APP - How the Climate Change Scam was hatched
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Nice....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You sound surprised?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think I will have to check out the other 8 pieces of that...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It was for me. It made ties that I had not known or thought of.... especially with Thatcher.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You need look no further!!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F5368BC9B1B034D3[/ame]
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
lol.... I will check them out tonight...
first, scams to increase funding for the latest buzz have occurred for centuries - as long as there is government funding for research, the government funded research will be bent to the politics of the controller or the purse strings
second, just because scam artists latch on to such funding does not mean that all of the findings are false - just suspicious until proven true or false
the answer about global weather change is that we do not know enough and have insufficient data
we need to establish a baseline from time periods that did not measure incident solar radiation and global weather temperatures
we can only make limited insights into the time periods that we cannot make accurate measurements for
but we can study and note some of the factors through looking at vegetation as it appeared at different times along with ice core samples do determine incident solar radiation and chemicals in the air
however, we can simulate greenhouse conditions and observe vegetable reactions to changes
too much ultraviolet radiation is harmful to plants and animals
too much in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad just as too little in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad for us humans
so how do we sort the truth from fiction
gather as much reliable data as possible and try to sort the wheat from the chaff before the entire science gets discredited and we discover that the politicians and others with axes to grind have contaminated the data
second, just because scam artists latch on to such funding does not mean that all of the findings are false - just suspicious until proven true or false
the answer about global weather change is that we do not know enough and have insufficient data
we need to establish a baseline from time periods that did not measure incident solar radiation and global weather temperatures
we can only make limited insights into the time periods that we cannot make accurate measurements for
but we can study and note some of the factors through looking at vegetation as it appeared at different times along with ice core samples do determine incident solar radiation and chemicals in the air
however, we can simulate greenhouse conditions and observe vegetable reactions to changes
too much ultraviolet radiation is harmful to plants and animals
too much in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad just as too little in the way of greenhouse gases can be bad for us humans
so how do we sort the truth from fiction
gather as much reliable data as possible and try to sort the wheat from the chaff before the entire science gets discredited and we discover that the politicians and others with axes to grind have contaminated the data
Channeling Cypress:
Consensus...
On the one hand we have some guy who has spent more time studying this than Al Gore, on the other I have a litany of links that I haven't read. I'll trust the links I haven't read over any new information that may come to light!
Kamala Trump
Verified User
No. we should dispose of the whole AGW theory, as there is no proof. ANd the military industrial complex should not fund science in any way. Keep those nazis in the back room with their guns and let the smart people do th thinking.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yes, we do.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Link to this page
The skeptic argument...
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
What the science says...
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:
We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.
CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Global warming is the single most proven scientific theory in human history. The only reason anyone would doubt it is if they were on the payroll of the oil companies.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You are not even original as that accusation has been used many times before, are you suggesting that CERN is in the pocket of Exxon et al? You are also talking out of your rear end by saying that it is the most proven scientific theory in history, I am sure that Einstein, Newton and several other eminent scientists will be turning in their graves.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Whatever, you conservative. Go back to your corporate masters.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That's incredibly funny as most people consider me to be a liberal. It is doubly funny considering that Margaret Thatcher started the whole thing off in the 80s. I am guessing that you are in your 20s, so I am betting that you will be a conservative after you've left uni and got a job.
Last edited:
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Correlation is not causality. your phenomenon is from sunspots.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Pardon??
There won't be any jobs left after small business can no longer afford to hire people and pay mandatory insurance for them or face penalties.
I had to forget about the one helper I was thinking about hiring.
I'm not taking all the risks, and doing all the business work, so some kid can get healthcare handed to him at the risk of my neck. Great system, liberals