Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you have any proof that AGW is not real?

Do you even know what the residence time of CO2 is in the atmosphere? What about radiative forcing?

Unless you actually have an understanding of Atmospheric Chemistry, then you really have no business trying to debunk what is apparent.

We have seen a 40% increase of CO2 as a result of the industrial revolution. CO2 causes radiative forcing.....

originally posted by: pikestaff
I read somewhere, just after the USSR collapsed, that half the weather stations were closed down due to lack of funds, so the Russian weather data is suspect, plus with urban sprawl, airports are now in the middle of a 'heat islands' more suspect weather data, and just how does a satellite measure the temperature of the sea?

Everything material has a temperature and the frequency of infrared that it radiates is directly related to its temperature.

The radiation has a specific spectrum and intensity that depends only on the temperature of the body.
en.wikipedia.org...

At night the infrared light could be seen from space and the temperature determined by that.

Like with this thermometer

This laser thermometer accurately measures temperatures of hard-to-reach areas and hazardous materials (like car engines and other machinery) from a safe distance! The infrared thermometer accurately measures up to 1/10th of a degree in Celsius or Fahrenheit on its LCD display! Features include an ergonomic trigger to give you total control, making this a great laser thermometer for mechanics and machinists to safely check the heat before getting back to work.
www.harborfreight.com...

It costs $25.00 USD

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you have any proof that AGW is not real?

Do you even know what the residence time of CO2 is in the atmosphere? What about radiative forcing?

Unless you actually have an understanding of Atmospheric Chemistry, then you really have no business trying to debunk what is apparent.

We have seen a 40% increase of CO2 as a result of the industrial revolution. CO2 causes radiative forcing.....

CO2 is less than .1% of the atmosphere, and only a fraction of the radiation reemitted by CO2 would come back to the Earth. Radiative forcing with a fraction of less than 1/4th of less than .1% of ambient temperature is like trying to heat a swimming pool or a house with safety matches.

originally posted by: rickymouse


Both sides seem to be making up a lot of crap. Never the less, we can't keep putting unnatural or concentrated chemistry into our environment, especially if we are dampening it's ability to repair itself.

First of all, there are more than 2 sides on the topic of AGW and Climate Change. Not all, nor a majority of scientists fall in the two groups you are trying to put them in. At least the ones that really have knowledge on the topic.

originally posted by: rickymouse

I do not know particulars of the chemistry needed to balance the CO2, but many climate scientists do know the answer to that.

So, if you don't know "the particular chemistry of this balance you keep talking about for CO2" then why proclaim there is one?...

The Earth has had up to about 12 times as much atmospheric CO2 as there is now in the atmosphere, and there was no "tipping point". I am almost certain that you are in part talking about the claim that "if CO2 reaches a level Earth will become like Venus". This sort of claim is a fallacy because the Earth has seen much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and it never turned into Venus. Not to mention that for the majority of the existence of Earth CO2 levels have been much, much higher than now. So what is it about this claim that some people seem to think "they know there is a balance for CO2"?...

originally posted by: rickymouse

Computer models are relevent to a certain point, if they have accurate information fed into them. Most of the real climate scientists see there is a problem and are not sure what is actually happening, they are forced to try to produce evidence to prove what is exactly happening. But we are effecting our planets weather patterns somehow, We are exceeding our natural negative contribution to the environment we are living in.

First of all, there is plenty of evidence that shows Global Computer models are flawed, and their conclusions are not relevant at all because they do not take in consideration lot of natural factors which do affect the climate.

Open Access


Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613; doi:10.3390/rs3081603

Article

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance†

Roy W. Spencer * email and William D. Braswellemail


Received: 24 May 2011; in revised form: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 15 July 2011 / Published: 25 July 2011

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
...

www.mdpi.com...



www.drroyspencer.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse

There is no evidence to prove that the earth's ecosystem can handle the impact of the industrialized world we have today. In fact, most evidence shows it is faultering.

You are wrong on that. First of all, "the impact of the industrialized world" encompasses a lot of areas of human activity. Second of all, it isn't CO2 itself that is the problem. Yet, you are trying to play a trick not addressing this fact and just by trying to lump all the problems into one including CO2.

In your other statements you try to go after CO2 and mention it as what you think is the main cause in Climate change. But in this last claim you made you not only lump all of mankind's activities but you also want to proclaim that "the Earth's ecosystem can't handle it" which would imply you believe the ecosystem can't handle the amount of CO2 levels we see today... That's a contradiction because CO2 levels have been much higher on Earth's past, and the Earth was not only able to deal with it but also THRIVED...

The truth is that going after CO2 is not going to stop most of the real problems which are causing pollution. Second of all, last I checked the Earth is still here. The Earth is going through many natural changes and people like you are trying to proclaim that "it is all because of CO2 and mankind's activities" when that's not true.

originally posted by: rickymouse

Maybe you want to believe it doesn't effect the environment because it negatively effects your way of life to believe otherwise. That is your right. I'm looking at the whole picture, and do understand I am also part of the problem, but I can lower my buying of unneeded things.
...

Wow, so you know for certain that my opinions must be based on selfishness because of what? What are you trying to imply exactly? I do not own any company. I am not getting paid by any "oil or any other similar type of company" to make these posts and post my opinion or the evidence I keep finding that AGW is just a scam...

I find it ironic that every time proponents of AGW can't understand what is being talked about first they start proclaiming "but all scientists agree with us". When it is shown that this is not true and that their opinions are based on false belief there is always the claim "you must have some ulterior and dark motive for doing this"...

My motives are neither dark, and my opinion or the evidence I present is not based on selfishness, but rather on realism.

Will the caps, taxes and laws that the world elites want to implement behind their claim that they are 'combating climate change affect me? No, they will affect EVERYONE... Not just me. That's first. Second, you don't even know how or where I live. Yet you, among some other people want to claim that my opinion or the facts I present are based just on selfishness, and that's an ad hominem attack. Another fallacy on your part because you don't want to accept the evidence being shown to you. You just want to keep believing all the changes Earth is undergoing "must be because of CO2 and mankind"...

BTW rickymouse, I say that people like you just want to impose your views on everyone. You want to force people to accept your beliefs, and want to force them to live like you "believe" people must live... If anyone's ulterior motives are based on selfishness it is that of people like you.

I don't live in a boat, don't have a mansion like Al Gore has despite the fact that the AGW crowd see Al Gore as "someone fighting for the Earth" when that is far from the truth. I don't even buy things excessively, or live a "lavish lifestyle". Yet again why is it that every time the AGW proponents don't want to discuss or even look at the evidence provided they try to proclaim or in this instance imply that "those who disagree with them must have ulterior motives and seem to be rich people"??...

It is always the same. when the topic is not going the way the AGW proponents want they always resort to tactics that are basically ad hominem and fallacious personal attacks.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

We could put things into the atmosphere that neutralize the effects of raised CO2 levels. I have read articles addressing the balance in the atmosphere, I did not memorize the articles. I just saw they were talking about chemistry being balanced. I do not need to know how to balance it, I am not in this science. I will let those who spend their lives researching this figure it out.

Were humans here when the CO2 levels were many times as high? Were we flying around in the turbulant weather in aircraft at that time? Were there power lines scattered all over the landscape and were we dependent on electricity?

Now I did not say you were being paid to challenge climate change. I did say that you probably could be negatively effected by it and that was fueling your opinion. Now if you sell refrigerators and they start making them to last twice as long, you would have less sales. If you like flying all over and the jets were proven to add to the climate change, which is true, then you would not like this action restricted. If you liked to drive all over anytime you wanted to, you would not like a tax added on your gas. This steers our perception of things and we only accept things that reinforce our beliefs. This is common knowledge that this occurs in just about everyone. You do not have to be paid, you can just be plain ignorant of everything that does not fit into your perspective.

As far as Al Gore, he is such a wasteful person, he is a disgrace to the cause. I am not in anyway saying things we need are to be effected, I am saying the wants we have should be looked at. We only have to reduce our pollution about ten percent over the next five years, that is not a lot.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Incredible you got 3 stars for that post. I know who gave you one of them. If you had a valid point you would not need to resort to some phoney analogy. What is the highest level of science you completed?


Just because CO2 is a small fraction of the atmosphere, does not mean it is not significant.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It doesn't matter what the cause of this climate change is anyway. The fact is that the same treatment for the problem will help to slow the progression of the climate change. We have to let nature get back to cleaning up things and quit poisoning it. We have to start conserving more. We need to combine trips to the stores and keep stocks of food in our pantry so we aren't jumping in a car and traveling three miles to get some milk when we just drove by the store on the way home. We need to start thinking more conservatively and this will actually save us money in the long run.

The corporations making all these chemicals that hurt the environment need to be stopped, this will also make our food better for us. These toxins are causing us problems too. How many people are losing their good health from this chemistry that has been created, they are experiencing increases in healthcare costs and a loss of quality of life. It is not just the fish and the bees that are effected. Anyone should be able to see this. So now we have to go to the doctors more, jump in the car and drive ten miles in congested traffic which contains others on their way to the doctors. They are peeing out synthetic drugs into the sewer that is causing problems with nature.

It is not just CO2, I have never said that CO2 is the main problem in any of my posts here on ATS. It is a player in all of this but if we had trees they should be absorbing this CO2 and making wood out of it. It is a combination of a lot of things, including mining and fracking. A lot of this is being caused by us exporting jobs to China instead of fixing the problems with our polluting properly. They don't have environmental regulations in these other countries and their people have to wear masks to work because the environment is so bad. Now our people are working at fast food restaurants and sitting at desks and they are getting unhealthy from that.

We need to fix things right, not deny the problems exist.

a reply to: rickymouse

Wow... So what you are saying is pretty much that anyone who disagrees with you must have ulterior motives because "they will have less things to sell"... Seriously?...

And what is this OBSESSION with trying to sequester CO2?... You keep forgetting that ALL LIFE on Earth is carbon based... In order for LIFE to exist there has to be CO2, and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are in fact beneficial. BTW, once again I am not talking about the REAL POLLUTANTS and toxic chemicals. We are talking about CO2.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...

www.spaceref.com...

Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants


By: Daniel R. Taub (Biology Department, Southwestern University) © 2010 Nature Education


Citation: Taub, D. (2010) Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):21

...
One of the most consistent effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants is an increase in the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation by leaves. Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis, but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the degree of stomatal opening (related to a measure known as stomatal conductance) as a compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of water loss. As CO2 concentrations increase, plants can maintain high photosynthetic rates with relatively low stomatal conductance. Across a variety of FACE experiments, growth under elevated CO2 decreases stomatal conductance of water by an average of 22% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). This would be expected to decrease overall plant water use, although the magnitude of the overall effect of CO2 will depend on how it affects other determinants of plant water use, such as plant size, morphology, and leaf temperature. Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009).
...

www.nature.com...

With higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present it would mean GROWTH for all green biomass, and "increased harvests" which mean more food for humans and animals. Then there is the fact that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 plants make better use of water, which means they use LESS water. Leaving more water for humans and animals.

So tell me, how in the world is an increase in atmospheric CO2 bad for nature and the planet?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Read my post right above your post. I clearly state that CO2 is just one of the players. Feel free to research any posts on this subject that I have written here on ATS and I never state that CO2 is the main problem. It is overall pollution that is the problem. Heating our houses is necessary and so is making sure they are insulated and have the cracks calked so we don't waste fuel and money through infiltration. Most of this conservation can actually save a person money. Most of the products made that are Eco-friendly are not Eco-friendly because they just stimulate the economy.

We have been conditioned to spend money buying things we do not really need. This is the problem. Is this our fault or is it a fault of society.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yet the 40% of CO2 is a short amount of time is undeniable.

That is a major flag that many choose to ignore.

a reply to: jrod

Yet the Earth has been warming since the 1600s almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution, which proves mankind did not cause Climate Change. We also know that other natural factors which affect the climate have been occurring such as the weakening of Earth's magnetic field, the increase in solar activity despite the AGW proponents claiming the contrary, among many others. Then there is the fact that the GCMs have been found to be wrong... Yet despite the fact that all the evidence shows that "CO2" is not the cause, or even a major cause behind Climate Change you want to claim the contrary?...

a reply to: rickymouse

Sorry but there is no proof that "CO2 is one of the players" behind Climate Change. You maintained in this thread that "there is a natural balance of CO2" yet you are unable to provide evidence to this. All you keep doing is posting your opinions but not real evidence to corroborate your claims. The Global Climate models have been shown to be wrong. The AGW scientist proponents have been caught time and again lying, posting false data and even manipulating the data and trying everything they can to stop scientists and regular people to get their hands on raw temperature data.

Must the real pollution be stopped? Yes, but the fact is that the global elites, and the main premise behind the AGW claim is "to go after CO2"... Their plans is not to stop the real toxic chemicals and gases that are being emitted. Their plans is to use natural climate change to implement more and more draconian laws under the guise that "they are fighting climate change and sequestering CO2"...

The current plans to keep sequestering CO2 will only mean that there will be less, and less plants and trees and they will use more and more water which leave less and less food and water for humans and animals...

But hey, we do know the fact that the world elites do want to implement more and more measures to not only depopulate Earth, but to control the population, and that's the real reason behind the AGW claim.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Climate change is just a catch word that you through around to discredit 'activist' like me.

40% and rising as a result of human activity....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Climate change is just a catch word that you through around to discredit 'activist' like me.

40% and rising as a result of human activity....

No it isn't a catch phrase, and in fact the AGW proponents are the ones just calling it now Climate Change and not AGW as they used to call it or Global Warming.

Jrod, every time it is the same ting with you. All you do is make false claims, and you deny deny deny any and every evidence presented that refutes your "beliefs".

Just because CO2 has increased and IN PART it has been because of mankind activities that is NO PROOF that the changes in climate that Earth has been experiencing have been caused by CO2 or mankind.

In fact, it is people like you who keep ignoring the fact that the Earth has been undergoing EXTREME CHANGES which hasn't been seen in over 800,000 years or more. One such example is the weakening of Earth's magnetic field. Or the changes seen in the Sun, or the fact that more and more evidence keeps showing that underwater volcano activity which has been melting many glaciers and warming oceans, as well as seismic activity have been on the increase... Yet you, and others like you just want to ignore all this and keep wanting to claim "it's all because of mankind and CO2"...

Your responses in this thread are the same ones you do every time in every other thread. You never provide an intelligent argument, and all you do is "deny, deny, and deny"...

If scientists risked their reputation and future careers by lying or fudging the data to bring more attention to Global Warming, then I'd be even more freaked out about it than I am... and I am certainly aware of it and see the data /logic in it and am thus concerned as it is.

But if all these scientists are colluding ... then whoah boy... it's much, much worse than I thought.

ETA And think about what it means to go against the fossil fuel cartels... the guys who really run things and are at the center of most real conspiracies. What do these scientists gain by lying about AGW?

a reply to: Baddogma

Or.
If they're lying there is another agenda.......

They've been caught fudging data.
So the data that "proves" it to you.
Is conceivably fudged too.
In fact, most likely fudged.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z
No. It is not a matter of scale.
Weather changes from day to day. Hour to hour.
Climate represents long term tendencies. Decades. Climatologists don't even pretend to predict weather because weather is not climate.

Yes, weather changes "day to day. Hour to hour" just like the forecasts do trying to predict it.

And in like kind, climate is going to change year by year, decade by decade, century by century, just like the predictions that the climatologists are making.

When was it, the '70s when the climatologists were predicting that we were heading into another ice age? Then it changed to "global warming" instead. And now they have (reading between the lines) all but admitted that they don't have a clue what is coming, but have admitted that the climate is not stable and unchanging, so "climate change" is now the boogeyman under the bed.

When you live long enough you will see these climatological predictions change every bit as much as a local weather forecast will change over a 3, 5, and 10 day period. It becomes painfully obvious that weathermen don't really have a clue about what to expect more than 12 hours out (if that), so personally expecting climatologists to do any better 10, 25, or 100 years out is observably ridiculous.

Argue all you want with your hairsplitting, the rapidly balding argument can't be covered up in that manner.

So let's boil this issue down to one simple question. Well actually two. (1) Has the climate changed on this earth before mankind could have possibly been an influence? (2) If so, then what caused the changes then? Ah well, let's make it three questions: (3) If (1) is affirmative and (2) is known, then have those causes been ruled out as being an influence TODAY?

a reply to: Rich Z

When was it, the '70s when the climatologists were predicting that we were heading into another ice age?

A couple maybe. But there were a lot more who were concerned about the warming effects of CO2.
scholar.google.com...

When you live long enough you will see these climatological predictions change every bit as much as a local weather forecast will change over a 3, 5, and 10 day period.

I've lived for quite a while and no, climatologists have been concerned about the effects of increasing CO2 consistently, for decades.


1) Yes
2) Things that are not happening now. Like particular orbital/axial configurations. Like increases in solar radiation.
3) Yes, because those things are not happening now. But CO2 levels are increasing and it is CO2 that is a result of the burning of fossil fuels.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Funny you write that. All you have are strawman arguments and topic dilution. I can cite actual PHDs in this subject to back my claims, all you have are strawmen.

I keep repeating the 40% rise in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution because that statistic is ignored and even attempted to be debunked by people in denial.