People it is NOT COOLING

[sparky]

I hear the halls of Congress have been in a steady state of climate control for well over a generation now

 

[editec]

It's man's fault. It's always man's fault. But not just man's fault. It's white western civilization's fault.

Mad king Lud would be very proud of you people.

Are you enjoying your life and death political battle with strawmen, Fritz?

 

[wirebender]

Even if it retained heat it can't transport it back towards the surface. Vector going outwards in all directions means that it can't be transferred to another molecule of the same kind? Which means there is no such thing as the green house effect. It has been falsified and is a lie.

Water vapor can retain heat but can't radiate it back towards the earth but it can make the atmosphere warmer. It does so by slowing the escape of IR radiated from the surface of the earth.

Picture two places on the surface of the Earth, close together, at roughly the same lattitude and altitude. One a coastal area, one a desert. Not difficult since there are many such places on earth. During the day, the coastal area doesn't heat as quickly, or as intensely as the desert. It takes a lot of energy to warm moist air. In fact, if you live in a high humidity area, you know that it costs more to heat moist air than dry air. The humidity in the coastal area absorbs heat but because water has the ability to actually retain it without raising the temperature of the molecule, the coastal area doesn't get as hot as the desert.

When nightfall comes, the desert cools very quickly because the atmosphere has little capacity to store heat unless there is ample water vapor present. The coastal area, on the other hand, cools much more slowly than the desert precisely because the water vapor which kept the area from warming so much during the day is slowly shedding heat at night. And again, that heat is moving towards space, not towards the ground.

The greenhouse effect as described by warmists is a fiction that was required to balance an energy budget based on an unrational model of the earth we live in. Rather than model a spherical, rotating earth that is absorbing energy only on one side at a time, the model that the warmists use is of a flat disk that is perpetually bathed in a sort of twilight. A greenhouse effect is required to make the temperature reflect a semblance of reality.

Models that are based on a spherical earth that is illuminated on one side by the sun and dark on the other don't require a greenhouse effect for the temperature to reflect reality. In fact, the bottom line is that the earth is a bit cooler than the reality based models predict because of the scattering effect that CO2 and other gasses that absorb and emit radiation have on the temperature. Scattered IR dissipates much more quickly than concentrated IR.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's man's fault. It's always man's fault. But not just man's fault. It's white western civilization's fault.

Mad king Lud would be very proud of you people.

Are you enjoying your life and death political battle with strawmen, Fritz?

Riiiiiiiight.

Tell me. Is there ONE non-governmental solution to global warming? Anything in the private industry that doesn't require government mandate, subsidy or law requiring it's use?

Every strange phenomenon that occurs from hemorrhoids to earthquakes are being blamed on global warming. And the only thing being blamed with regularity is western industrialized activity.

Strawman? Hardly. A track record since the 1960's? Definitely.

 

[konradv]

That's just the natural cycle. What about increasing CO2 acting as an insulator to keep more heat in? Where's that coming from, if not from man? I'm afraid I'll fo with the science, rather than just accept on "faith" that we can't possibly be doing something to the climate of a planet as big as Earth.

Once again konradv, describe the mechanism by which CO2 keeps more heat in. A packet of energy leaving the surface of the earth, passing through CO2 takes about 0.0049 seconds to radiate into space. That same packet of energy radiating through water vapor takes 0.0245 seconds. Clearly water vapor does retain heat within the atmosphere. CO2, on the other hand, does not.

But hey, if you want to describe the mechanism and show your math, have at it.

Even if it retained heat it can't transport it back towards the surface. Vector going outwards in all directions means that it can't be transferred to another molecule of the same kind? Which means there is no such thing as the green house effect. It has been falsified and is a lie.

Why wouldn't be able to transport back to the surface? Do you have some evidence for a photon-stopping force field? If vectors are going out in all directions, wouldn't that mean some are pointed back towards Earth? After all, you said ALL directions. So what if it can't be absorbed by a molecule of the same kind, we're concerned about heating the earth and you just proved that's where at least half would be going!!!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh yes, we are warmering. Proof is here, folks .. . @ 1:10.

“Go out and say that there is no global climate change, and you know, I’m not gonna cite the anecdotal evidence. Just walk out the street and your glasses are gonna fog up today.”

Rep. Ackerman has just found evidence that air conditioning works, not that the world is getting warmer.

The PJ Tatler » Video: Dem. Rep. Gary Ackerman PROVES that Global Warming is Real!


tff

 

[daveman]

I swear to fucking god measuring from a super massive nino in 1998 to a huge nina in 2008 is NO GOOD WAY TO MEASURE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. What you do more or less is find a neutral year like 1981,1990, 1995, or maybe 2003, but there is a damn good reason why you don't chose a warm or cool enso year.

Then draw the mother fucking line in between the low(cool years) and highs(warmer years). What this does is give you a trend of the normal conditions. That is what is changing my friends. A nina and nino over the course of the past 30 years have also changed. In the 1970s a nina would of given us around -.15 to -.1c within the giss, but today a year will be at least .3c within the deepest nina imaginable.

The attachment is me doing as I said above with choosing the favorable years that i point out and drilling a line through the means. Do you see any fucking cooling even through we're supposed to be cooling? I don't think so---Anyways, I may not be winning, but I'm surely right. O'hell even not winning, I will be laughing my ass off.

The second attachment is the future of humanity and our planet

So...how's that hissy fit working out for you?

 

[IanC]

Matt- it may not be cooling but it certainly isnt warming in the way climate models say it should. the models are obviously wrong and reality based predictions of climate sensitivity are much lower than the IPCC statements

 

[Old Rocks]

People are tensed. Too many personal and worldwide issues going on. Economy and Politics are not helping. We need God.

How many times was something like this said in Treblinka and Auschvitz? And how much help was it?

 

[Old Rocks]

I swear to fucking god measuring from a super massive nino in 1998 to a huge nina in 2008 is NO GOOD WAY TO MEASURE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. What you do more or less is find a neutral year like 1981,1990, 1995, or maybe 2003, but there is a damn good reason why you don't chose a warm or cool enso year.

Then draw the mother fucking line in between the low(cool years) and highs(warmer years). What this does is give you a trend of the normal conditions. That is what is changing my friends. A nina and nino over the course of the past 30 years have also changed. In the 1970s a nina would of given us around -.15 to -.1c within the giss, but today a year will be at least .3c within the deepest nina imaginable.

The attachment is me doing as I said above with choosing the favorable years that i point out and drilling a line through the means. Do you see any fucking cooling even through we're supposed to be cooling? I don't think so---Anyways, I may not be winning, but I'm surely right. O'hell even not winning, I will be laughing my ass off.

The second attachment is the future of humanity and our planet

So...how's that hissy fit working out for you?

So how is fucking lying and ignoring the major problem facing humanity going to work out for our descendents? Oh, I forgot. You are a 'Conservative', and those bastards don't count.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's man's fault. It's always man's fault. But not just man's fault. It's white western civilization's fault.

Mad king Lud would be very proud of you people.

Are you enjoying your life and death political battle with strawmen, Fritz?

Riiiiiiiight.

Tell me. Is there ONE non-governmental solution to global warming? Anything in the private industry that doesn't require government mandate, subsidy or law requiring it's use?

Every strange phenomenon that occurs from hemorrhoids to earthquakes are being blamed on global warming. And the only thing being blamed with regularity is western industrialized activity.

Strawman? Hardly. A track record since the 1960's? Definitely.

Well, idiot child, there is going to be a non-governmental solution applied. When enough people die from the affects of global warming on the world's agriculture, much of the sources of emissions will shut down. And you 'Conservatives' can piss all over yourselves in happiness that there wasn't a govermental solution.

 

[wirebender]

Why wouldn't be able to transport back to the surface? Do you have some evidence for a photon-stopping force field?

Been through this with you already konradv. The math was way over your head but that doesn't alter the fact that I have already done it for you. Here is one of the posts in which I did the math to prove that a weaker EM field can not push energy past a stronger EM field.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3752896-post193.html

Here is a post by your buddy RWatt (warmist) who actually was able to do the math and proved to himself that I was correct in my claims. Note that since he proved to himself that cool objects can not warm warmer objects he no longer shows up here to argue the topic.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3758427-post211.html

And here is the post in which I explained to him what the result of his math means.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3774581-post215.html

We were using stars and their respective EM fields as examples but field vector calculus applies in the same way whether you are transporting energy via EM field in stars, atmospheres, or light bulbs. The same laws of physics apply.

If vectors are going out in all directions, wouldn't that mean some are pointed back towards Earth? After all, you said ALL directions. So what if it can't be absorbed by a molecule of the same kind, we're concerned about heating the earth and you just proved that's where at least half would be going!!!

What I proved was that none would be going towards earth. Field vector calculus konradv. Energy from the weaker EM field generated by the atmosphere can not move along any vector in which the field of greater magnitude propagated by the earth is transporting energy outward, and the earth is propagating its EM field outward from every possible vector. You are radiating outward from a sphere. There is no possible vector along which the EM field of the atmosphere would be greater than the EM field propagated by the earth. Any energy radiated downward in opposition to a vector propagated by the earth would be expended to zero against the greater field generated by the earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect | Climate Etc.

 

[wirebender]

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect | Climate Etc.

Now you are posting blog entries as evidence to support your beliefs rocks. You get more pitiful all the time. She has attempted to blog on some of the papers she lists that are in opposition to the hypotheses of GHE and has been shredded. I note that now she just comments and doesn't put any real effort forth in arguing herself. And you must not have actually read the thread. Since you apparently trust the site to the point that you believe it constitutes proof of one thing or another, maybe you would like to see some of the comments.

When physicists discuss the use and abuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as applied to climate science I listen closely. The G&T09 article (Falsification of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect), the Halpern (2010) rebuttal and the subsequent retort by G&T leave me “uncertain” as it appears that each author does not speak directly to each objection.

http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2010/11/the_tyndall_gas_effect_part_1.html Dr. N-G has officially declared the greenhouse effect dead as a way to describe the behavior of gasses in the atmosphere.

If I understand this fully, I am gratified that the greenhouse effect is being laid aside, finally.

It is not just A greenhouse effect we are talking about, but a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect,” that one invented by Carl Sagan to explain the 800-900°F surface temperature on Venus (with its 96% carbon dioxide atmosphere) and then applied for well over a decade by people who claimed it also applied to the Earth (with its 0.03% carbon dioxide). Sagan invented it to spare astronomers the anguish of having Immanuel Velikovsky be right in his exactly correct prediction of that surface temp of Venus. It was, in fact, nothing more than a speculation, but it was seized upon by science – because they had no other aces up their sleeves. It would not do to let the infamous Velikovsky have the last word.

I consider it proven that Venus’s heat is not due to the greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC scientists, by direct comparison of the Earth and Venus atmospheres over corresponding pressure levels in each. I have done it here, and I afterwards read in Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s recent articles that they specifically recommend doing this.)

the very close Earth/Venus comparison tells me there is no measurable greenhouse effect at all on Venus, or on Earth (which has much less carbon dioxide in the air). At a lapse rate of -6.5K/km, the effect you mention would mean a temperature rise of nearly a full degree, easily measurable and thus wrong, based on what the clear Earth/Venus data tells me.

See Zagoni The Saturated Greenhouse Effect of Ferenc Miskolczi
He dig into Milne’s 1922 original greenhouse equations and discovered and fixed a major flaw in the boundary conditions – the assumption of infinite thickness. That corrected a major step change in temperature at the earth’s surface etc. See Zagoni p 41-45 etc.

He reviewed radiosonde data and discovered major errors in Kiehl & Trenberth’s 1997 etc See Zagoni p 68, 69

It goes on and on rocks with the bulk of those actually discussing the science showing the flaws in greenhouse effect thinking.

Tell me rocks, are you even aware that the models upon which the existence of a greenhouse effect depend deny the existence of day and night on earth? The models upon which the greenhouse effect depend visualize the earth as a flat disk. The models upon which the greenhouse effect depend do not reflect reality. Further, when you apply the physics upon which the models operate to other planets, they do not accurately depict those planets. In short, they are fabricated fantasys that are tortured into approximating the earth.

 

[daveman]

I swear to fucking god measuring from a super massive nino in 1998 to a huge nina in 2008 is NO GOOD WAY TO MEASURE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. What you do more or less is find a neutral year like 1981,1990, 1995, or maybe 2003, but there is a damn good reason why you don't chose a warm or cool enso year.

Then draw the mother fucking line in between the low(cool years) and highs(warmer years). What this does is give you a trend of the normal conditions. That is what is changing my friends. A nina and nino over the course of the past 30 years have also changed. In the 1970s a nina would of given us around -.15 to -.1c within the giss, but today a year will be at least .3c within the deepest nina imaginable.

The attachment is me doing as I said above with choosing the favorable years that i point out and drilling a line through the means. Do you see any fucking cooling even through we're supposed to be cooling? I don't think so---Anyways, I may not be winning, but I'm surely right. O'hell even not winning, I will be laughing my ass off.

The second attachment is the future of humanity and our planet

So...how's that hissy fit working out for you?

So how is fucking lying and ignoring the major problem facing humanity going to work out for our descendents? Oh, I forgot. You are a 'Conservative', and those bastards don't count.

I don't lie. I don't have to.

If you had two neurons in spark-gap range, you'd see it's the left that doesn't care about our decedents -- saddling them with crippling debt, unrealistic and unworkable energy schemes, and absolutely no mind to the consequences of any of their actions.

But, hey -- as long as you "feel good" about what you're doing, that's all that really matters, right?

 

[daveman]

Are you enjoying your life and death political battle with strawmen, Fritz?

Riiiiiiiight.

Tell me. Is there ONE non-governmental solution to global warming? Anything in the private industry that doesn't require government mandate, subsidy or law requiring it's use?

Every strange phenomenon that occurs from hemorrhoids to earthquakes are being blamed on global warming. And the only thing being blamed with regularity is western industrialized activity.

Strawman? Hardly. A track record since the 1960's? Definitely.

Well, idiot child, there is going to be a non-governmental solution applied. When enough people die from the affects of global warming on the world's agriculture, much of the sources of emissions will shut down. And you 'Conservatives' can piss all over yourselves in happiness that there wasn't a govermental solution.

Remember, folks: Only conservatives fear-monger.