Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I would give you the advice that if you want to discuss this you should be reading peer-reviewed literature instead of depending on the false CLAIMS made in BLOGS which are pushing for an agenda...

Do you even comprehend what we are "discussing" at this point??

We're talking about fundamentals of thermo and electrodynamics: aka absolute 100% established science.

I'm not quoting anything from blogs you nitwit, I'm going by my own education from something called a "University". This stuff is in textbooks, not papers. You want papers then go back to the 1800's and look up Planck and Wien and Maxwell and all the people this so-called "propaganda" is already named after.

I've tried to dumb it down for you, so have a bunch of other posters on here - but it still keeps flying completely over your head.

I don't know what else to do at this point - other than tell you you are a completely stubborn babbling fool. I don't care if the mods come down on me for this - it needs to be said.

You are spreading so much flat out ignorance on ATS with your ridiculous barking - and other people who don't know any better unfortunately suck it all up. Then you follow melatonin around on other threads like some crazy stalker trying to let everyone know he is "Al Gore Jr". I guess that makes you Rush Limbaugh the 2nd

You bark all you want Rush Jr. - I'm just letting you know when you make statements like this:

GHGs only retain for a while radiation in the form of heat and slowly release it into space....

...your ignorance shines through plain as day - at least to people like me who have a remedial understanding of atmospheric science. GHG's "trap" radiation because they absorb it and then re-emit it in ALL directions, including back down at us.

That's not from a blog, that's from established science - not to mention complete utter common sense. Something you clearly have problems with EU.

Now keep barking and trying to change the subject to climate models all you want, we're done here "kid".

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Yet none of your knowledge makes you an expert on Climate Change does it?

Never claimed to be.

You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse some other scientists of doing, and based on what exactly? Flawed computer models, and research papers which have been rigged because some people, and groups are pushing for a globalist agenda?

No, I said that:
* they're mathematicians, not physicists (which is true)
* they have a good track record in topology and Abelian maths (which is true)
* they wrote a very unprofessional paper that couldn't make it past your standard journal review (which is also true since most journals are NOT peer reviewed but are juried.)
* I agreed with someone else's assessment of some of the problems in the paper.

Which part of their paper do you disagree with?

Their methodology, their definitions, their very unscientific references (Journal of Irreproduceable Results... sheesh. They might as well cite the Onion as a scientific journal.) It ain't science, no matter how many formulas they tossed in there... it's op-ed.

I don't mind them writing op-ed. But when they pass op-ed off as rigorous science, I'll call them on it.

Are GCMs perfect, and they account for every factor that affects the climate?

Never addressed that issue.

Does the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere react in the same manner in a greenhouse?

That is part of what these two scientists are trying to convey with their paper.

As many have explained, "greenhouse gas" does not mean the same thing as "greenhouse." The fact that THEY don't understand that distinction speaks very poorly of their research.

Mankind does not have the power to stop, or even mitigate Climate Change.

Two very prominent counterexamples: the expansion of the Sahara desert and the North American dust bowl. We did manage to get the dust bowl under control, otherwise we'd have a huge desert in the middle of America and our climate would be very different.

Desertification is an interesting topic and changes climate. I don't know if you'll be interested enough to read much about it... I've browsed some of the information on it.

In the end, if you don't feel you can change climate, that's cool. Meanwhile I'm going to continue with my remediation monitoring research and modeling. I feel that what I learn may in some small way support environmental remediation issues around the world and can lead us to understand how to terraform other planets. I think that's a pretty cool and exciting thing to do, because if we're ever going to live on Mars or elsewhere we need to learn to change that planet's climate (among other things.)

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Oh yeah right... i forgot, when someone agrees with you, and they resort to do nothing more than attack the messenger then they are telling the truth... Phew, I guess we are learning quite a few things in this thread...

BTW, just because someone agrees with you they are not displaying common sense.

Again your responses keep showing that you really have no idea on what it takes to discuss scientific topics.

Good day to you too, and good luck with your new religion.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

I've noticed over the years that when someone can no longer justify their position, they tend to resort to finger-pointing, name-calling and diversionary accusations that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. I suspect I see the same pattern here.

Since I'm seeing that in your responses to most of the posts that disagree with you, I think that the value of this thread as debate has pretty much exhausted itself.

For the record EU, I am not a proponent of any particular position on climate change, I'm still trying trying to evaluate the arguments on all sides -- nature tends to be a lot more subtle and complex than the simplistic positions put forth by "true believers" on both sides of political debate on the issue.

The one thing you might also consider is that by climate change, we mean the climate of the whole earth, including the biosphere. And that includes us. For the sake of our descendants, we cannot dismiss out of hand something when there is a possibility that it will have a negative impact on them. Possibly including massive population die-off.

You might be right, it might all be a political scam, but at this point the data suggests that is not the right answer, and as long as that is the case, I will resist any effort to write off the whole issue as a hoax or scam. It is just plain irresponsible.

Best wishes to you EU and blessings on your household.


[edit on 29-1-2010 by metamagic]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Byrd

BSc (double major) in Biology and English
MSc in Biomedical Engineering
MSc in Anthropology
Finishing a PhD in Information Science.
Taught anatomy, calculus, and general math at universities, taught chemistry, physics, and biology at the high school level, taught math and geoscience at the junior high school level.

Yet none of your knowledge makes you an expert on Climate Change does it? Don't you see the irony of your statements? You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse some other scientists of doing, and based on what exactly? Flawed computer models, and research papers which have been rigged because some people, and groups are pushing for a globalist agenda?

No. There has been legitimate work on the field since 1960's by insiders, far before any of it ever reached any political controversy. Roger Revelle wrote about the possibility in a report to President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 (which was about more things than global warming). Why? Because it was based on sound physics.

Originally posted by Byrd
It's a sloppy and unprofessional paper, and I stand by that remark.

And you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make you right.

Which part of their paper do you disagree with?


There's plenty there.

Does the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere react in the same manner in a greenhouse?

No.

That is part of what these two scientists are trying to convey with their paper.

They could have taken an introductory course in physical oceanography when they could have been told the same thing from eminent masters of the field (100% of whom agree with the accepted mechanism of the greenhouse effect, and 99% of whom believe that human influence on it could turn out to result in significant problems for humans now and in the future).

Are GCMs perfect, and they account for every factor that affects the climate?
You know, or should know that GCMs have been found to be flawed time and again, and they do not account for every natural factor that affects the Earth's climate.

Why should we be making any decisions based on flawed computer models which have been shown to be wrong time, and again?

Because there is a big difference between being "wrong" (in the sense of not accounting for all possible effects), and being "totally freaking wrong".

Orbital dynamics are not completely described by Newton's laws of motion. Are these models---and they are all just models of the physics, just as global climate models are---totally useless? Do they predict nothing? Or do you believe them when they say an asteroid is going to hit the Earth, even though they haven't included the magnetogravitational frame dragging effect of General Relativity (which is extremely tiny) and are therefore "not perfect" and "wrong" in some sophistic sense.

The climate models have put in more and more physics and observational phenomena over the last 30 years, and the resolution and computer power has gotten far better.

And yet the basic predictions remain the same. This is because scientists know that robust phenomena can often be predicted by getting the basic physics right and doing simple calculations by hand.

In any case the notion of the greenhouse effect doesn't depend on any theory or mathematical reasoning. It is a clear physical effect confirmed by decades of experimental evidence. And the direct measurements show that it is increasing as a result of changing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, exactly as the theory predicted. It is literally physically impossible for the climate NOT to change.

You think the scientists would have postulated this effect and went public without actually MEASURING it?

This field of atmospheric physics started in the 1950's as there were multiple military applications for knowing the radiative transfer in atmosphere.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 30-1-2010 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Essan
Maybe they should have spent 5 minutes reading Arhennius first?

Again with Arrhenius?... Arrhenius claimed that with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 temperatures would increase 5-6C. Since his time atmospheric CO2 levels have increase to 90+ and temperatures have gotten NOWHERE close to even 2.5-3C... Arrhenius was wrong sorry to say...

Then again he was right about one thing... He stated that the Earth would become GREENER, trees, and plants would be stronger and there would be higher yields in harvests which could be used to feed people... In that he was right, but obviously his claims that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase temperatures to 2.5C -3C was wrong sorry to say.

Even when Arrhenius adjusted the values, AGAIN, he claimed temps would increase to 1.6C, and with water vapor temps would increase to 2.1C, again not only was he wrong, but he got it backwards. He actually thought atmospheric CO2 contributed more to the greenhouse effect than water vapor, and that is also wrong.

Arrhenius worked in the 19th century. Scientists got significantly better.

If this was true according to Arrhenius, and after he adjusted the values AGAIN, then temperatures would increase 1.6C because of atmospheric CO2, meanwhile water vapor would only increase temperatures by 0.5C. This is wrong, and we know this very well now, except for the AGW fans obviously.

His claim that temperatures would increase more because of CO2, and not because of water vapor is not only absurb, but it is idiotic.

We know for a fact that water vapor in the troposphere contributes at least for 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 and the rest of the GHGs contribute to about 2% -5%. And that is just one of the MANY estimates.

The radiative forcing in question is in the stratosphere, not the troposphere.
In the stratosphere, the air is very dry and water is significantly less important.

We also know for a fact that GCMs, the Gods of AGW fans, are flawed because they depend on false assumptions which do not stand to scrutiny.

When the atmosphere warms, it can hold more water vapor which increases the levels of atmospheric water vapor naturally. This means the warmer it gets, the higher that the levels of atmospheric water vapor increase naturally, and that is the main GHG, and the one that affects temperatures in any dramatic way.

An actually true statement! Since water in the atmosphere is in rough equilibrium because of the massive amount of water in the ocean it *responds* to temperature, and of course this physics causes additional feedbacks, such as changing other things in the atmosphere.

Indeed, just such physics is precisely what is in climate models and is the number of concern in the "climate sensitivity".

Then again I have posted also peer-reviewed research that shows the oceans have warmed more than the atmosphere, which again shows the warming was/is not being caused by ghgs in the atmosphere, but by other NATURAL factors, and yes there are MANY natural factors that affect Climate Change.

Why does the fact that the oceans have warmed more than the atmosphere mean that it couldn't have been from additional greenhouse gases?

You do realize that additional greenhouse gases mean that the stratosphere is supposed to cool because of increased IR emissivity?

Do you understand the fact that you are living in a planet that is affected by what happens in space?

Indeed. What happens in the stratosphere matters too.

Going after CO2 because "environmentalists/AGW fans have a funny feeling about it" that you should demand for taxes, and for the elimination of a perfectly good gas, which is essential for all life on Earth, and which the Earth is deprived of right now, it is not only naive, but dangerous.

We have a big problem with food resources right now, and sequestering atmospheric CO2 will not only cause the worse environmental impact mankind has ever caused, but it would also cause for the starvation of billions of people, apart form the billions that are starving right now...

Bunkum. Crop failures come from lack of---or too much (floods)---H2O, not CO2. The primary contributors to agricultural productivity are (a) farmer skill, (b) fertilizer, (c) irrigation. Changes in the weather patterns from climate change are likely to screw up (c) significantly.

Again I keep pointing out to the irony that escapes environmentalists. They want "what is best for nature" yet they want to deprive of nature of a gas, CO2, which is beneficial, and essential to it...

No they want to keep it at the level which it has been since the development of human civilization, and the evolution of homo sapiens.





[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

[edit on 30-1-2010 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by Byrd
Never claimed to be.

Yet you are judging that the points presented in this paper are "trash" to you, without even debating the points themselves? You just made a conclusion based on your own preconceived ideas. Then you go on a tangent saying SOME of the things these two scientists have done, and you made your decision based on that, even though you yourself have no experience or real knowledge on this topic. Ironic isn't it?

What, do you think the same of every peer-reviewed research paper that shows AGW is nothing more than a lie based on flawed computer models?... Let me guess, because you disagree with them that's why you see them as "trash"?...

You know, I could not understand why someone like you would agree with melatonin about this topic, but now I think I can see why you do.

Originally posted by Byrd
No, I said that:
* they're mathematicians, not physicists (which is true)

Well the New american publication was the one to made that distinction, they didn't call themselves physicists.. Does that disprove their points?.....

Originally posted by Byrd
* they have a good track record in topology and Abelian maths (which is true)

They have PhDs in a field of science that has more validity for the discussion on the subject of Climate Change than any of the subjects you have studied. Yet you want to dismiss their claims just because they didn't write their paper the way you think it should have been written?

Originally posted by Byrd
* they wrote a very unprofessional paper that couldn't make it past your standard journal review (which is also true since most journals are NOT peer reviewed but are juried.)

Again, first of all that is your opinion, and nothing more than your opinion.

Second of all, you should know by now quite well that research papers that refute the AGW claims for the most part are dismissed by certain professionals because such papers don't agree with the "beliefs" of AGW.

Third of all, even the leaked emails show that the scammers, Jones, Mann, et al were admitting that they were doing anything and everything to keep research papers, such as this one, from being published in journals...and they even wrote to use legal, and illegal ways to keep such research from ever being accepted, and to discredit in any way scientists who disagree with AGW in the same manner you are trying to discredit this research paper... They even joked about changing the "peer-review process" if necessary to stop any publication of research that refutes the AGW claim...

Anyway, your opinion still doesn't show that their points are wrong, more so when apparently you still believe in the AGW claims when even the cream of the crop of the AGW scientists had to rig their data and research, and they had to do anything legal, and illgegal to keep people in the dark and to keep AGW alive.

At the end you haven't even debated, or refuted any of the points they are making.

Originally posted by Byrd
* I agreed with someone else's assessment of some of the problems in the paper.

Well, I didn't see that, I will have to go back and read that and see what that other member, and you claim.

Originally posted by Byrd
Their methodology, their definitions, their very unscientific references (Journal of Irreproduceable Results... sheesh. They might as well cite the Onion as a scientific journal.) It ain't science, no matter how many formulas they tossed in there... it's op-ed.

You should stop hiding behind pretty words that do nothing but convey empty rhetoric and do not get to the point of debating their research paper.

First of all did you even bother to read in what context they gave that book as reference?... After all, they also mention as reference "Al Gore, :An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It"... I doubt they are actually using that reference to back their claims don't you think?....

Let's take a look in what context they used JIR as reference shall we?...

For the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect one cannot watch anything, and only calculations are compared with one another: Formerly extremely simple calculations, they got more and more intransparent. Nowadays computer simulations are used, which virtually nobody can reproduce [143].

They are talking about how the AGW proponents claim that the real greenhouse effect works. That's what they call fictitious.


Second of all, let's actually take a look at what JIR is.

The Journal of Irreproducible Results (JIR) is a magazine of science humor.[1] JIR was founded in Israel in 1955 by virologist Alexander Kohn and physicist Harry J. Lipkin, who wanted a humor magazine about science, for scientists. It contains a unique mix of jokes, satire of scientific practice, science cartoons, and discussion of funny but real research. It has passed through several hands and is published in San Mateo, California as of 2004.

en.wikipedia.org...

Humm, so let's see...you want to agree with members who use the claims from BLOGS, and the claims from the AGW scientists who have been shown to have rigged their data, deleted evidence because it refuted their AGW claims, and used several other legal and illegal ways to keep people in the dark about the truth of Climate Change, and AGW, yet you want to dismiss the research made by a couple of PhDs just because they mention as reference a scientific journal which is published to add some humor for scientists?.....

Originally posted by Byrd
I don't mind them writing op-ed. But when they pass op-ed off as rigorous science, I'll call them on it.

Well, that is your claim, and although I might not agree with everything these scientists are saying they definetedly seem to know more than you about this subject Byrd.

How about you debate their research, and if you have any proof that refutes their points post it instead of trying to derail the subject any longer?

Originally posted by Byrd
As many have explained, "greenhouse gas" does not mean the same thing as "greenhouse." The fact that THEY don't understand that distinction speaks very poorly of their research.

As many have explained?... Who exactly? the member who uses the claims from BLOGS and dubious news websites as evidence? or the AGW scientists who have been found to have rigged the data, erased evidence, and research that refutes their claims, and used any sort of tactic including legal and illegal ones to keep people in the dark, and to keep any scientist who dares doubt the AGW claim from publishing in any scientific journal?....

Byrd, you are actually showing that you don't know what you are talking about. You are the one not understanding what they are talking about, and instead you are hidding behind empty rhetoric to try to dismiss what these two scientists are saying.

First of all what they are talking about is the "greenhouse effect", which in case you didn't know, it is caused by GHGs (greenhouse gases). But what they are saying in specific, among their other statements, is that the way that the AGW proponents claim the greenhouse effect works is fictitional, and they are right.

Tell me, is it not true that greenhouses get hotter basically because there is no air circulation?... That is part of the reason they say the greenhouse effect as claimed by the AGW proponents is fictional, because a greenhouse is a completely closed environment which has no air circulation whatsoever, hence it gets hotter.

Second of all the name "greenhouse effect" has been named so because it is believed that GHGs work as a greenhouse....

Otherwise, could you please tell us why it was labeled "greenhouse effect"... Since you seem to be claiming that the term "greenhouse effect" doesn't mean that GHGs are reacting as a "greenhouse", I would like to know exactly what you think it means.

Sorry Byrd, but to me it shows that you have very poorly researched on this subject...

Originally posted by Byrd
Two very prominent counterexamples: the expansion of the Sahara desert and the North American dust bowl. We did manage to get the dust bowl under control, otherwise we'd have a huge desert in the middle of America and our climate would be very different.

Wow, well it seems that you are a couple of decades behind the science as to what happened that caused the American dust bowl. Kind of strange that you claim this when it has been mentioned in these same forums in the past.

There were actually changes in the sea surface temperatures of the Pacific, and Atlantic oceans which created shifts in weather patterns and reduced the normal supply of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico thus inhibitting rainfall in the Great plains.

Tell us, how did mankind stop this natural phenomenon?...

Originally posted by Byrd
Desertification is an interesting topic and changes climate. I don't know if you'll be interested enough to read much about it... I've browsed some of the information on it.

I don't think you have browsed enough about it Byrd... You don't even know the lattest scientific findings of how the Dust Bowl was caused, or how it ended.

Then again some of the reaserch into what caused the dust bowl were done with other computer models. Are you believing just some computer models now and not others? Or are you completely ignorant to the fact of these findings?



[edit on 30-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Byrd
Meanwhile I'm going to continue with my remediation monitoring research and modeling.
.................
I feel that what I learn may in some small way support environmental remediation issues around the world and can lead us to understand how to terraform other planets.

You don't even understand Climate Change, and among other things you don't seem capable of accepting the fact that even the cream of the crop of the AGW scientists had to rig data, and their results, among other dirty tactics to keep the AGW scam going.

Yet you, who have shown to have very little knowledge on this subject want to do research on terraforming planets?...

You want to do this when we can barely understand the climate on Earth, and when the best Global Circulation Models are so flawed to be basically useless?.... Go ahead, and good luck... But i will tell you this, as long as you don't understand, and accept the fact that there are multitudes of natural factors that affect the climate of a planet, and which mankind will never have any control over, you won't learn a thing about Climate Change.

First of all you would need to be able to harness, and control the power of a star, in this case our sun, to be able to have any control over the climate of a planet. Worse yet, you would need to have control over the universe in order to control the climate of a planet. So go ahead buddy.

The only way we would be able to colonize Mars is to build bio-domes, where you can have an artificial atmosphere, but terraforming Mars?...

I doubt mankind will ever have the power to terraform Mars, or any other planet. It is just but a dream. You are delving almost in the same realm as those people who think that the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) will create a blackhole when it is turned on...

There is simply not enough power harnessed by the LHC to create a black hole. In the same manner, we do not have the knowledge, or control to harness the power of the Sun, and much less the Solar System, and the Universe to be able to control Climate Change...and yes i ahve shown multitudes of "peer-reviewed research" that clearlly shows that what happens in the Solar System, and in the region of the Milky Way through which the Solar System is going through affects the climate of Earth, as well as every other planet and also affects the Sun.

BTW, the best AGW proponents are claiming that what we need is to sequester atmospheric CO2 on Earth, among other lunatic claims, and what this will certainly cause is the worse environmental disaster that mankind has ever caused.

The sequestration of atmospheric CO2 is not going to stop the climate from changing. It will instead bring starvation worldwide, that's for certain.

IMHO, you seem to be a control freak, no offense. You should be able to know your limitations, and the limitations of mankind. This is obviously a concept you haven't grasped yet.

Mankind does not have the power to do these things you dream of.

Who knows, maybe in several decades we might know more, and we might be able to harness the power of a planet, which we haven't done yet, and much less harnessed the power of a star, but right now we do not have enough knowledge to do what you want to do.

The best GCMs are flawed to a fault, yet you seem to have complete "faith" on them whe they cannot explain the climate of the planet we are in, and you already want to think about terraforming Mars?...



[edit on 30-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by metamagic

I've noticed over the years that when someone can no longer justify their position, they tend to resort to finger-pointing, name-calling and diversionary accusations that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. I suspect I see the same pattern here.

Which is exactly what you, and some others are doing. Instead of disputing the points made in the research you made a comment about some experiences you claimed to have, which I highly doubt because you are not showing any signs of knowing what scientific inquiry even means, and for some reason you seem to think that your claims are enough justification to dismiss what the research of these two scientists is stating?

The diversionary tactics are being used by you, and some others sorry to say.

Again, just because there are some others that agree with you, it doesn't make you right....

Originally posted by metamagic
Since I'm seeing that in your responses to most of the posts that disagree with you, I think that the value of this thread as debate has pretty much exhausted itself.

the value of this thread is exhausted?... you haven't even been able to refute even one of the arguments presented by these two scientists.....

Originally posted by metamagic
For the record EU, I am not a proponent of any particular position on climate change, I'm still trying trying to evaluate the arguments on all sides --

That's what you claim, yet your responses tell a different story... You even claimed that Byrd was right simply because you agree with his CLAIMS and nothing more....

Originally posted by metamagic
nature tends to be a lot more subtle and complex than the simplistic positions put forth by "true believers" on both sides of political debate on the issue.

Yet even though it has been shown time and again that the AGW claims are wrong you still want to believe it?....Even when the main proponents of this hoax have been shown to have rigged data, deleted evidence that refuted their AGW religion, and used all sorts of legal, and illegal ways to keep people in the dark as to the truth that they cannot even understand what is happening with Climate Change, and they even discussed ways to discredit any other scientist who dared refute the AGW "religion", among other things...and yes, it is a religion because it is based on faith in flawed computer models which have been shown to be wrong time and again....

Originally posted by metamagic
The one thing you might also consider is that by climate change, we mean the climate of the whole earth, including the biosphere. And that includes us. For the sake of our descendants, we cannot dismiss out of hand something when there is a possibility that it will have a negative impact on them. Possibly including massive population die-off.

What in the world?...how in the world does it make any of your claims any more valid by now stating you were talking about "Climate change of the entire Earth"... how exactly does that validate your claims?.... It doesn't...

and this argument that "for the sake of our descendants we cannot dismiss AGW when it has been shown to be a scam" this is nothing more than another red herring sorry to say....

In fact, what the AGW are proposing is to, among other things, sequester atmospheric CO2, and you can be certain that this will really cause massive die-offs of people, and animals...and will cause for the deprivation of a gas which is needed by nature.... Yet you want to claim the contrary?...

Originally posted by metamagic
You might be right, it might all be a political scam, but at this point the data suggests that is not the right answer, and as long as that is the case, I will resist any effort to write off the whole issue as a hoax or scam. It is just plain irresponsible.

....what data are you talking about?.... the cream of the crop of the AGW scam have been shown through the leaked emails to have rigged their results, and data, they hid, and/or deleted evidence simply because it refute the AGW claim.... They even discussed to use any legal, and illegal way to keep any research that refutes the AGW scam from being published, and to even change the "peer-review process" if necessary to keep people in the dark, and to not release the original data, and programs....

The real climatologists who have the balls to speak the truth about AGW have shown that GCMs, the main proof for the AGW scam, are flawed to the point of being useless...

Many of the real scientists who were, or are part of the IPCC have stated that Climate Change has been politicized, and it is being used as a tool, including an economic tool for furthering the agendas of some groups, and nations...

Sorry mate, but what the real data, evidence and research shows is that AGW is nothing more than a scam...

Originally posted by metamagic
Best wishes to you EU and blessings on your household.

Same to you.



[edit on 30-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by SaturnFX


Thank you. The moment I read they were trying to present the Earth as a closed system, I knew that these physicists had to have had mail-order doctorates.

I mean c'mon, how ridiculous do you have to be before someone catches on?

On edit: After reading electricUniverse's posts, apparently one has to be extremely ridiculous before some people catch on...

[edit on 30-1-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Thank you. The moment I read they were trying to present the Earth as a closed system, I knew that these physicists had to have had mail-order doctorates.

I mean c'mon, how ridiculous do you have to be before someone catches on?

For crying out loud... READ what they are saying instead of jumping to conclusion based on the claims of members who didn't even bother to read the research....

The "greenhouse effect" was so named because it is believed, mainly by the AGW proponents, that the ghgs in the atmosphere ACT AS A GREENHOUSE.....

What these two scientists are stating, among other things, is that GHGs in the atmosphere DO NOT ACT AS A GREENHOUSE.... that this is a fictitious claim....and it is true because a greenhouse is a closed system where there is no air circulation...

This is part of what they are saying...



[edit on 30-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
.................
On edit: After reading electricUniverse's posts, apparently one has to be extremely ridiculous before some people catch on...

Go ahead and EXCERPT the statement which you claim these scientists say the Earth is a closed system....



[edit on 30-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

First of all, they suggest that the earth is in radiative equilibrium

Equilibrium by definition implies no overall change.

They then go on to "prove" that the earth isn't really warming.

So, no real surprise here. Misrepresent the science and then "prove" that it is wrong. Classical straw man.

Does this prove wrong AGW?

No. It might prove work wrong if it is based on a radiative equilibrium.

"When I go outside in winter wearing a thick jacket, the outer layer of the jacket will be cooler than the inner layer. Therefore there will not be heat flow from outer layer to inner layer, but instead from inner to outer. Therefore the hypothesis that the jacket would keep me warmer violates the second law of thermodynamics."

[edit on 30/1/2010 by C0bzz]

[edit on 30/1/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Ughh...

I honestly don't know why I'm still bothering - but it literally makes me cringe to see people butchering proper science the way you are right now.

So for the sake of denying ignorance please just put your blinding agenda aside for a second and try and actually learn something about the very subject you are trying so hard to tear apart.

First off let's start here:

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Go ahead and EXCERPT the statement which you claim these scientists say the Earth is a closed system....

From the OP:

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle.

So they are applying the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the Earth, saying that in a closed system, entropy proceeds to a state of equilibrium, therefore heat cannot flow from cold (the atmosphere) to hot (the surface), therefore the entire Greenhouse effect is a farce.

Now whether or not the Earth is even a closed system is beside the point here really - this is largely a subjective thing depending on what context you define your "system". But what you seem to be doing (from what I can tell, amongst the pages and pages of incessant babbling) is confusing the technical definition of a closed system that G&T are using to set up their entropy argument with the literal interpretation of a greenhouse.

This is where your crazy train is going completely off the rails:

The "greenhouse effect" was so named because it is believed, mainly by the AGW proponents, that the ghgs in the atmosphere ACT AS A GREENHOUSE.....

What these two scientists are stating, among other things, is that GHGs in the atmosphere DO NOT ACT AS A GREENHOUSE.... that this is a fictitious claim....and it is true because a greenhouse is a closed system where there is no air circulation...

As I've already tried to tell you before, no - the greenhouse effect name is just a misnomer. Don't believe me?
Look it up on Wikipedia for crying out loud:

The term "greenhouse effect" is an analogy to greenhouses, and as all such things is not exact, and can and has been abused.

There is considerable confusion on the matter and a more thorough discussion is useful for understanding how greenhouses and the greenhouse effect work. Many sources make the "heat trapping" analogy of how a greenhouse limits convection to how the atmosphere performs a similar function through a different mechanism involving absorption and emission of infrared absorbing gases.

So yeah, an actual greenhouse is a closed system that works by preventing warm air from dispersing outside, thus stunting convection and trapping heat. Congratulations for pointing that out! The problem is this has absolutely nothing to do with GHG's which trap radiation, upset the radiative balance, and thus force the rest of the planet to radiate at a hotter temperature just to even it out again.

The fact that you STILL don't recognize this absolutely critical distinction tells me everything I need to know about your overall (lack of) understanding on Global Warming EU. I don't care how many "peer-reviewed" papers you have read.

If you actually read anything properly academic about atmospheric science to start you would know global warming essentially has to exist, because it's in the math. The only real uncertainty is how much is actually caused by us.

But the fact is you have such an absurd double standard when it comes to that question as well: Your incessant cherry-picked rants about all the problems associated with global climate models, or the shortcomings of the IPCC, themselves imply there are serious misgivings in the peer-review process. Yet every time you stumble upon some "peer-reviewed" piece of junk like the one in this thread it becomes automatic infallible proof that AGW is in fact a hoax? Like I said before - your hypocrisy is astounding.

And it's funny that you tried to accuse me of getting all my information from blogs - because that, combined with your clear lack of understanding in even the most elementary aspects of climate science, tells me that's exactly what you do (so you just assume everyone else does it too).

If you had any real interest in dissecting the truth YOU would take a proper objective stance, instead of hypocritically accusing every one else of not doing it first. All the while it's obvious you parrot all of your information from wattsupwiththat.com or Lord Monckton's ### or whatever corporate-free market-right wing piece of agenda driven propaganda you're googling these days.

Even "peer-reviewed" papers don't count when you don't know how to interpret them.





[edit on 30-1-2010 by mc_squared] because I'm too hungover for this today...

[edit on 30-1-2010 by mc_squared]

Originally posted by mc_squared

Ughh...

I honestly don't know why I'm still bothering - but it literally makes me cringe to see people butchering proper science the way you are right now.
.........

Kid, you wouldn't know science even if it bit you in the behind. All one has to do is look at the threats you have started to see that all you use are CLAIMS from BLOGS, dubious news scources which have been debunked later and you show to have no understanding of this subject in the least.

BTW, don't use "wikipedia" to back your claims...Wikipedia is known for editing statements from scientists because they don't bow down to the AGW claims.

Sorry kid but between all the "mistakes" that the IPCC published, which even the scientist who came up with this claim came clean and stated they knew it was flase information, to the leaked emails your religion is dead, give it up already.

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.
..

www.cbsnews.com...

Nice sources you got there to back your claims on your religion....Between the BLOGS you post in your threads, and wikipedia, a known disinformation website when it comes to topics like Global Warming/AGW we can see why you keep believing in this dead religion that AGW is...


BTW kid, first of all, and once again you fail to understand the fact that these scientists are talking about the CLAIMS of the AGW regarding how the greenhouse effect works... they don't deny there is a real greenhouse effect...what they deny is the claim by the AGW on how it works....

You should start by taking a course in reading comprehension because it shows you are lacking any understanding on what you read...

Second of all no matter how many BLOGS you keep reading, the fact of the matter is that your AGW religon has been shown to be a scam, even the AGW scientists are coming up clean to the lies they used to deceive people like you...

AGW is dead, but you can keep believing in that false religion if you want...


[edit on 31-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Thank you. The moment I read they were trying to present the Earth as a closed system, I knew that these physicists had to have had mail-order doctorates.

I mean c'mon, how ridiculous do you have to be before someone catches on?

For crying out loud... READ what they are saying instead of jumping to conclusion based on the claims of members who didn't even bother to read the research....

Members like yourself? Case in point, I'm going to interrupt this post with your next one...

quote]Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Go ahead and EXCERPT the statement which you claim these scientists say the Earth is a closed system....
[edit on 30-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle.

Clearly you didn't read your source material. It's right there in the OP.

Incidentally, this is poor science even without that, sincethe idea isn't that heat is coming from the gasses themselves, but rather that the gasses hold in the heat emitted by the earth (both through reflection and through release)

The "greenhouse effect" was so named because it is believed, mainly by the AGW proponents, that the ghgs in the atmosphere ACT AS A GREENHOUSE.....

What these two scientists are stating, among other things, is that GHGs in the atmosphere DO NOT ACT AS A GREENHOUSE.... that this is a fictitious claim....and it is true because a greenhouse is a closed system where there is no air circulation...

This is part of what they are saying...
[edit on 30-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Actually a greenhouse isn't a closed system for the same reason the Earth isn't.

"Greenhouse effect" is a descriptive term, and not a statement that "it works exactly 100% like a greenhouse!" which is the assumption that both you and the scientists in the OP are latching onto.

it's kind of like going "OMG THE GROUNDHOG ISN'T REALLY A HOG AT ALL!" - while true, it will elicit a lot of people going "well no kidding, dumbass. Sit down"

[edit on 31-1-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
(all that stuff)

[edit on 31-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

So wait. I just want to get this straight. You're attacking MC for using blogs and wikipedia... and you're basing your position for doing so off of an OP/ED piece published by the national Review, which openly and happily admits its conservative political bias, written by a guy who's opposition to Global Warming amounts to "Al Gore says it so it must be wrong" and who's position on Wikipedia is largely based on the fact that Wikipedia disagrees with him?



How do you keep your head from exploding from all that cognitive dissonance?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Chirst... you should look in a mirror when you are insulting people because you surely don't know how to read....

First of all you didn't even excerpt from the original source... second of all, leave your stupid insults for high school... they just show your state of mind, and what your mind is full of...

From this short tutorial, the scientists go on to show the vast difference in physical laws between real greenhouses and Earth's atmosphere. They expose the fallacies in accepted definitions of greenhouse effect from several popular sources. "It is not 'trapped' infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse but the suppression of air cooling." Gerlich and Tscheuschner explain Earth's atmosphere does not function in the same way, nor does it function in the way global-warming alarmists describe as "transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation."

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle. There would have to be a heat pump mechanism in perpetual motion in the atmosphere to transfer heat from a low to a high temperature reservoir, and such a machine cannot exist. They call the greenhouse effect a fictitious mechanism. "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [man-made] climate changes has no physical basis."

They are not saying the Earth is a closed system...they are saying ANY closed system left to itself would deteriorate towards a chaotic state....

Do the words "ANY CLOSED SYSTEM" now means "Earth" to people like you?....

You should be eating your insults, or keep them out of a discussion about science....

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


No kid the OP is about the research paper of two PhDs, and not the stupid insults from a high school student...

I do have to wonder how a member who has been in ATS since 2005 has posted not even ONE thread, and all he seems to be doing is insulting people because they are showing his religion is a SCAM..... Hummm....

[edit on 31-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by C0bzz
First of all, they suggest that the earth is in radiative equilibrium

Equilibrium by definition implies no overall change.

Do you mind actually excerpting where you claim they are saying this?

Originally posted by C0bzz
So, no real surprise here. Misrepresent the science and then "prove" that it is wrong. Classical straw man.

Really? and why, because you say so?... I find it hilarious how people who have no understanding whatsoever on Climate Change make claims about "strawman" without making a case, or making any sense at all...

Originally posted by C0bzz
Does this prove wrong AGW?

Humm...let's see...between the hundreds of peer-review research that disprove AGW, the scores of scientists who happen to have experience on the subject of Climate Change and have been trying to wake up people like you.

Between the fact that the leaked emails show your idols were rigging the data, erasing, and or hidding evidence, and using any and every legal, and illegal way to keep people in the dark, and to discredit any scientist who dared to try to publish any research disputing AGW.

The fact that the IPCC chief scientist had to admit they used "errors" but then finding out that the scientist who came up with this claim admitting that they KNEW the "mistakes" were nothing more than a lie...

So you tell me.....how much more evidence must a person see to realize that AGW is a scam?....




[edit on 31-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Do you mind actually excerpting where they are saying this?

It's in the abstract for one. Page two.

Really? and why, because you say so?...

Not really, I think the answer lies somewhere here. Show me that modern climate-science is dependent on an equilibrium? It isn't.

Humm...let's see...between the hundreds of peer-review research that disprove AGW, the scores of scientists who happen to have experience on the subject of Climate Change and have been trying to wake up people like you.

Let's use your way of doing science..:

Hundreds? Hundreds compared to what? 58,200?

scholar.google.co.uk...

But I guess there are no dedicated data-mines used for climate proof.

Between the fact that the leaked emails show your idols were rigging the data, erasing, and or hidding evidence, and using any and every legal, and illegal way to keep people in the dark, and to discredit any scientist who dared to try to publish any research disputing AGW.

I could say the same thing about the climate deniers. For example, the science and scientists in "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

So you tell me.....how much more evidence must a person see to realize that AGW is a scam?....

Donno.

I assumed it was a scam by reading your posts, and listening to dedicated data-mines. I was reading what I wanted to hear, just as you are providing to ATS. For example, here. That thread in general is "Show me data-mines because I'm already convinced even though I haven't read any of the actual science besides An Inconvenient Truth aka lies-for-children".


About a month ago I decided I should probably look at it fairly. And I discovered most of the claims made by climate deniers are BS.

[edit on 31/1/2010 by C0bzz]