climate skeptic changes tune

N

nihoa

Guest
a major climate change skeptic decided to conduct his own research into the topic and found his results support much of the work he was trying to disprove.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html?wprss=rss_leftleaning
of particular interest:
“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.”
In other words, the deniers’ claims about the alleged sloppiness or fraudulence of climate science are wrong. Muller’s team, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, rigorously explored the specific objections raised by skeptics — and found them groundless.
This agrees with the increase estimated by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.
It is true that Muller made no attempt to ascertain “how much of the warming is due to humans.” Still, the Berkeley group’s work should help lead all but the dimmest policymakers to the overwhelmingly probable answer.
We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.
Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.
 

gemmy

Active Member
Look at history and I say u have your answers. The Earth has been going through periods of warmth and cool downs since its creation.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Nice propaganda piece but I am still waiting for an explanation of how increases in CO2 is causing warming.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
If it were warming, which even the fraudsters behind the gimmick now call "climate change" because the data is so flawed they simply can't tell, until the fraudsters can explain the Little Ice Age from about 1500-1800 CE and the subsequent sudden "global warming" culminated by the heat and drought of the 1930's, it is just lefties using weather as a way of pushing their government control(socialism) to take away the rights of citizens and the global (UN)control of markets and economies. The lush, vast, temperate grasslands of Siberia and Alaska, how did man cause that before the last Ice Age? Oh yeah, normal weather and cycles are happening faster, right? With all the changing of data, doctored computer models and absolute about-face of theories to fit what is happening, you can't seriously take them at their word(or seriously), can you?
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Oh yeah, the people that have been caught lying and doctoring data wouldn't scheme with a fake skeptic who miraculously sees the light, would they?
 

reefraff

Active Member
The planet might be getting warmer. I just don't get how increased CO2 is causing it. More CO2 means more of the infrared from the planet's surface is absorbed and converted to heat but at the same time more of the sun's infrared is blocked from reaching the surface and warming it in the first place.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
I didn't know these people still existed out in the general public, must be posting from her #occupy tent.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune#post_3431480
The planet might be getting warmer. I just don't get how increased CO2 is causing it. More CO2 means more of the infrared from the planet's surface is absorbed and converted to heat but at the same time more of the sun's infrared is blocked from reaching the surface and warming it in the first place.
You are right that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would actually prevent more of the Sun's infrared radiation from reaching the planet's surface. It's just a matter of percentage. If most of the Sun's emissions are infrared then it seems the CO2 would cause cooling. But the opposite is also true, if most of the Sun's output in not infrared radiation then an increase in CO2 would cause warming.
This article has nothing to say about causes though. It is only addressing the yes or no question of "is the mean global temperature increasing or not?"
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune#post_3431480
The planet might be getting warmer. I just don't get how increased CO2 is causing it. More CO2 means more of the infrared from the planet's surface is absorbed and converted to heat but at the same time more of the sun's infrared is blocked from reaching the surface and warming it in the first place.
I believe the theory is that CO2 acts like an electric blanket, where heat is retained under the very thick atmosphere of CO2. The greatest example of this is Venus, where the atmosphere is 95% CO2. Venus is believed to be the hottest planet in our solar system, exceeding even Mercury which is closest to the sun. The culprit is its CO2 atmosphere. Venus is the ultimate example of the greenhouse effect. If our own planet experienced a tremendous amount of volcanism, such as a mega eruption of Yellowstone, we'd likely be in the same boat as Venus. On the other hand, without CO2 on earth, we would be a frozen planet. So on earth, the balance is "how much CO2" to keep in balance our lovely blue planet.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Deforestation -
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0907.htm
Also, look at the impact of growth within the major cities across North America. Here in San Antonio, I've seen thousands of acres of pristine, huge fields of a variety of Oaks plowed down to build residential neighborhoods, shopping malls, strip centers, and infrastructure highways. Concrete Jungles have made way over greenbelts and forests. The reduction of vegetation has to have some impact on the climate in North America.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune#post_3431501
You are right that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would actually prevent more of the Sun's infrared radiation from reaching the planet's surface. It's just a matter of percentage. If most of the Sun's emissions are infrared then it seems the CO2 would cause cooling. But the opposite is also true, if most of the Sun's output in not infrared radiation then an increase in CO2 would cause warming.
This article has nothing to say about causes though. It is only addressing the yes or no question of "is the mean global temperature increasing or not?"
Almost 50% of the sun's radiation is infrared. It's also much more effective at heating objects than the rest of the spectrum.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune#post_3431512
I believe the theory is that CO2 acts like an electric blanket, where heat is retained under the very thick atmosphere of CO2. The greatest example of this is Venus, where the atmosphere is 95% CO2. Venus is believed to be the hottest planet in our solar system, exceeding even Mercury which is closest to the sun. The culprit is its CO2 atmosphere. Venus is the ultimate example of the greenhouse effect. If our own planet experienced a tremendous amount of volcanism, such as a mega eruption of Yellowstone, we'd likely be in the same boat as Venus. On the other hand, without CO2 on earth, we would be a frozen planet. So on earth, the balance is "how much CO2" to keep in balance our lovely blue planet.
Yeah but even with the high concentration of CO2 the planet's mean temperature is only slightly warmer than mercury which has no atmosphere at all. From what I can tell the CO2 and other greenhouse gases lessen temperature swings more than anything.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
CO2 absorbs infrared from the sun, trapping it in the earth's atmosphere. This is why our planet is actually livable. However, if there is too much CO2, then there is too much infrared, too much heat that can not be reflected back in to space, thus the greenhouse effect.
Mercury is like a rock sitting next to a fire. Its going to get hot even wo an atmosphere because its on top of the sun, whereas Venus, with its CO2 atmosphere, very similar to our own planet in size and distance from the sun, is an inferno due to the CO2. Why do you think Venus is the hottest place in the solar system?
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Um, does anyone else remember those NASA infared pictures from earlier this year that showed far more heat escaping from the upper atmosphere than the global hoaxsters computer models predicted. And how convenient it was that that particular inconvenient truth disappeared out of the media within 2 or 3 days of the announcement?
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Oh yeah, we beat the old record cold for October 15th by almost 15 degrees here, It was 27° and the previous record was 40°. Too much global warming going on, I guess. Oh right, global warming has been disproved everywhere but the computer models, so too much climate change going on out there.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Global warming is junk science and here's the proof: If it gets hotter than normal, it is proof of global warming. If it is colder than normal, it is proof of global warming. If it is drier than normal, it is proof of global warming. If it is wetter than normal, it is proof of global warming. There is no definitive way to disprove it, because the junk scientists use EVERYTHING as proof of it's existence-the very definition of junk science.
 
N

nihoa

Guest
and you use everything as proof of left wing commie conspiracy.
everything you said is exactly true aside from it being junk science. if the average global temperature increases it means, by definition of average, that not everywhere is going to feel the effects the same. they cant feel it the same given proximity to oceans, elevation, ground cover type, etc etc. it doesnt, matter you had a cold day in october because that is a weather event and we are talking about climate. when you add up all the weather events across the globe over a period of time you get trends. the point of the article i posted was that a die hard skeptic out to show the 'junk scientists' wrong found instead that his results agreed with the commonly held view that average temperature has increased a degree (C).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune#post_3431565
Global warming is junk science and here's the proof: If it gets hotter than normal, it is proof of global warming. If it is colder than normal, it is proof of global warming. If it is drier than normal, it is proof of global warming. If it is wetter than normal, it is proof of global warming. There is no definitive way to disprove it, because the junk scientists use EVERYTHING as proof of it's existence-the very definition of junk science.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune#post_3431575
and you use everything as proof of left wing commie conspiracy.
everything you said is exactly true aside from it being junk science. if the average global temperature increases it means, by definition of average, that not everywhere is going to feel the effects the same. they cant feel it the same given proximity to oceans, elevation, ground cover type, etc etc. it doesnt, matter you had a cold day in october because that is a weather event and we are talking about climate. when you add up all the weather events across the globe over a period of time you get trends. the point of the article i posted was that a die hard skeptic out to show the 'junk scientists' wrong found instead that his results agreed with the commonly held view that average temperature has increased a degree (C).
lol, can you really not grasp the concept he's trying to convey?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune#post_3431560
CO2 absorbs infrared from the sun, trapping it in the earth's atmosphere. This is why our planet is actually livable. However, if there is too much CO2, then there is too much infrared, too much heat that can not be reflected back in to space, thus the greenhouse effect.
Mercury is like a rock sitting next to a fire. Its going to get hot even wo an atmosphere because its on top of the sun, whereas Venus, with its CO2 atmosphere, very similar to our own planet in size and distance from the sun, is an inferno due to the CO2. Why do you think Venus is the hottest place in the solar system?
The greenhouse effect is when the infrared emitted from the planets surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and part of the resulting heat is radiated back to the surface. The surface is heated by the suns radiation, 50% or so of which is infrared radiation. Infrared is by far the most effective at heating objects. So more CO2 means more planetary infrared is absorbed BUT now for the rest of the story. The increase in CO2 also blocks incoming Infrared from the sun. While some of that heat will be radiated down toward the planet surface much of it is radiated back out into space. So the planet's surface isn't heated as much in the first place so it will produce less infrared radiation. See where I am going with this?
 
Top