Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

[bripat9643]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

A 20 year period where temperature is increasing is also not unusual, and that's all you got to make your case for AGW.

The fact remains that the ave. global temperature has not increased since 1998. That's 14 years. It's really getting embarrassing for all you warmist kookburgers, isn't it?

 

[wirebender]

How much IR is there?

You might ask them to explain the temperature of a planet like jupiter which has an atmosphere composed mainly of hydrogen and helium and hardly a breath of any of the so called greenhouse gasses. Ask them why it is that if you plug the parameters of the atmosphere of jupiter, or saturn, or any of the other planets in our atmosphere into the models that supposedly account for the temperature of the earth by use of the mythical greenhouse effect, the models don't even come close to predicting the actual temperatures of those planets.

The models that are used to predict the temperature of the earth are, in fact, nothing more than ad hoc constructs that have little, if anything to do with the actual physical laws at work in the atmosphere.

 

[Meister]

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.

AGU sessions in San Francisco? Sure, no bias there. Good grief!

Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.

At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU sessions in San Francisco? Sure, no bias there. Good grief!

Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.

At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.

And you are full of shit.

 

[RollingThunder]

How much IR is there?

You might ask them to explain the temperature of a planet like jupiter which has an atmosphere composed mainly of hydrogen and helium and hardly a breath of any of the so called greenhouse gasses. Ask them why it is that if you plug the parameters of the atmosphere of jupiter, or saturn, or any of the other planets in our atmosphere into the models that supposedly account for the temperature of the earth by use of the mythical greenhouse effect, the models don't even come close to predicting the actual temperatures of those planets.

The models that are used to predict the temperature of the earth are, in fact, nothing more than ad hoc constructs that have little, if anything to do with the actual physical laws at work in the atmosphere.

More ignorant, clueless, anti-science drivel from wiredwrong. He is so confused and misled that he imagines that there is some single calculated figure for "the temperature of a planet like Jupiter" and that those calculations would or even could be done using atmospheric models designed for Earth conditions. On Jupiter, temperature increases with atmospheric pressure so the astronomers and astrophysicists say that temperatures on Jupiter vary from about minus 145 degrees C at the edge of the atmosphere to as much as 35,000 degrees C at the planet's core.

Just more denier cult BS from another clueless dupe and ignorant retard.

 

[Meister]

Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.

At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.

And you are full of shit.

Looking in the mirror again, are ya?

 

[taichiliberal]

Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B

My subsequent responses, of which were never answered.

----- Original Message -----
From: *****
To: [email protected]
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.

You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.
2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2.

In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen.
And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.

4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.

If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases

 

[wirebender]

More ignorant, clueless, anti-science drivel from wiredwrong. He is so confused and misled that he imagines that there is some single calculated figure for "the temperature of a planet like Jupiter"

Hell, you believe that there is a single calculated figure for a planet like earth. What would lead you to believe that there is any such thing as a global mean temperature?

and that those calculations would or even could be done using atmospheric models designed for Earth conditions.

That is precisely the point thunder. The models upon which AGW alarmism are based are tailor made for earth. They don't reflect any actual physics, they are simply ad hoc constructs that work nowhere else.

Astrophysicists on the other hand use models based on actual physics that can predict the temperatures found on practically any planet with any atmosphere. One need only plug the atmospheric composition and amount of incoming energy and based on the actual laws of physics, you get a fairly accurate prediction of the temperature of the planet and guess what, those models don't incorporate a fabricated, unphysical greenhouse effect.

On Jupiter, temperature increases with atmospheric pressure so the astronomers and astrophysicists say that temperatures on Jupiter vary from about minus 145 degrees C at the edge of the atmosphere to as much as 35,000 degrees C at the planet's core.

Funny thing, the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well and ranges from near absolute zero at the edge of the atmosphere to nearly 13,000 degrees F at the core of the planet.

The temperature can be explained on either planet, without a fictitional greenhouse effect by adiabatic pressure and the ideal gas laws.

Interesting that you are completely unaware of that. That fact says a great deal about how much actual scientific knowledge that you posess. As we all already knew, you are no more than a cut and paste clone who understands very little of what you post.

 

[konradv]

AGU sessions in San Francisco? Sure, no bias there. Good grief!

Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.

At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning. Then, when climatologists discuss how to combat the politicization of science, the skeptics act as if it were the scientists doing the politicizing with phony "Climategate" accusations. It's hypocrisy at its highest level!!!

 

[wirebender]

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning.

Tell me that you really aren't this clueless? Climate change alarmism is in, and of itself, a political issue. It is, and always has been about socialist goals of controlling and socializing industry and redistuributing wealth.

 

[Meister]

Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.

At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning. Then, when climatologists discuss how to combat the politicization of science, the skeptics act as if it were the scientists doing the politicizing with phony "Climategate" accusations. It's hypocrisy at its highest level!!!

Sheesh you people get busted with your hand in the jar, and act like it didn't really happen. That's special, it really is.

 

[westwall]

Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.

At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning. Then, when climatologists discuss how to combat the politicization of science, the skeptics act as if it were the scientists doing the politicizing with phony "Climategate" accusations. It's hypocrisy at its highest level!!!

Ummmm, not to belabor the point konny old boy. But we don't want laws to be passed screwing poor people over unless there is true compelling evidence that those laws are neccessary. Your side on the other hand is ALL about passing laws. Laws that will affect every aspect of human life.

So...which side is the political one? This is a test.

 

[westwall]

At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning. Then, when climatologists discuss how to combat the politicization of science, the skeptics act as if it were the scientists doing the politicizing with phony "Climategate" accusations. It's hypocrisy at its highest level!!!

Sheesh you people get busted with your hand in the jar, and act like it didn't really happen. That's special, it really is.

Well, you know, they are a "special" bunch.

 

[RollingThunder]

More ignorant, clueless, anti-science drivel from wiredwrong. He is so confused and misled that he imagines that there is some single calculated figure for "the temperature of a planet like Jupiter"

Hell, you believe that there is a single calculated figure for a planet like earth. What would lead you to believe that there is any such thing as a global mean temperature?

Another amusing demonstration of your profound ignorance, wiredwrong. Scientists use the 'global mean temperature' to refer to temperatures at the surface of the Earth. Jupiter has no detectable surface, it is a gas giant planet with a diameter of about 143,000 miles compared to the Earth's diameter of 8000 miles. On Earth, 99.99997% of the atmosphere by mass is below 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) but Jupiter's atmosphere just keeps going down. Five thousand miles deep the pressure is ten times Earth's surface pressure.

and that those calculations would or even could be done using atmospheric models designed for Earth conditions.

That is precisely the point thunder. The models upon which AGW alarmism are based are tailor made for earth. They don't reflect any actual physics, they are simply ad hoc constructs that work nowhere else.

Total bullshit, wiredwrong. Climate models are very much based on the laws of physics but you're just too ignorant and retarded to understand that.

Astrophysicists on the other hand use models based on actual physics that can predict the temperatures found on practically any planet with any atmosphere. One need only plug the atmospheric composition and amount of incoming energy and based on the actual laws of physics, you get a fairly accurate prediction of the temperature of the planet and guess what, those models don't incorporate a fabricated, unphysical greenhouse effect.

More total bullshit based only on your denier cult myths. Astrophysicists studying exoplanets use the same General Climate Models as on Earth and they definitely do incorporate the very real and well verified greenhouse effect. The main difference is that scientists have enormously more direct measurements of conditions on Earth to work with than the very limited measurements they can get for other planets at astronomical distances.

Climate modelling of an Earth-like extrasolar planet orbiting a K-type star (pdf)
(excerpts)

Modelling details

To improve the understanding of the interaction between stellar radiation characteristics, atmospheric dynamics and local planetary conditions, we make use of the 3D general circulation model EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry model, [1]), which has been developed for Earth climate studies, to calculate the climate of an Earth-like extrasolar planet around a K-type star.

On Jupiter, temperature increases with atmospheric pressure so the astronomers and astrophysicists say that temperatures on Jupiter vary from about minus 145 degrees C at the edge of the atmosphere to as much as 35,000 degrees C at the planet's core.

Funny thing, the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well and ranges from near absolute zero at the edge of the atmosphere to nearly 13,000 degrees F at the core of the planet.

LOLOLOL....jeez, are you really that stupid? LOL. You talk about "the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well", which is wrong to begin with, and then cite an upper figure based on the core temperature of the planet. LOL. That's not "atmospheric pressure", dimwit, it is the pressure of 4000 miles of solid (or molten) rock, not gas.

Atmospheric pressure on Earth has very little to do with the temperature at the surface, nor does ""the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure" in some linear fashion. Your knowledge of the atmosphere is as minimal and deficient as your knowledge of most everything else, you poor retard. Let me educate you.

Atmosphere of Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structure of the atmosphere
Principal layers

In general, air pressure and density decrease in the atmosphere as height increases. However, temperature has a more complicated profile with altitude. Because the general pattern of this profile is constant and recognizable through means such as balloon soundings, temperature provides a useful metric to distinguish between atmospheric layers. In this way, Earth's atmosphere can be divided into five main layers. From highest to lowest, these layers are:

Exosphere

The outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere extends from the exobase upward. It is mainly composed of hydrogen and helium. The particles are so far apart that they can travel hundreds of kilometers without colliding with one another. Since the particles rarely collide, the atmosphere no longer behaves like a fluid. These free-moving particles follow ballistic trajectories and may migrate into and out of the magnetosphere or the solar wind.

Thermosphere

Temperature increases with height in the thermosphere from the mesopause up to the thermopause, then is constant with height. Unlike in the stratosphere, where the inversion is caused by absorption of radiation by ozone, in the thermosphere the inversion is a result of the extremely low density of molecules. The temperature of this layer can rise to 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), though the gas molecules are so far apart that temperature in the usual sense is not well defined. The air is so rarefied, that an individual molecule (of oxygen, for example) travels an average of 1 kilometer between collisions with other molecules.[3] The International Space Station orbits in this layer, between 320 and 380 km (200 and 240 mi). Because of the relative infrequency of molecular collisions, air above the mesopause is poorly mixed compared to air below. While the composition from the troposphere to the mesosphere is fairly constant, above a certain point, air is poorly mixed and becomes compositionally stratified. The point dividing these two regions is known as the turbopause. The region below is the homosphere, and the region above is the heterosphere. The top of the thermosphere is the bottom of the exosphere, called the exobase. Its height varies with solar activity and ranges from about 350–800 km (220–500 mi; 1,100,000–2,600,000 ft).

Mesosphere

The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km (50–53 mi; 260,000–280,000 ft). It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Temperature decreases with height in the mesosphere. The mesopause, the temperature minimum that marks the top of the mesosphere, is the coldest place on Earth and has an average temperature around −85 °C (−120 °F; 190 K).[4] At the mesopause, temperatures may drop to −100 °C (−150 °F; 170 K).[5] Due to the cold temperature of the mesosphere, water vapor is frozen, forming ice clouds (or Noctilucent clouds). A type of lightning referred to as either sprites or ELVES, form many miles above thunderclouds in the troposphere.

Stratosphere

The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 51 km (32 mi; 170,000 ft). Temperature increases with height due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. While the temperature may be −60 °C (−76 °F; 210 K) at the tropopause, the top of the stratosphere is much warmer, and may be near freezing. The stratopause, which is the boundary between the stratosphere and mesosphere, typically is at 50 to 55 km (31 to 34 mi; 160,000 to 180,000 ft). The pressure here is 1/1000 sea level.

Troposphere

The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km (30,000 ft) at the poles and 17 km (56,000 ft) at the equator,[6] with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. This promotes vertical mixing (hence the origin of its name in the Greek word "τροπή", trope, meaning turn or overturn). The troposphere contains roughly 80% of the mass of the atmosphere.[7] The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.

The temperature can be explained on either planet, without a fictitional(sic) greenhouse effect by adiabatic pressure and the ideal gas laws.

More nonsense based only on your own abject ignorance of physics (and everything else, for that matter). Repeating your denier cult myths over and over won't make them become real.

Interesting that you are completely unaware of that. That fact says a great deal about how much actual scientific knowledge that you posess(sic). As we all already knew, you are no more than a cut and paste clone who understands very little of what you post.

So speaks the ignorant retard who denies the basic laws of science and foolishly imagines that he understands climate science better than the actual climate scientists. You are a silly and very sad joke, wiredwrong, and you'll probably never get your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.

 

[westwall]

More ignorant, clueless, anti-science drivel from wiredwrong. He is so confused and misled that he imagines that there is some single calculated figure for "the temperature of a planet like Jupiter"

Hell, you believe that there is a single calculated figure for a planet like earth. What would lead you to believe that there is any such thing as a global mean temperature?

Another amusing demonstration of your profound ignorance, wiredwrong. Scientists use the 'global mean temperature' to refer to temperatures at the surface of the Earth. Jupiter has no detectable surface, it is a gas giant planet with a diameter of about 143,000 miles compared to the Earth's diameter of 8000 miles. On Earth, 99.99997% of the atmosphere by mass is below 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) but Jupiter's atmosphere just keeps going down. Five thousand miles deep the pressure is ten times Earth's surface pressure.



Total bullshit, wiredwrong. Climate models are very much based on the laws of physics but you're just too ignorant and retarded to understand that.





More total bullshit based only on your denier cult myths. Astrophysicists studying exoplanets use the same General Climate Models as on Earth and they definitely do incorporate the very real and well verified greenhouse effect. The main difference is that scientists have enormously more direct measurements of conditions on Earth to work with than the very limited measurements they can get for other planets at astronomical distances.

Climate modelling of an Earth-like extrasolar planet orbiting a K-type star (pdf)
(excerpts)

Modelling details

To improve the understanding of the interaction between stellar radiation characteristics, atmospheric dynamics and local planetary conditions, we make use of the 3D general circulation model EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry model, [1]), which has been developed for Earth climate studies, to calculate the climate of an Earth-like extrasolar planet around a K-type star.





LOLOLOL....jeez, are you really that stupid? LOL. You talk about "the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well", which is wrong to begin with, and then cite an upper figure based on the core temperature of the planet. LOL. That's not "atmospheric pressure", dimwit, it is the pressure of 4000 miles of solid (or molten) rock, not gas.

Atmospheric pressure on Earth has very little to do with the temperature at the surface, nor does ""the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure" in some linear fashion. Your knowledge of the atmosphere is as minimal and deficient as your knowledge of most everything else, you poor retard. Let me educate you.

Atmosphere of Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structure of the atmosphere
Principal layers

In general, air pressure and density decrease in the atmosphere as height increases. However, temperature has a more complicated profile with altitude. Because the general pattern of this profile is constant and recognizable through means such as balloon soundings, temperature provides a useful metric to distinguish between atmospheric layers. In this way, Earth's atmosphere can be divided into five main layers. From highest to lowest, these layers are:

Exosphere

The outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere extends from the exobase upward. It is mainly composed of hydrogen and helium. The particles are so far apart that they can travel hundreds of kilometers without colliding with one another. Since the particles rarely collide, the atmosphere no longer behaves like a fluid. These free-moving particles follow ballistic trajectories and may migrate into and out of the magnetosphere or the solar wind.

Thermosphere

Temperature increases with height in the thermosphere from the mesopause up to the thermopause, then is constant with height. Unlike in the stratosphere, where the inversion is caused by absorption of radiation by ozone, in the thermosphere the inversion is a result of the extremely low density of molecules. The temperature of this layer can rise to 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), though the gas molecules are so far apart that temperature in the usual sense is not well defined. The air is so rarefied, that an individual molecule (of oxygen, for example) travels an average of 1 kilometer between collisions with other molecules.[3] The International Space Station orbits in this layer, between 320 and 380 km (200 and 240 mi). Because of the relative infrequency of molecular collisions, air above the mesopause is poorly mixed compared to air below. While the composition from the troposphere to the mesosphere is fairly constant, above a certain point, air is poorly mixed and becomes compositionally stratified. The point dividing these two regions is known as the turbopause. The region below is the homosphere, and the region above is the heterosphere. The top of the thermosphere is the bottom of the exosphere, called the exobase. Its height varies with solar activity and ranges from about 350–800 km (220–500 mi; 1,100,000–2,600,000 ft).

Mesosphere

The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km (50–53 mi; 260,000–280,000 ft). It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Temperature decreases with height in the mesosphere. The mesopause, the temperature minimum that marks the top of the mesosphere, is the coldest place on Earth and has an average temperature around −85 °C (−120 °F; 190 K).[4] At the mesopause, temperatures may drop to −100 °C (−150 °F; 170 K).[5] Due to the cold temperature of the mesosphere, water vapor is frozen, forming ice clouds (or Noctilucent clouds). A type of lightning referred to as either sprites or ELVES, form many miles above thunderclouds in the troposphere.

Stratosphere

The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 51 km (32 mi; 170,000 ft). Temperature increases with height due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. While the temperature may be −60 °C (−76 °F; 210 K) at the tropopause, the top of the stratosphere is much warmer, and may be near freezing. The stratopause, which is the boundary between the stratosphere and mesosphere, typically is at 50 to 55 km (31 to 34 mi; 160,000 to 180,000 ft). The pressure here is 1/1000 sea level.

Troposphere

The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km (30,000 ft) at the poles and 17 km (56,000 ft) at the equator,[6] with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. This promotes vertical mixing (hence the origin of its name in the Greek word "τροπή", trope, meaning turn or overturn). The troposphere contains roughly 80% of the mass of the atmosphere.[7] The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.

The temperature can be explained on either planet, without a fictitional(sic) greenhouse effect by adiabatic pressure and the ideal gas laws.

More nonsense based only on your own abject ignorance of physics (and everything else, for that matter). Repeating your denier cult myths over and over won't make them become real.

Interesting that you are completely unaware of that. That fact says a great deal about how much actual scientific knowledge that you posess(sic). As we all already knew, you are no more than a cut and paste clone who understands very little of what you post.

So speaks the ignorant retard who denies the basic laws of science and foolishly imagines that he understands climate science better than the actual climate scientists. You are a silly and very sad joke, wiredwrong, and you'll probably never get your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.

General Climate Models Nothing else need be said!

 

[RollingThunder]

Hell, you believe that there is a single calculated figure for a planet like earth. What would lead you to believe that there is any such thing as a global mean temperature?

Another amusing demonstration of your profound ignorance, wiredwrong. Scientists use the 'global mean temperature' to refer to temperatures at the surface of the Earth. Jupiter has no detectable surface, it is a gas giant planet with a diameter of about 143,000 miles compared to the Earth's diameter of 8000 miles. On Earth, 99.99997% of the atmosphere by mass is below 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) but Jupiter's atmosphere just keeps going down. Five thousand miles deep the pressure is ten times Earth's surface pressure.



Total bullshit, wiredwrong. Climate models are very much based on the laws of physics but you're just too ignorant and retarded to understand that.





More total bullshit based only on your denier cult myths. Astrophysicists studying exoplanets use the same General Climate Models as on Earth and they definitely do incorporate the very real and well verified greenhouse effect. The main difference is that scientists have enormously more direct measurements of conditions on Earth to work with than the very limited measurements they can get for other planets at astronomical distances.

Climate modelling of an Earth-like extrasolar planet orbiting a K-type star (pdf)
(excerpts)

Modelling details

To improve the understanding of the interaction between stellar radiation characteristics, atmospheric dynamics and local planetary conditions, we make use of the 3D general circulation model EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry model, [1]), which has been developed for Earth climate studies, to calculate the climate of an Earth-like extrasolar planet around a K-type star.





LOLOLOL....jeez, are you really that stupid? LOL. You talk about "the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well", which is wrong to begin with, and then cite an upper figure based on the core temperature of the planet. LOL. That's not "atmospheric pressure", dimwit, it is the pressure of 4000 miles of solid (or molten) rock, not gas.

Atmospheric pressure on Earth has very little to do with the temperature at the surface, nor does ""the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure" in some linear fashion. Your knowledge of the atmosphere is as minimal and deficient as your knowledge of most everything else, you poor retard. Let me educate you.

Atmosphere of Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structure of the atmosphere
Principal layers

In general, air pressure and density decrease in the atmosphere as height increases. However, temperature has a more complicated profile with altitude. Because the general pattern of this profile is constant and recognizable through means such as balloon soundings, temperature provides a useful metric to distinguish between atmospheric layers. In this way, Earth's atmosphere can be divided into five main layers. From highest to lowest, these layers are:

Exosphere

The outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere extends from the exobase upward. It is mainly composed of hydrogen and helium. The particles are so far apart that they can travel hundreds of kilometers without colliding with one another. Since the particles rarely collide, the atmosphere no longer behaves like a fluid. These free-moving particles follow ballistic trajectories and may migrate into and out of the magnetosphere or the solar wind.

Thermosphere

Temperature increases with height in the thermosphere from the mesopause up to the thermopause, then is constant with height. Unlike in the stratosphere, where the inversion is caused by absorption of radiation by ozone, in the thermosphere the inversion is a result of the extremely low density of molecules. The temperature of this layer can rise to 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), though the gas molecules are so far apart that temperature in the usual sense is not well defined. The air is so rarefied, that an individual molecule (of oxygen, for example) travels an average of 1 kilometer between collisions with other molecules.[3] The International Space Station orbits in this layer, between 320 and 380 km (200 and 240 mi). Because of the relative infrequency of molecular collisions, air above the mesopause is poorly mixed compared to air below. While the composition from the troposphere to the mesosphere is fairly constant, above a certain point, air is poorly mixed and becomes compositionally stratified. The point dividing these two regions is known as the turbopause. The region below is the homosphere, and the region above is the heterosphere. The top of the thermosphere is the bottom of the exosphere, called the exobase. Its height varies with solar activity and ranges from about 350–800 km (220–500 mi; 1,100,000–2,600,000 ft).

Mesosphere

The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km (50–53 mi; 260,000–280,000 ft). It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Temperature decreases with height in the mesosphere. The mesopause, the temperature minimum that marks the top of the mesosphere, is the coldest place on Earth and has an average temperature around −85 °C (−120 °F; 190 K).[4] At the mesopause, temperatures may drop to −100 °C (−150 °F; 170 K).[5] Due to the cold temperature of the mesosphere, water vapor is frozen, forming ice clouds (or Noctilucent clouds). A type of lightning referred to as either sprites or ELVES, form many miles above thunderclouds in the troposphere.

Stratosphere

The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 51 km (32 mi; 170,000 ft). Temperature increases with height due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. While the temperature may be −60 °C (−76 °F; 210 K) at the tropopause, the top of the stratosphere is much warmer, and may be near freezing. The stratopause, which is the boundary between the stratosphere and mesosphere, typically is at 50 to 55 km (31 to 34 mi; 160,000 to 180,000 ft). The pressure here is 1/1000 sea level.

Troposphere

The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km (30,000 ft) at the poles and 17 km (56,000 ft) at the equator,[6] with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. This promotes vertical mixing (hence the origin of its name in the Greek word "τροπή", trope, meaning turn or overturn). The troposphere contains roughly 80% of the mass of the atmosphere.[7] The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.






More nonsense based only on your own abject ignorance of physics (and everything else, for that matter). Repeating your denier cult myths over and over won't make them become real.

Interesting that you are completely unaware of that. That fact says a great deal about how much actual scientific knowledge that you posess(sic). As we all already knew, you are no more than a cut and paste clone who understands very little of what you post.

So speaks the ignorant retard who denies the basic laws of science and foolishly imagines that he understands climate science better than the actual climate scientists. You are a silly and very sad joke, wiredwrong, and you'll probably never get your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.

General Climate Models Nothing else need be said!

Watching ignorant retards like you laugh at things you don't (and can't) understand is itself rather amusing although also a bit sad. It is rather telling that after getting your clock cleaned like that, your only response is this pathetic non-response.

Denier cult myths - ‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts
(excerpts)

...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

 

[konradv]

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning.

Tell me that you really aren't this clueless? Climate change alarmism is in, and of itself, a political issue. It is, and always has been about socialist goals of controlling and socializing industry and redistuributing wealth.

Only because the skeptics/deniers say so. I don't see any independent verification of that fact. I guess levees shouldn't be built because flood warnings are "alarmist" and building them IS a poltical question. After all, water is required for life. What? Are we supposed to just quit drinking? (Sample of denier logic)

 

[code1211]

Of course it's political. The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning.

Tell me that you really aren't this clueless? Climate change alarmism is in, and of itself, a political issue. It is, and always has been about socialist goals of controlling and socializing industry and redistuributing wealth.

Only because the skeptics/deniers say so. I don't see any independent verification of that fact. I guess levees shouldn't be built because flood warnings are "alarmist" and building them IS a poltical question. After all, water is required for life. What? Are we supposed to just quit drinking? (Sample of denier logic)

Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic. Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2." That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee. The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is text book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet. There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23. The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW. Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results. If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.

 

[RollingThunder]

Tell me that you really aren't this clueless? Climate change alarmism is in, and of itself, a political issue. It is, and always has been about socialist goals of controlling and socializing industry and redistuributing wealth.

Only because the skeptics/deniers say so. I don't see any independent verification of that fact. I guess levees shouldn't be built because flood warnings are "alarmist" and building them IS a poltical question. After all, water is required for life. What? Are we supposed to just quit drinking? (Sample of denier logic)

Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic. Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2." That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee. The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is test book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet. There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23. The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW. Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results. If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.

Actually, it is your pathetic excuse for a brain that is the joke here.

In your demented and extremely retarded way, you must assume that every national science institute, scientific society and organization, and university on the planet somehow failed to "check the results".

Do you have to take stupid pills or were you born this way?

 

[westwall]

Another amusing demonstration of your profound ignorance, wiredwrong. Scientists use the 'global mean temperature' to refer to temperatures at the surface of the Earth. Jupiter has no detectable surface, it is a gas giant planet with a diameter of about 143,000 miles compared to the Earth's diameter of 8000 miles. On Earth, 99.99997% of the atmosphere by mass is below 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) but Jupiter's atmosphere just keeps going down. Five thousand miles deep the pressure is ten times Earth's surface pressure.



Total bullshit, wiredwrong. Climate models are very much based on the laws of physics but you're just too ignorant and retarded to understand that.





More total bullshit based only on your denier cult myths. Astrophysicists studying exoplanets use the same General Climate Models as on Earth and they definitely do incorporate the very real and well verified greenhouse effect. The main difference is that scientists have enormously more direct measurements of conditions on Earth to work with than the very limited measurements they can get for other planets at astronomical distances.

Climate modelling of an Earth-like extrasolar planet orbiting a K-type star (pdf)
(excerpts)

Modelling details

To improve the understanding of the interaction between stellar radiation characteristics, atmospheric dynamics and local planetary conditions, we make use of the 3D general circulation model EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry model, [1]), which has been developed for Earth climate studies, to calculate the climate of an Earth-like extrasolar planet around a K-type star.





LOLOLOL....jeez, are you really that stupid? LOL. You talk about "the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well", which is wrong to begin with, and then cite an upper figure based on the core temperature of the planet. LOL. That's not "atmospheric pressure", dimwit, it is the pressure of 4000 miles of solid (or molten) rock, not gas.

Atmospheric pressure on Earth has very little to do with the temperature at the surface, nor does ""the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure" in some linear fashion. Your knowledge of the atmosphere is as minimal and deficient as your knowledge of most everything else, you poor retard. Let me educate you.

Atmosphere of Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structure of the atmosphere
Principal layers

In general, air pressure and density decrease in the atmosphere as height increases. However, temperature has a more complicated profile with altitude. Because the general pattern of this profile is constant and recognizable through means such as balloon soundings, temperature provides a useful metric to distinguish between atmospheric layers. In this way, Earth's atmosphere can be divided into five main layers. From highest to lowest, these layers are:

Exosphere

The outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere extends from the exobase upward. It is mainly composed of hydrogen and helium. The particles are so far apart that they can travel hundreds of kilometers without colliding with one another. Since the particles rarely collide, the atmosphere no longer behaves like a fluid. These free-moving particles follow ballistic trajectories and may migrate into and out of the magnetosphere or the solar wind.

Thermosphere

Temperature increases with height in the thermosphere from the mesopause up to the thermopause, then is constant with height. Unlike in the stratosphere, where the inversion is caused by absorption of radiation by ozone, in the thermosphere the inversion is a result of the extremely low density of molecules. The temperature of this layer can rise to 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), though the gas molecules are so far apart that temperature in the usual sense is not well defined. The air is so rarefied, that an individual molecule (of oxygen, for example) travels an average of 1 kilometer between collisions with other molecules.[3] The International Space Station orbits in this layer, between 320 and 380 km (200 and 240 mi). Because of the relative infrequency of molecular collisions, air above the mesopause is poorly mixed compared to air below. While the composition from the troposphere to the mesosphere is fairly constant, above a certain point, air is poorly mixed and becomes compositionally stratified. The point dividing these two regions is known as the turbopause. The region below is the homosphere, and the region above is the heterosphere. The top of the thermosphere is the bottom of the exosphere, called the exobase. Its height varies with solar activity and ranges from about 350–800 km (220–500 mi; 1,100,000–2,600,000 ft).

Mesosphere

The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 80–85 km (50–53 mi; 260,000–280,000 ft). It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Temperature decreases with height in the mesosphere. The mesopause, the temperature minimum that marks the top of the mesosphere, is the coldest place on Earth and has an average temperature around −85 °C (−120 °F; 190 K).[4] At the mesopause, temperatures may drop to −100 °C (−150 °F; 170 K).[5] Due to the cold temperature of the mesosphere, water vapor is frozen, forming ice clouds (or Noctilucent clouds). A type of lightning referred to as either sprites or ELVES, form many miles above thunderclouds in the troposphere.

Stratosphere

The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 51 km (32 mi; 170,000 ft). Temperature increases with height due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. While the temperature may be −60 °C (−76 °F; 210 K) at the tropopause, the top of the stratosphere is much warmer, and may be near freezing. The stratopause, which is the boundary between the stratosphere and mesosphere, typically is at 50 to 55 km (31 to 34 mi; 160,000 to 180,000 ft). The pressure here is 1/1000 sea level.

Troposphere

The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km (30,000 ft) at the poles and 17 km (56,000 ft) at the equator,[6] with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. This promotes vertical mixing (hence the origin of its name in the Greek word "τροπή", trope, meaning turn or overturn). The troposphere contains roughly 80% of the mass of the atmosphere.[7] The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.






More nonsense based only on your own abject ignorance of physics (and everything else, for that matter). Repeating your denier cult myths over and over won't make them become real.






So speaks the ignorant retard who denies the basic laws of science and foolishly imagines that he understands climate science better than the actual climate scientists. You are a silly and very sad joke, wiredwrong, and you'll probably never get your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.

General Climate Models Nothing else need be said!

Watching ignorant retards like you laugh at things you don't (and can't) understand is itself rather amusing although also a bit sad. It is rather telling that after getting your clock cleaned like that, your only response is this pathetic non-response.

Denier cult myths - ‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts
(excerpts)

...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

Sure they do. Then how come they can't recreate what occured yesterday? Here's a peer reviewed study for you. I highlighted the relevent part for you.


"Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Rice University | News & Media