The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[Billy_Bob]

The poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet not experiencing "maximum cooling". The problem is not a failure to retain heat. The reason the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet is still under research. Originally it was thought the loss of albedo was the primary culprit but more recent studies suggest that it is due to the transport of heat to the poles by large weather systems. This should ring a bell with a premier atmospheric physicist such as yourself. I'll give you a hint: PVs caused by RWs.

My thread on paradoxical presentation tells you why what we are seeing is natural and normal.. Your rant is pure BS!

 

[Billy_Bob]

How about a dose of facts for the believers...

"Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth's surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:

Figure 7: Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as "predicted" by 11 climate models (the other graphs).17 Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data."


The actual data from ERBE show a 100% correlation to surface temperature. As temperature at the surface rises the out going LWIR increases at the same increase. IF CO2 were stopping or slowing the release of LWIR then the slop would show lag from the original temperature increase.

Source

 

[Crick]

I find it odd that you, a degreed atmospheric physicist would use such a site as your reference.



This isn't a science site, is it. Hmm...

However, I enjoyed it when they REPEATEDLY stated that the direct greenhouse warming effect of CO2 was an inarguable fact. You and Same Shit and JC456 and Skookerasbil and Crusader Frank don't seem to have accepted that. If you reject that premise, why do you (apparently) accept the rest of this argument?

Now let's address the article's claim that GCM models assume LWIR radiation will decrease with increasing temperature. First, this, as stated, is a violation of Planck's Law and SB. Higher temperatures yield greater radiation. The problem seems to be that someone has turned the terms around. If we take a body at some temperature and by some mechanism, reduce the total amount of radiation escaping to space, the body will increase in temperature. However, that is not what the greenhouse effect involves. Greenhouse gases SLOW the escape of radiation by absorbing and emitting LWIR and sending some of it back to the surface. Eventually, a body with a fixed level of greenhouse gases will reach equilibrium at some temperature above its blackbody SB temperature. If you increase the level of GHGs by some step value, outgoing LWIR will slow further, more will be reabsorbed by the surface and the temperature will begin to rise. That increase in temperature will increase radiation to space until the system is at equilibrium once again.

So, basically, I believe the data your article presents, is deceptive bullshit.

 

[P@triot]

The reason the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet is still under research.

Wow. Wow. The first “Global Warming” conspiracy wing-nut to admit that they don’t know what is causing what they believe (which isn’t happening anyway). And yet, they support policies extremely detrimental to jobs, wealth, energy, and welfare of people.

 

[Crick]

The reason the Earth as a whole is getting warmer is very widely accepted among scientists to be increased greenhouse warming from anthropogenically increased levels of GHGs. So, no hooting is called for.

Besides, I didn't admit it. Climate scientists tell us that.

 

[P@triot]

The reason the Earth as a whole is getting warmer is very widely accepted among scientists to be increased greenhouse warming from anthropogenically increased levels of GHGs. So, no hooting is called for.

Besides, I didn't admit it. Climate scientists tell us that.

The problem, Crick, is that each one of those that subscribe to that belief do so because of their blind political allegiance and/or because they have a whole lot of money and career to be gained from subscribing to it.

 

[P@triot]

One can always count on the "Global Warming" crowd to have the largest carbon footprint...

That’s a low-ball estimate because it includes only emissions from the conference and not emissions associated with the thousands who flew to the meeting in Poland.

More indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a scam. If it was real, these people wouldn't fly all over the world holding massive CO2-emiting summits.

UN Climate Summit to Emit More CO2 Than 8,200 American Homes Do in a Year

 

[Crick]

This complaint is bullshit. It has nothing to do with the science.

 

[Pilot1]

I don't see Global Warming activists, neither of the Celebrity variety, nor the average advocate changing THEIR lifestyle in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY to combat what they think matters affecting climate.

Crick, and others, what have you done to change YOUR Lifestyle that is PROVEN to reduce the affect on climate? Or do you just want more government, more government control, and more taxes, and higher energy costs?

 

[Crick]

I could tell you anything here. What would you like to hear? My extended family drives two Hyundai Elantras, a Honda Fit and a Prius V. We eat no beef. We ride bicycles to the grocery store (3 mi round trip). Our 1.5 acre property is planted with a wide variety of trees, bushes, plants vice monoculture grass. I favor increased use of nuclear power along with alternative energy technologies and my retirement investments show it. Most importantly, I vote for politicians who accept the conclusions of the IPCC and don't take large contributions from fossil fuel industries. Does that change your mind about liberals? Does it change your mind about the science? I thought not.

 

[P@triot]

It’s nice to see science, logic, reason, and common sense from a California judge...

Judge demolishes leftist theory that climate change is to blame for deadly California wildfires

 

[mamooth]

It’s nice to see science, logic, reason, and common sense from a California judge..

Another fine entry for this week's dumb-off.

Let me help you out here, since you need it. It's possible for something to have multiple contributing factors.

Thus, a judge saying bad electrical lines are a major contributing cause does not mean that rising temperatures can't also be a major contributing cause.

If you require an explanation with smaller words, I won't be able to supply it. I understand it may not be possible to dumb things down to a level that you can grasp.

 

[mamooth]

The problem, Crick, is that each one of those that subscribe to that belief do so because of their blind political allegiance and/or because they have a whole lot of money and career to be gained from subscribing to it.

If all the data didn't say your kook snowflake political cult's dogma was a crock, you wouldn't need to whimper out conspiracy theories about how all the data is faked. But it does, so that's all you can do.

That's another reason why it's so good to be part of the reality-based community. All the data backs us up, so we never need to throw snowflake tantrums about how all the data is faked. To win, we simply point at the data.

A side benefit of doing that is how it triggers the cultists. I suppose I shouldn't take pleasure in their meltdowns, but I'm an imperfect person.

 

[Crick]

It’s nice to see science, logic, reason, and common sense from a California judge...

Judge demolishes leftist theory that climate change is to blame for deadly California wildfires

The judge concluded that PG&E equipment ignited the fires. He did not refute - nor could he have done - that global warming bore some responsibility for the increasing severity of western droughts.

 

[Pilot1]

Again, Libs, what are your lifestyle changes that are proven to combat man made climate change?

 

[Crick]

I already told you mine. And what relevance does this have with the science? None. This is simply an attack on liberals. For that, move to one of the politics boards.

 

[P@triot]

Let me help you out here, since you need it. It's possible for something to have multiple contributing factors.

Thus, a judge saying bad electrical lines are a major contributing cause does not mean that rising temperatures can't also be a major contributing cause.

Ahahahahahaha...look at mammaries trying to walk everything back and create a new narrative. Sweetie, you and your side idiotically claimed that “Global Warming” was thee cause. You’ve been proven wrong as always. Now go change your tampon.

 

[P@triot]

I already told you mine. And what relevance does this have with the science? None. This is simply an attack on liberals. For that, move to one of the politics boards.

Because it proves you don’t believe your own lies. This is all about wealth and control.

 

[P@triot]

Yet again reality trumps the false narrative of the left...

2018 First Year Ever with No Violent Tornadoes in the U.S.

 

[Crick]

I am going to take a guess that you believe Islam to be a threat to the United States. But for this purpose, will just call it a hypothetical. Certainly there are people with such an opinion. The vast majority of them, your hypothetical self included, have not flown across to, say Saudi Arabia, and attacked Muslims. Thus, by your logic, you are lying when you say (hypothetically) that you believe Islam to be a threat. Does that seem like valid logic to you? Or are there, perhaps, other reasons for not having gone on the attack?

And, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the science. As you've likely heard before, science doesn't care whether or not you believe.