Greenhouse gasses influence our climate more than the sun

You all do know the real problem is not global warming and green house gases but Global Dimming!
Watch this Vid
Dimming has already been linked to droughts in Africa and may have already killed millions! in Asia

Dear me, that must count as an overwhelming consensus, mustn't it?

Listen, I read that thread before you pointed me at it. And if that's your idea of 'proof', I'm afraid it will butter no parsnips.

Firstly, i never said anything about a general or overwhelming consensus.

Secondly.. oooooOOOOHHHHHHHH!!! Butter me parsnips. Are you capable of understanding this... I NEVER SAID CLIMATE CHANGE WAS NOT AFFECTED OR IN SOME SENSE CAUSED BY HUMANS.

Im after writing this around three times. Will you please just read my other posts - Well, leave out the one where i was drunk and being obnoxious.. im not able to delete it for some reason.

My original point... which I am sticking to by the way is there is an awful lot more to climate change than the human aspect so the causality that is being portrayed by the media can be extremely hard to believe. Especially when scientists on both sides of the argument always leave out large facts from their reports.

I know you are probably going to come back at me with some stupid arguement about how i am completely wrong for having an open mind on the subject but don't waste your time.

Originally posted by ablissfulman

Come on, is that all you can sling at me? I was expecting a bigger fight from you guys.

I'm all ears for Debunkers. This is very interesting.

Ah yes, now I see why you jumped down my neck.

You think i am trying to debunk global warming & climate change

Did you forget to take your happy pills this morning or somethin?

Not everyone is trying to disagree with you all the time, no need to get up on your little high horse over nothing.

Feckin Yanks!

Right, im going to post links to where I got the info for my first post.. seeing as you two are too stupid to use google

I don't even know why im actually bothering but if you have any problems with this, take it up with the respective sources.

This should at least prove to you guys that not everyone on this site makes everything up.

**************

Temp increase as a result of grounded planes in the USA. I was slightly off. It was not 1.5f, it was 1c. Oops.. ,my bad.. not.

Also, i don't give two f*cks about al gore.. i only know who he is because of his dvd so no need for the American political nonsense please.

www.geotimes.org...

“Suddenly, almost like magic, for the three days following September 11 we had a sudden clearing and temperature variations that were larger than normal,” Travis says. The team found the largest three-day change in any September over the past three decades, with an increased daily shift of an extra 1 degree Celsius on average under the temporarily clear skies. Regionally, the daily temperature swings over those three days were greatest in places that usually had the most cloud cover in fall, such as the Midwest.

****************

Temperature's plaining.. scientists at odds about whether the earth is warming or cooling or what..
www.reason.com...

****************

Mars caps melting - I couldn't find the detailed report that i had read about this. It was about t 20 year study of the martian ice caps and their reduction in size. You will just have to do with this.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


*****************

Scientists caught giving false temp readings

www.care2.com...



Now, you can stop giving me sh*t about it.

reply to post by ablissfulman

Your Mercury versus Venus comparison is flawed. Venus rotates like the earth does. Mercury doesn't. It keeps the same side pointed at the sun all the time. The low temperature is for the back side that never gets any sunlight.

As for global warming, I wish people would do their homework. Average global temperatures since January of 2007 have dropped by 0.8 degrees C which is more than all of the warming during the entire 20th century(0.7 degrees). 2008 has just been declared the coldest year so far this century. 1998 is still the hottest year on record. And the clincher is...

The report written by the scientist who analyzed the ice core samples taken from Greenland and Antarctica, which was also used for the giant charts behind Al Gore in the move Inconvenient Truth, says in his report, that CO2 lagged behind global temperatures in every case where the overall trend changed from down to up or from up to down. The lag time was an average of 1100 years with the minimum being 400 years and the maximum lag being 1800 years. This means that there were periods of at least 400 years when average temperatures had already started to decline but CO2 levels were still going up. If temperatures could decline when CO2 levels were rising then CO2 obviously couldn't be causing temperatures to go up. The laws of chemistry haven't changed in the 600,000 years covered by the ice cores. If CO2 didn't cause global warming back then, then it isn't causing global warming now. The report makes it clear that the rise in CO2 is caused by increases in global temperatures and not the other way around. The mechanism that causes this is average ocean temperatures. Warm ocean water gives off CO2 and cold ocean water absorbs CO2. Since average ocean temperature changes very slowly, that explains the multi-century lag between air temperature and CO2 levels. What causes ocean temperatures to change is the energy that makes it to the earth's surface from the sun. That energy output is not constant. Even very small changes in output can make measurable changes in the amount of energy that reaches the ground.

Originally posted by ablissfulman
But how is that possible? Mercury IS the closest planet to the sun so how can it have such a freezing cold temperature while the Earth, which is farther away, has a minimum temperature that doesn't evencome close to it?

Sigh, another lack of research

1. The coldest temperatures are at the poles and on the side of Mercury that faces away from the sun

2. Mercury has little or no atmosphere to trap heat in due to its size

But anyway, lets now look at Venus, which is the second planet from the sun. Its mean surface temperature is 461.85 C (863.33 F). What is Mercury's mean surface temperature? At its equator its about 67 C (152.6).

Venus has a thick choking atmosphere and thick sulfur based clouds which trap the heat in

- Venus is boiling hot in comparison to Mercury
- The Earth's minimum temperature is actually higher than Mercury's when Mercury is the closest planet to the sun while the Earth isn't.

My answer is: a relatively thicker atmosphere which consists of greenhouse gasses.

Errr, no.....we have an atmosphere....period

I doubt anyone can debunk this, and it's also proof of Global Warming.

Debunked, now I think you should go do some proper research

[edit on 21/12/2008 by OzWeatherman]

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
As for global warming, I wish people would do their homework. Average global temperatures since January of 2007 have dropped by 0.8 degrees C which is more than all of the warming during the entire 20th century(0.7 degrees). 2008 has just been declared the coldest year so far this century. 1998 is still the hottest year on record.

Sounds compelling, until we see the data.

Librals made the whole things up!
wah wah wah there murcery in the water, thee terists are getting sick.

Science

these same scintists saiding that man ain't 6,000 old.
now if that was true there would be a million year old poop pile!

Global warming ain't true

reply to post by ablissfulman

Mercury, the closest planet to the sun has very little of an atmosphere. However, its minimum temperature ranges from -193 degrees celsius (-315.4 F) at night to 427 celsius (around 800.6 F) during the day. In case you do not understand, -193 degrees celsius is very very cold in comparison to the Earth's coldest temperature -89 degrees celsius. But how is that possible? Mercury IS the closest planet to the sun so how can it have such a freezing cold temperature while the Earth, which is farther away, has a minimum temperature that doesn't evencome close to it?

Your entire argument is a non-sequitur. First of all, you try to equate an atmosphere to greenhouse gases. It is the density, or lack thereof, of an atmosphere that holds heat. Mercury has an extremely thin atmosphere. The lack of a consequential atmosphere leads to very hot days and very cold nights. Furthermore, to use the mean temperature to compare it to Venus is meaningless, because of the extremes due to day and night on Mercury, and uniformity of temperature on Venus. Averaging the day and night temperatures on Mercury is like averaging the gestation time for humans, by averaging the months to birth of women who have given birth, with those who are not pregnant, and coming up with an average gestation for human females of 4 1/2 months! Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which is about 97% CO2. Yes, Venus is an example of a runaway greenhouse gas effect. However, nothing else in your post makes any scientific sense.

Now, to correct Studenofhistory:

Your Mercury versus Venus comparison is flawed. Venus rotates like the earth does. Mercury doesn't. It keeps the same side pointed at the sun all the time. The low temperature is for the back side that never gets any sunlight.

Actually, all three planets rotate. Earth's day, as we all know, is roughly 24 hours, Venus's day is 243 Earth days(compared to a year of about 225 Earth days), and Mercury's day is about 58 1/2 earth days (compared to it's year of about 88 Earth days.)
Mercury does NOT keep the same side facing the sun. This was thought to be true until 1965, when radar observations found the figures stated above.
The slight atmosphere, and the fact that both sides do eventually see the sun, and thus have some ground heat retention of the sun's rays, mitigate somewhat the lack of sun's rays, when not facing it. If Mercury had been locked in a 1 to 1 ratio of day to year, then we would expect that the daytime temperature would be higher, while the night temps would be lower than they are.
The Earth's atmosphere is about .04% CO2, with about 99% of the earth's atmosphere consisting of non-greenhouse gases(Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon). The primary greenhouse gases are Co2, H2O, CH4 and N2O. They are molecules of 3 or more atoms, that are bound loosely together, and thus able to vibrate, which allows them to hold heat, unlike the tightly bound 3 major components of Earth's atmosphere.

reply to post by melatonin


I'm not sure what you think you've demonstrated. Your graphs cover such a long period of time that the last couple of years are hard to discern. By the way...the top graph is showing 'Estimated Global Temperatures'. What? they couldn't get Real global temperatures so they had to guess? Perhaps you misunderstood me when I said that 2008 was the coldest year this century. You do know I'm talking about the 21st century right? Your 2nd graph actually proves this. Just look at the far right from the last peak onwards. If you look at that part and ignore the rest, there is a definite downward trend. I'm not say that temperatures didn't go up over the course of the last century. I'm saying that the trend for that last 10 years has be down.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


So Mercury DOES rotate just very slowly. Hmm. Thanks for the info.

H2O is indeed a greenhouse gas in the form of water vapour ie. humidity but what most people don't know is that it's 100 times more efficient at holding heat than CO2. By the way, did you (all) know that CO2's ability to hold heat energy is logarythmic, not linear? What that means is that if you have twice as much CO2, you don't get twice the impact on temperature. If fact of the 380 parts per billion that we have now, the first 20 accounts for half of the total impact on temperature by CO2 (which is estimated to be 2-3 degrees C) and the remaining 360 ppb accounts for the rest. So if CO2 double again to 760 ppb the impact on temperature would not be anywhere close to another 2-3 degrees.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by melatonin

 

I'm not sure what you think you've demonstrated. Your graphs cover such a long period of time that the last couple of years are hard to discern.

Yeah, that's the point. You are focusing on noise and attempting to make claims about signal.

By the way...the top graph is showing 'Estimated Global Temperatures'. What? they couldn't get Real global temperatures so they had to guess?

Nope, it means they collected lots of samples from particular places, did some statistical magic, and produced global temperature. We don't have a real single measure for 'global' temperature. We have to model and estimate it from samples. And I wouldn't criticise, as your claims depend on the same data.

Perhaps you misunderstood me when I said that 2008 was the coldest year this century. You do know I'm talking about the 21st century right?

Aye. That wasn't my contention, it will be coolest since 2000. Nothing exciting really, 2000 was the previous La Nina. So, this La Nina year is warmer than the last. What I was more interested in showing to be obfuscation is the:

since January of 2007 have dropped by 0.8 degrees C which is more than all of the warming during the entire 20th century(0.7 degrees).

Which is true for a direct comparison of Jan 2007 to Jan 2008. And we will probably be talking about warming of +0.3-.4'C for Jan 2008 to Jan 2009, lol. If we take the longer term data it shows it to be a true (for Jan08-Jan09) but vacuous claim. Makes it sound like we have overall 0.1 cooling for the 20th - which we don't.

It's just a big cherrypick that winks the hoods. Comparing a warm Jan to a very cold Jan during a La Nina year - that is, taking a peak and comparing to a relative trough at very short-term scales. Which is what the next bit depended on as well...

I'm saying that the trend for that last 10 years has be down.

It hasn't. That would be the case if we cherrypick 1998, but we now have to cherrypick 1999 for 10 years - which now shows a warming trend. Problem is that the 1998 comparison depended on the cherrypick of a peak El Nino versus relative troughs. It's a dishonest statistical game.





The 1999 depends on comparing from a trough to relative peaks. So, when assessing climate, we look at much longer periods, usually 20-30 years. This allows the extraction of signal (climate) from short-term noise (weather). If I actually cherrypick 1998 and perform an 11 year analysis, it does show a minimal (non-significant) downwards trend.

So, take 1998 - somewhat cooling. Take 1999, we have warming. There's a message there about the folly of short-term assessment (noise-dwelling), which is a common method of denier obfuscation. I hear Bob Carter now talks about cooling since 2002 (the next peak after 1998), he was a major source of the cooling since 1998 claim. Indeed, in 2006 he was still saying it.

It is quite a dishonest game. But it gives rotten tomatoes for certain people to fling about.

'Can't see the wood for the trees'

The wood...



[edit on 22-12-2008 by melatonin]