Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Only the ones supporting ACC/AGW
    Of course... (backs away, looking for the exit)
    Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
    Hyperwar, Whats New
    World War II Resources
    The best place in the world to "work".

    Comment


    • One thing I forgot to post, about the UN Framework for Climate Change:

      The US, along with every other nation in the world, did ratify the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It went into effect on March 21, 1994.

      http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...items/2631.php

      This is not the same thing as the Kyoto Protocol, which the US signed on November 12, 1998, but did not ratify. They are different things.
      Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
        One thing I forgot to post, about the UN Framework for Climate Change:

        The US, along with every other nation in the world, did ratify the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It went into effect on March 21, 1994.

        http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...items/2631.php

        This is not the same thing as the Kyoto Protocol, which the US signed on November 12, 1998, but did not ratify. They are different things.
        Totally different things. This simply established a framework for the process.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • NOAA chalks up the lack of temperature increases in the past decade to "a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation," that "caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean."

          http://www.climate.gov/news-features...ng-past-decade

          Even so, the rate of CO2 emissions continues to climb: 36.33 billion metric tonnes in 2013, up from 30.72 billion in 2006.

          http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-No...emissions.html

          At least the US has somewhat reduced its CO2 emissions in recent years, about 5.4 billion metric tonnes in 2012 compared to about 6 billion from 2000 to 2008:



          Current atmospheric CO2 concentration (January 2015) is 399.85 ppm. 'Normal' interglacial CO2 is considered to be about 280-300 ppm.

          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
            NOAA chalks up the lack of temperature increases in the past decade to "a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation," that "caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean."
            The natural climatic cyclicity is overwhelming all of the GHG effects... No schist, Sherlock.



            Even so, the rate of CO2 emissions continues to climb: 36.33 billion metric tonnes in 2013, up from 30.72 billion in 2006.



            At least the US has somewhat reduced its CO2 emissions in recent years, about 5.4 billion metric tonnes in 2012 compared to about 6 billion from 2000 to 2008:



            Current atmospheric CO2 concentration (January 2015) is 399.85 ppm. 'Normal' interglacial CO2 is considered to be about 280-300 ppm.

            Only if you ignore every bit of data not derived from Antarctic ice cores... My advice is to trot on over to SkepSci and bring back a canned argument against plant stomata...
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              Only if you ignore every bit of data not derived from Antarctic ice cores... My advice is to trot on over to SkepSci and bring back a canned argument against plant stomata...
              That graphic actually came from Wikipedia (Vostok Ice Core)

              On plant stomata:

              Here is a graph I found comparing Antarctic Ice cores and a Plant Stomata proxy:



              Looks kind of... jumpy. Would it not be better to use actual pockets of air enclosed in ice cores than this proxy method?

              Then again, even if the actual CO2 concentration was something like 20-40 ppm higher, it would still be significantly less than the near-400 ppm we are experiencing now.
              Last edited by BobTheBarbarian; 16 Feb 15, 17:34.
              Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                NOAA chalks up the lack of temperature increases in the past decade to "a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation," that "caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean."

                http://www.climate.gov/news-features...ng-past-decade

                Even so, the rate of CO2 emissions continues to climb: 36.33 billion metric tonnes in 2013, up from 30.72 billion in 2006.

                http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-No...emissions.html

                At least the US has somewhat reduced its CO2 emissions in recent years, about 5.4 billion metric tonnes in 2012 compared to about 6 billion from 2000 to 2008:



                Current atmospheric CO2 concentration (January 2015) is 399.85 ppm. 'Normal' interglacial CO2 is considered to be about 280-300 ppm.

                Good Point, Bob.

                Arctic melting, esp. of 'old ice', has absorbed a lot of heat into water down to 1,500 M.

                eh McClure Strait is clear in multiple years of the 'Beaufort ice plug'. Sailboats now get through , where the Icebreaker Manhattan was stopped in 1969 - 70.
                Attached Files
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • And as far as Greenhouse Gasses not having much of an effect, well, I'll just leave this here...


                  Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                    That graphic actually came from Wikipedia (Vostok Ice Core)

                    On plant stomata:

                    Here is a graph I found comparing Antarctic Ice cores and a Plant Stomata proxy:



                    Looks kind of... jumpy. Would it not be better to use actual pockets of air enclosed in ice cores than this proxy method?

                    Then again, even if the actual CO2 concentration was something like 20-40 ppm higher, it would still be significantly less than the near-400 ppm we are experiencing now.
                    It is "jumpy"... it is supposed to be "jumpy"... it's a high frequency component of the CO2 signal.

                    It would be best to use all of the data in a spectral consistent manner.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                      And as far as Greenhouse Gasses not having much of an effect, well, I'll just leave this here...


                      Mars has just as high of a CO2 concentration as Venus.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        It is "jumpy"... it is supposed to be "jumpy"... it's a high frequency component of the CO2 signal.

                        It would be best to use all of the data in a spectral consistent manner.
                        Do you have plant stomata reconstruction data going back for the past 400,000 years like the Vostok Ice Core? Judging by the graph I posted the proxy data shows values are about 20-40 ppm higher than the ice cores. This would put the highest concentration in the past 400,000 years at under 340 ppm, even if you assume it is more accurate than the actual samples of atmosphere that we have collected.
                        Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          Mars has just as high of a CO2 concentration as Venus.
                          Yet Mars barely has an atmosphere at all (1% the thickness of Earth's).
                          Compare Mercury and Venus: despite the fact that Venus is on average 31 million miles farther away from the sun than Mercury, it is still hotter.

                          Mercury's temperature ranges from about ~430 degrees Celsius during the day to about -170 degrees Celsius at night. Venus' on the other hand, thanks to its thick CO2 atmosphere, maintains a constant average temperature of about 465 degrees Celsius. If Venus had no atmosphere, owing to the fact that it rotates very slowly (a day is longer than a year there), we would expect to see one very hot hemisphere and one very cold hemisphere. This is not the case.
                          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                            Yet Mars barely has an atmosphere at all (1% the thickness of Earth's).
                            Compare Mercury and Venus: despite the fact that Venus is on average 31 million miles farther away from the sun than Mercury, it is still hotter.

                            Mercury's temperature ranges from about ~430 degrees Celsius during the day to about -170 degrees Celsius at night. Venus' on the other hand, thanks to its thick CO2 atmosphere, maintains a constant average temperature of about 465 degrees Celsius. If Venus had no atmosphere, owing to the fact that it rotates very slowly (a day is longer than a year there), we would expect to see one very hot hemisphere and one very cold hemisphere. This is not the case.
                            EXCERPT:
                            ...
                            Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere, whereas the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometre under Earth's oceans. ....

                            [You don't suppose that atmospheric mass has anything to do with either uniform heat or the very high temps .... ]
                            ...
                            All the planets of the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction as viewed from above Earth's north pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise (called "retrograde" rotation) once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation period of any planet. Because its rotation is so slow, it is highly spherical.[76] A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). ...

                            [Basically, the planetary mass of Venus appears to have been flipped 180 degrees while retaining initial angular momentum. That would take either on major impact or the "pull" of a closely passing and larger mass body. Either way, one heck of a lot of energy to flip Venus, which likely converted to some of the heat retained, but what was likely a very disrupted atmosphere. ]
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

                            So list, conditions on Venus are so anomalous to Earth this is not a valid comparison of the effects of CO2.

                            BTW, Uranus has an rotational axis tilt of about 87 degrees, it's "South" pole basically pointing towards the Sun. Further hint there may have been one or more massive "bodies" passing thru the Solar System in distant past, kicking very one a bit askew from ideal of intial angular momentum of the 'dust cloud' the System formed out of.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                            Present Current Events are the Future's History

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              EXCERPT:
                              ...
                              Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere, whereas the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometre under Earth's oceans. ....

                              [You don't suppose that atmospheric mass has anything to do with either uniform heat or the very high temps .... ]
                              ...
                              All the planets of the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction as viewed from above Earth's north pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise (called "retrograde" rotation) once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation period of any planet. Because its rotation is so slow, it is highly spherical.[76] A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). ...

                              [Basically, the planetary mass of Venus appears to have been flipped 180 degrees while retaining initial angular momentum. That would take either on major impact or the "pull" of a closely passing and larger mass body. Either way, one heck of a lot of energy to flip Venus, which likely converted to some of the heat retained, but what was likely a very disrupted atmosphere. ]
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

                              So list, conditions on Venus are so anomalous to Earth this is not a valid comparison of the effects of CO2.

                              BTW, Uranus has an rotational axis tilt of about 87 degrees, it's "South" pole basically pointing towards the Sun. Further hint there may have been one or more massive "bodies" passing thru the Solar System in distant past, kicking very one a bit askew from ideal of intial angular momentum of the 'dust cloud' the System formed out of.
                              I was aware of Venus' retrograde rotation, and the fact that its day is longer than its year (it's in the post). I posted this because it demonstrates the effect of greenhouse gasses on a planet.

                              With respect to Uranus and Venus, it is more likely that their axial/rotational eccentricities are due to collisions, rather than 'flybys,' because an object on an extreme elliptical orbit would have been detected by now, had it survived. The Solar System formed from a swirling disc of gas and dust, there is a limit to how much orbital eccentricity you can achieve under these circumstances, unless you assume the Sun 'picked up' a wandering 'hitchhiker' world, which, if it had the mass necessary for these perturbations, would have been detected by now.
                              Last edited by BobTheBarbarian; 16 Feb 15, 19:01.
                              Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                                Yet Mars barely has an atmosphere at all (1% the thickness of Earth's).
                                Compare Mercury and Venus: despite the fact that Venus is on average 31 million miles farther away from the sun than Mercury, it is still hotter.

                                Mercury's temperature ranges from about ~430 degrees Celsius during the day to about -170 degrees Celsius at night. Venus' on the other hand, thanks to its thick CO2 atmosphere, maintains a constant average temperature of about 465 degrees Celsius. If Venus had no atmosphere, owing to the fact that it rotates very slowly (a day is longer than a year there), we would expect to see one very hot hemisphere and one very cold hemisphere. This is not the case.
                                Plot atmospheric density vs temperature and CO2 vs temperature for Venus, Earth and Mars... See which has a better correlation.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X