I believe something I don't.

What is the argument of the scientists that disagree?

Possibly, they have motivation to lie.

[quote] I still don't understand. [about the government's motivation to adopt a global warming regime]

The United States government has not abided by the Constitution since before the American Civil War.

Amendment X -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment IX -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution says nothing about secession, therefore it was legal.

The government will do whatever it wants to. Global Warming is a way for the government to assume more power and collect more money.

Yes, you did. But I don't know why.

The 10,000 times energy is an order of magnitude estimate. 1,000,000 / 200 = 5000 most energy transfers are inefficient,
and order of magnitude calculations round up past the digit 3.

If you read the report you will find that it does not prove indisputably AGW. You might learn a few other things too.

I started to read it. Then I remembered that the greenhouse gas effect itself has not been proven. Or I heard that anyway.

As I said, wont the green house gasses radiate sunlight out into space?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Phage

But we aren't talking about thermal transfer, are we? We are talking about radiative forcing.

If greenhouse gases radiate heat back to the surface, then they also radiate heat from the sun back out into space.

Maybe greenhouse gases make the Earth cooler.

They're lying then? They don't really believe it? You're sure about that? How about the scientists that disagree, the ones that are being paid by energy companies? Are they lying too?

Possibly, they have motivation to lie.

They can believe whatever they want. Don't demand that I believe something I don't.

What is the argument of the scientists that disagree?

Possibly, they have motivation to lie.

I still don't understand. [about the government's motivation to adopt a global warming regime]

The United States government has not abided by the Constitution since before the American Civil War.

Amendment X -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment IX -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution says nothing about secession, therefore it was legal.

The government will do whatever it wants to. Global Warming is a way for the government to assume more power and collect more money.

Yes, you did. But I don't know why.

The 10,000 times energy is an order of magnitude estimate. 1,000,000 / 200 = 5000 most energy transfers are inefficient,
and order of magnitude calculations round up past the digit 3.

If you read the report you will find that it does not prove indisputably AGW. You might learn a few other things too.

I started to read it. Then I remembered that the greenhouse gas effect itself has not been proven. Or I heard that anyway.

As I said, wont the green house gasses radiate sunlight out into space?

a reply to: Phage

But we aren't talking about thermal transfer, are we? We are talking about radiative forcing.

If greenhouse gases radiate heat back to the surface, then they also radiate heat from the sun back out into space.

Maybe greenhouse gases make the Earth cooler.

They're lying then? They don't really believe it? You're sure about that? How about the scientists that disagree, the ones that are being paid by energy companies? Are they lying too?

Possibly, they have motivation to lie.

They can believe whatever they want. Don't demand that I believe something I don't.

What is the argument of the scientists that disagree?

Possibly, they have motivation to lie.

I still don't understand. (about the government's motivation to adopt a global warming regime)

The United States government has not abided by the Constitution since before the American Civil War.

Amendment X -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment IX -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution says nothing about secession, therefore it was legal.

The government will do whatever it wants to. Global Warming is a way for the government to assume more power and collect more money.

Yes, you did. But I don't know why.

The 10,000 times energy is an order of magnitude estimate. 1,000,000 / 200 = 5000
most energy transfers are inefficient, and order of magnitude calculations round up past the digit 3.

If you read the report you will find that it does not prove indisputably AGW. You might learn a few other things too.

I started to read it. Then I remembered that the greenhouse gas effect itself has not been proven. Or I heard that anyway.

As I said, wont the green house gasses radiate sunlight out into space?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SalientSkivvy
No. Rayleigh scattering is what causes blue skys and it doesn't matter much what the molecular composition is. If the atmosphere on Mars were dense enough the Martian sky would be blue.

math.ucr.edu...

Humm... So everything I'v read in my dinosaur and ancient earth books is false..... hummmm.... ok.

originally posted by: luxordelphi
a reply to: Astrocyte

Sadly, Venus supposedly once had an atmosphere like earth. It used to have blue skies. Now they are yellow.

Sadly, no, you made that up.

originally posted by: snarky412

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: Astrocyte
If the ice sheets melt in the Antarctic how many more fossils of plants and animals will they find? I was reading about plant fossils that were 100 million years old and dinosaur bones they found there. Not sure if mankind was burning fossil fuels or coal powered plants back then to make it warm enough for plants to grow in the Antarctic. Sorry but I don't agree that imposing a carbon tax would help lower the temp of the planet. I think it's just a way to get more money from people. If they want to tax something why not tax politicians $20 for every lie they say that way the country would be out of debt and might even have a surplus.

The ONLY way to stop mankind from polluting our Earth is to stop production of all products

The "ONLY" way?

Hah!

A massive culling of the offending organism will solve the problem.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Simply...increased CO2 concentrations lead to increased radiative forcing.

Simply.... Prove It.

~Namaste

a reply to: snarky412

The problem does not lie in whether the technology exists or not, but rather our consuming habits.

Unfortunately, the focus of different companies as well as consumers, has gone to quantity instead of quality. Rather than setting the effort on maximising the lifetime of different products, companies are focusing on the quantity being sold, which can be achieved at lowering the cost of the product, often at the expense of the cheap labour creating the products or poor environmental/workplace standards of Asian nations. At the same time, the companies are working hard to make people buy the newest gadgets, even when old ones are still working well. This is achieved by strong advertising (somewhat of a planned obsolescence). The newest gadgets are not usually much better than the previous ones especially when it comes to hardware, yet the hard-core advertising creates an illusion that these are far better and the new is in, while the old one is out of fashion. This leads to millions of people getting the latest iPhone or Galaxy, despite their old one being yet in perfect shape.

Consumers as well do not care much about the quality of their products. Majority of people would rather buy something cheaply and change it often, rather than paying more for a product with longer lifetime. Good examples of this would be fast fashion products (H&M for example), technology (unfortunately), cars (why get a new one

Personally I have tried to minimise my consuming habits. I always go for the quality of the products and use these usually for years before getting new ones. Most of my clothes are more than couple of years old (still like new ones), due to working in technology fields, I need to have my tech somewhat updated, although I change these usually every 3 or 4 years if not even 5 (or when current ones break down, which is becoming more and more common...)

What I want to say, technology can exist, the consuming habits need to change. We are the consumers, the companies can not exist without us buying their products. The companies create their products according to what customers want and unfortunately majority of people want cheap cr*p and as much of it as possible. That is where the problem lies. If people would be willing to pay more for things that last, for knowing that no one had to suffer for creating them such products, for knowing the product and the creation of it is environmentally friendly + would buy new things when the old ones break down rather than when new one comes out, we would not be where we are currently...

a reply to: Phage

Dear Phage,

Thank you so much for checking my work, I was wrong in thinking that the models had been charted for the period 2000-2013, they had been charted for the period of 1979-2013. Also, they are charting 90 models, not 80. The results, however are the same. Over 95% of the models predicted warmer temperatures (when charted as five-year trends) than recorded either on the surface or by satellite.

There's a little pointy down triangle symbol thingy, forgive the technical language, on the top banner that is supposed to open a second menu, including uploading images, when you click it. Mine isn't working. May I simply give you the link?

www.drroyspencer.com...

The comments to the article appear far more scientifically literate than anything I've seen on ATS, and link to various scientific papers. At this point, I'm satisfied with that conclusion, barring serious contradictory evidence, of course.

Now, about the agreement of scientists on the position that Global Warming exists now, is harmful and is primarily man-made? Various analyses have been done on Mr. Cook's study (I believe he is not a doctor) and there has been a very impressive amount of condemnation of his techniques, resulting in an extraordinarily skewed and nearly useless study.

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

dailycaller.com...

Dear Phage, it seems as though your questions have been pretty well answered. Are you converted yet?

With respect,
Charles1952

With volcanic activity up %300 in the last 2,000 years, I think that might have a bit to do with our atmospheric CO2 content.
Veering away from 'global warming' for a bit, latest update from climate depot says lake Superior still has ice on it, and Michigan still has snow on the ground, in June?
Just a reminder that there has been no mean temperature increase of the worlds atmosphere for the last 16 years.
As for the IPCC, I just don't trust anything that come out of that organisation.

a reply to: snarky412

The only way to stop polluting our air is by going back to the pioneer days before Man created all these fancy gadgets

No we don't have to go that far back. What would help is if we were to get rid of a few things like planned obsolescence and stop being a disposable society. Now we make products that last till their warranty is over then it dies so we have to get a new one. Also look at people that just have to get the latest and newest product even though the product they already have more than fits their needs. We can make our energy without polluting the atmosphere but people want to keep America on fossil fuels because of all the money that is being made.

originally posted by: sasquatch5100
a reply to: Astrocyte

I did not watch the show when I seen it was about global warming so I have a question.

Did anyone on the show bring up how many more millions of miles closer Venus is to that giant ball of fire at the center of our solar system than Earth is? How can that distance NOT be factored in when discussing how hot Venus is?

No wait, never mind. It has to be the carbon pollution on Venus and not its proximity to the sun that causes all that heat if they want to get stupid people to accept paying higher taxes that will in some way keep our planet from becoming Venus.

Ridiculous!

Um, you really don't think the scientists thought of that. LOL

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: snarky412

The only way to stop polluting our air is by going back to the pioneer days before Man created all these fancy gadgets

No we don't have to go that far back. What would help is if we were to get rid of a few things like planned obsolescence and stop being a disposable society. Now we make products that last till their warranty is over then it dies so we have to get a new one. Also look at people that just have to get the latest and newest product even though the product they already have more than fits their needs. We can make our energy without polluting the atmosphere but people want to keep America on fossil fuels because of all the money that is being made.

^I agree with this statement whether climate change is man made or not. It's this kind of common sense that everyone needs, take politics out please.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: sasquatch5100
a reply to: Astrocyte

I did not watch the show when I seen it was about global warming so I have a question.

Did anyone on the show bring up how many more millions of miles closer Venus is to that giant ball of fire at the center of our solar system than Earth is? How can that distance NOT be factored in when discussing how hot Venus is?

No wait, never mind. It has to be the carbon pollution on Venus and not its proximity to the sun that causes all that heat if they want to get stupid people to accept paying higher taxes that will in some way keep our planet from becoming Venus.

Ridiculous!

Um, you really don't think the scientists thought of that. LOL

The scientists obviously did, but it was obviously omitted by Neil onGrass Tyson.

Um, your smugness is a fail. lol.