The origin of "Global Warming".

[skookerasbil]

Hint........it has little to do with the environment........

It is and has always been about the erosion of commonlaw rights. It is about global government and the destruction of capitalism. And we are marching headlong into it too......a quick glance at the economic and politial landscape is very sobering indeed. It is a bipartisan effort too.......this whole liberal vs conservative thing is a ruse. The Bush's, Clinton, Obama.....all complicit.



Consider.........



Dramatic increase in entitlement spending

Dramatic increase in gas prices

Anti-business fiscal policy

Bogus climate data

Depopulation movements ( Obamacare)

More gun laws

Dept of Homeland Security buying tens of millions of rounds of ammo

Crushing levels of regulations ( Bush and Obama)

Unprecedented levels of class warfare rhetoric

Escalation of racial tensions

Refusal of congress to reduce spending

Public safety drones

Massive reductions in defense spending

Increasing taxes at the federal, state and local levels of government

Continuing devaluation of the dollar




And this is shit just off the top of my head. This woman lays it out in plain and simple language. The whole global warming thing always has been a massive hoax: methodically conditioned mind control facilitated far more efficiently by the 24/7 news cycle. Human beings have feared the weather since the beginning of time.......and that was the stuff they saw just in thier neighborhoods. Now they get to see shit from all over the world......every single fucking day. A brilliant ruse..........


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrdmjBAX0E0]BREAKING!! Australian Politician Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21 and New World Order! - YouTube[/ame]



Time to start connecting the dots s0ns............

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve, that is just plain nonsense. The whole idea that a constituent of the atmosphere could aid in warming the earth came about when Fourier noted that by the albedo of the earth, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. He stated that there must be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the energy in the outgoing reflected and emitted energy.

That was in the early 1820's, well before we were a power. In 1858, Tyndall did the experiments that did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases. He found that CO2, CH4, H20, and NOx strongly absorbed energy in the longwave infrared. In 1896, Arrhenius quantified the numbers for CO2 and did a pretty accurate prediction of the amount of heating for the doubling of atmospheric CO2. Each and every one of these scientists have their reputations established on other fields of investigation, and each of their observations and predictions in this field have been upheld since then.

Had the science been left at Arrhenius's predictions, it would have been adaquete to explain the observations that we are now seeing. From the continental ice caps, sea ice, and alpine glaciers, we see how the increasing warmth is changing the world we live in. The very seasons have responds, over the last 100 years, falls come later, springs earlier, and summers are warmer in both hemisphere.

None of this is connected to anyones politics. And it will only happen faster and be more extreme if we continue to put GHGs into the atmosphere.

 

[skookerasbil]

Steve, that is just plain nonsense. The whole idea that a constituent of the atmosphere could aid in warming the earth came about when Fourier noted that by the albedo of the earth, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. He stated that there must be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the energy in the outgoing reflected and emitted energy.

That was in the early 1820's, well before we were a power. In 1858, Tyndall did the experiments that did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases. He found that CO2, CH4, H20, and NOx strongly absorbed energy in the longwave infrared. In 1896, Arrhenius quantified the numbers for CO2 and did a pretty accurate prediction of the amount of heating for the doubling of atmospheric CO2. Each and every one of these scientists have their reputations established on other fields of investigation, and each of their observations and predictions in this field have been upheld since then.

Had the science been left at Arrhenius's predictions, it would have been adaquete to explain the observations that we are now seeing. From the continental ice caps, sea ice, and alpine glaciers, we see how the increasing warmth is changing the world we live in. The very seasons have responds, over the last 100 years, falls come later, springs earlier, and summers are warmer in both hemisphere.

None of this is connected to anyones politics. And it will only happen faster and be more extreme if we continue to put GHGs into the atmosphere.

Ray.....I dont discount anything you are saying. But I also think that in every field, there are those that attempt to break frontiers with very good intentions. Ive seen it in my field......in the early 90's a group of people developed something known as "Facilitated Communication" for folks with autism. It was assisted communication using a typing type communication board. It became a huge thing in my field for a few years but was later invalidated. I think the people who developed it felt they were on to something, just like the scientists of the 1800's. But they also had an interest in gaining notoriety within their own field......perfectly understandable. It is part of the human condition.

At the same time, there are people with far grander aspirations. Brilliant entrepreneurs in the early 70's saw a developing opportunity using the high variability of weather and our atmosphere......and for them, anything goes!!!! Even Popular Mechanics was talking about a future of satellite TV and communications way back in the 70's. All the facilitation avenues were going to emerge......people who never or rarely heard or saw extreme weather were now going to get it on a daily basis via the internet and 24 hour news. As the communcation systems got better, so did the tall stories......

Here is a good example..........



Study: Climate change contributed to rise and fall of Roman empire

By Ben Geman - 01/14/11 09:50 AM ET


“Climate change seems a factor in the rise and fall of the Roman empire, according to a study of ancient tree growth that urges greater awareness of the risks of global warming in the 21st century,” Reuters reports.


The study's lead author said climate shifts affected farming and amplified other political, social and economic crises.

The study notes that periods of good oak and pine growth in central Europe over the last 2,500 years signaled warm, wet summers that overlapped with wealthy periods among farming societies — including the height of the Roman empire.

But the story notes that the good times didn’t last: “Periods of climate instability overlapped with political turmoil, such as during the decline of the Roman empire, and might even have made Europeans vulnerable to the Black Death or help explain migration to America during the chill 17th century.”


Read more: Study: Climate change contributed to rise and fall of Roman empire - The Hill's E2-Wire
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Read more: Study: Climate change contributed to rise and fall of Roman empire - The Hill's E2-Wire
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Study: Climate change contributed to rise and fall of Roman empire - The Hill's E2-Wire








Now we have politicians saying the Chicagoland murders are due to global warming........Catagory 1 hurricanes hitting New York City are blamed on global warming. (as if it was a unique experience in the area).....tsunami's are now blamed on global warming........the Rhine River freezes over for the first time in 72 years: global warming. It is a foolproof scheme.



The goal, of course, is wealth redistribution to the masses and "climate change" is a way to get the collective on board. This is why the bomb throwers throw bigger bombs every single year.( hurricanes will get bigger and badder/drought will come to the whole world/"weve never seen flooding before like this"). Up the ante and scare the fuck out of people. Scare 'em enough and they'll open up their wallets.......only this is where they have failed overall, but have gotten enough of the populace open to the jackass idea's of renewable energy ( in its present laughable forms). The point is Ray........there are a host of people who are profiting big time from this while any significant changes are not happening. People who buy into this are getting fleeced........but the profiteers are getting mega-wealthy ( see Al Gore) and the AGW science community has made enough of a case that they can keep on making a living with boatloads of public and private funding.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres is another of the many examples.........posted on DRUDGE today.........

News from The Associated Press


No matter what the weather does, it fits the established narrative. It can morph any way......no matter the conditions.......and be presented as fact. It is fucking brilliant........a perfect scam.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. Then let's just stick with the "wider and wilder swings in weather, with an overall warming". It was a good prediciton 13 years ago, and still is getting it's validity confirmed on nearly a weekly basis now.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK. Then let's just stick with the "wider and wilder swings in weather, with an overall warming". It was a good prediciton 13 years ago, and still is getting it's validity confirmed on nearly a weekly basis now.

Weather gets wild once in awhile. Been happening for ALL people since Ive been alive and for millions of years before that. The AGW people have now made those events ALL boggeyman events.......as if weather didnt exist before about 20 years ago.

Indeed, the fact of the matter is, even if the AGW OC's are correct......so what??!!! Nothing we're going to do about it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Are you paid by someone to constantly post this same crap over and over again? The fastest the Earth ever warmed was at the end of the Pleocene. It was caused by a sudden release of carbon into the atmosphere. No one is sure why but volcanoes or a combination of factors may have been to blame. It took as little as 3 centuries for that level of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere. We may do it in less than 2. So yes you're right it can happen naturally. But we are mirroring that release of carbon unnaturally.

There is ABSOLUTELY 0 DOUBT that carbon dioxide causes global temperature to rise. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?????? You listen to conservative pundits over qualified professionals??? If that's the case gooooo fuck yourself. And post on this topic again when you have a clue.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC admitted they use Global Climate Change Warming to redistribute wealth and Phil Jones admitted there was no warming so everyone changed the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

It's not science

 

[TheOldSchool]

The IPCC admitted they use Global Climate Change Warming to redistribute wealth and Phil Jones admitted there was no warming so everyone changed the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

It's not science

Thanks fucking dumbass for having no idea what the fuck you're talking about

 

[skookerasbil]

Are you paid by someone to constantly post this same crap over and over again? The fastest the Earth ever warmed was at the end of the Pleocene. It was caused by a sudden release of carbon into the atmosphere. No one is sure why but volcanoes or a combination of factors may have been to blame. It took as little as 3 centuries for that level of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere. We may do it in less than 2. So yes you're right it can happen naturally. But we are mirroring that release of carbon unnaturally.

There is ABSOLUTELY 0 DOUBT that carbon dioxide causes global temperature to rise. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?????? You listen to conservative pundits over qualified professionals??? If that's the case gooooo fuck yourself. And post on this topic again when you have a clue.

Zero doubt??!!!!!!

Well then.......climate legislation should fly through both houses of congress later this year since there is zero doubt!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC admitted they use Global Climate Change Warming to redistribute wealth and Phil Jones admitted there was no warming so everyone changed the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

It's not science

Thanks fucking dumbass for having no idea what the fuck you're talking about

Watch this.

Can you show us one laboratory experiment that shows how a 100ppm increase in CO2 causes "Climate Change"?

Can you show us one laboratory experiment that shows how a 100ppm decrease in CO2 will prevent "Climate Change"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAgRBq2jnz4]Original: Penn & Teller You Need To Shut The Fuck Up ! (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

The IPCC admitted they use Global Climate Change Warming to redistribute wealth and Phil Jones admitted there was no warming so everyone changed the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

It's not science

Thanks fucking dumbass for having no idea what the fuck you're talking about

Watch this.

Can you show us one laboratory experiment that shows how a 100ppm increase in CO2 causes "Climate Change"?

Can you show us one laboratory experiment that shows how a 100ppm decrease in CO2 will prevent "Climate Change"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAgRBq2jnz4]Original: Penn & Teller You Need To Shut The Fuck Up ! (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]

Frank bro.........these people are beyond gone. Nothing you could ever post is going to deter them from the established narrative. Nothing. Our goal in here, I think, is to highlight the level of absurd for the occassional browser who wanders into this forum.....educate them as to where these nuts want to take us in terms of energy, specifically, the massive costs to all of us if something like sweeping Cap and Trade legislation could ever be passed. Thankfully, its nothing but a gigantic pipe dream and the HOUSE staying red for at least another 6 years keeps it off the radar.

 

[polarbear]

OK. Then let's just stick with the "wider and wilder swings in weather, with an overall warming". It was a good prediciton 13 years ago, and still is getting it's validity confirmed on nearly a weekly basis now.

It`s not good enough to claim "wider and wilder" or "more severe". Hard science does not work that way and unless You quantify "wider and wilder" it`s not hard science.
again:
Simply stating "extreme" is a qualitative assertion which evades doing the math to show the quantity.
And when You do the math the vapor pressure curve for H2O applies to an air mass the same as it does to water in a psychrometric vapor pressure instrument. Dry air expands or shrinks only by 1/273 rd. per degree delta K and with a 100% water vapor saturation pressure it shrinks by the partial pressure component %.age of the total pressure carried by the water vapor.
2.27 % at 20C and at a "temperature anomaly" of 21 C it`s only increased by 0.2%

"Extreme storms" are not caused while water evaporates, they happen when the evaporated water/ air mixture is rapidly cooled.
And to evaporate water quicker raising the "average temperature" by only 1 C does not have anywhere near the effect an increased airflow has.
You can try that out the next time You do Your laundry. Plug up the lint screen and observe how the safety thermostat cuts the power because the drum overheats,...but the clothes are just as wet as before.
The same laws are at play for wind speed over a large body of water or moist terrain. Just "warmer" by itself and only by 1C has no more than 0.2 % impact at standard pressure and temperature.

And again I pose the question, how do you link CO2 to "more extreme" weather events which are only possible if moisture rapidly condenses due to an increased rate of cooling, while CO2 is said to decrease the rate of cooling.
It`s easy to insist that somebody predicted "more extreme weather events" 13 years ago when "more extreme" is a matter of interpretation instead of a mathematical quantity.
Have you noticed that "fortune telling" a.k.a. "cold reading" also works like that? Add to that how many people recall only the predictions that suit their beliefs. It is human nature to forget all the other ones that turned out to be false. I was under the impression that computer "climate models" had to be improved over what was in use 13 years ago. If their predictions were so "right" then there would have been no need to revise them.

 

[polarbear]

Steve, that is just plain nonsense. The whole idea that a constituent of the atmosphere could aid in warming the earth came about when Fourier noted that by the albedo of the earth, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. He stated that there must be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the energy in the outgoing reflected and emitted energy.

That was in the early 1820's, well before we were a power. In 1858, Tyndall did the experiments that did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases. He found that CO2, CH4, H20, and NOx strongly absorbed energy in the longwave infrared. In 1896, Arrhenius quantified the numbers for CO2 and did a pretty accurate prediction of the amount of heating for the doubling of atmospheric CO2. Each and every one of these scientists have their reputations established on other fields of investigation, and each of their observations and predictions in this field have been upheld since then.

Had the science been left at Arrhenius's predictions, it would have been adaquete to explain the observations that we are now seeing. From the continental ice caps, sea ice, and alpine glaciers, we see how the increasing warmth is changing the world we live in. The very seasons have responds, over the last 100 years, falls come later, springs earlier, and summers are warmer in both hemisphere.

None of this is connected to anyones politics. And it will only happen faster and be more extreme if we continue to put GHGs into the atmosphere.

Let`s examine little bit closer what Fourier noted about the albedo, Tyndall`s experiments "mapping absorption spectra " and Arrhenius "pretty accurate predictions".
Starting with the albedo:
1.) Fourier had for sure no better idea what the "average albedo" of planet earth was than we do today even though we now have satellites that attempt to get more accurate values.
2.) The CO2 captures only a very tiny fraction of what is being converted to longer wavelengths by a low albedo surface.
You might as well worry about by how much the stopping distance of your car is increased after you exit a fast food drive through with a MacD quarter-pounder on your dashboard.

Tyndall had no way to "map absorption spectra". To map a spectrum You need a precision grated "mono-chromator" which is capable to SCAN over a spectral range. All Tyndall and everybody else had then was a crude band pass filter which can "see" only at a fixed wavelength. He was also unaware that any such measurement is meaning less, unless You first exclude all water vapor and that the absorption is a log function that progressively levels out as the CO2 concentration increases...the absorbance per distance unit decreases no matter how much more CO2 You add....the effect decreases per delta ppm.

Arrhenius` "pretty accurate" predictions turned out to be wrong by a factor of 80 times..!!! after the effect of CO2 doubling has been accurately measured with a state of the art Infrared Spectrophotometer.
The increase in absorption is so minute that you can`t observe it at all unless you exclude any trace of water vapor and work with Sodiumchloride crystal cell windows. If you use glass like Tyndall etc did a century ago that increase can`t even be measured because the moisture and the glass absorbed way more than the increase of CO2.
Go and visit a Chem Lab in a campus near you and ask them to show you an infrared spectrophotometer + a demonstration.
I`ve done thousands of IR analysis on Beckman, Perkin Elmer and other state of the art instruments and believe me I know what I`m talking about.

Let me put it in terms of Spencer`s "Yes Virgina" blanket analogy.
If you cover yourself with 200 blankets each "insulating" you as 1 ppm CO2 would you won`t get any warmer with 300 blankets

 

[skookerasbil]

SHeeeeet...........does anybody come in here and decimate the AGW narrative better than Polar Bear??

I notice that responses to Polar's posts are always either weak or non-existent.

 

[joewp]

Can you show us one laboratory experiment that shows how a 100ppm increase in CO2 causes "Climate Change"?

What the matter, can't you google?

Sacred Cow Wursthaus: Do-It-Yourself-Global-Warming Experiments!

 

[joewp]

Hint........it has little to do with the environment........

It is and has always been about the erosion of commonlaw rights. It is about global government and the destruction of capitalism. And we are marching headlong into it too......a quick glance at the economic and politial landscape is very sobering indeed. It is a bipartisan effort too.......this whole liberal vs conservative thing is a ruse. The Bush's, Clinton, Obama.....all complicit.

While I agree the elite will promote anything that enriches them at our expense, isn't it possible that we are dumping way too much GHG into the atmosphere and we're going to have to pay the consequences of the resulting changing climate?

And isn't it possible the elite want to squeeze every dollar out of anything they can and are trying to use AGW to do that with, for instance, a carbon tax? And isn't it possible that they're already using their wealth to buy up soon to be scarce resources like fresh water?

As far as global government goes, they already have a long term plan for that, of which the Euro is the first step and that involves the banking system and money.

As far as I can see it, the only way we can possibly keep the planet relatively habitable for our kids and their kids is to stop using fossil fuels altogether. I don't see anybody proposing anything like that, from the wealthy or anybody else.

 

[bripat9643]

The IPCC admitted they use Global Climate Change Warming to redistribute wealth and Phil Jones admitted there was no warming so everyone changed the terminology from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

It's not science

Thanks fucking dumbass for having no idea what the fuck you're talking about

 

[joewp]

Steve, that is just plain nonsense. The whole idea that a constituent of the atmosphere could aid in warming the earth came about when Fourier noted that by the albedo of the earth, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. He stated that there must be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the energy in the outgoing reflected and emitted energy.

That was in the early 1820's, well before we were a power. In 1858, Tyndall did the experiments that did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases. He found that CO2, CH4, H20, and NOx strongly absorbed energy in the longwave infrared. In 1896, Arrhenius quantified the numbers for CO2 and did a pretty accurate prediction of the amount of heating for the doubling of atmospheric CO2. Each and every one of these scientists have their reputations established on other fields of investigation, and each of their observations and predictions in this field have been upheld since then.

Had the science been left at Arrhenius's predictions, it would have been adaquete to explain the observations that we are now seeing. From the continental ice caps, sea ice, and alpine glaciers, we see how the increasing warmth is changing the world we live in. The very seasons have responds, over the last 100 years, falls come later, springs earlier, and summers are warmer in both hemisphere.

None of this is connected to anyones politics. And it will only happen faster and be more extreme if we continue to put GHGs into the atmosphere.

Let`s examine little bit closer what Fourier noted about the albedo, Tyndall`s experiments "mapping absorption spectra " and Arrhenius "pretty accurate predictions".
Starting with the albedo:
1.) Fourier had for sure no better idea what the "average albedo" of planet earth was than we do today even though we now have satellites that attempt to get more accurate values.
2.) The CO2 captures only a very tiny fraction of what is being converted to longer wavelengths by a low albedo surface.
You might as well worry about by how much the stopping distance of your car is increased after you exit a fast food drive through with a MacD quarter-pounder on your dashboard.

Tyndall had no way to "map absorption spectra". To map a spectrum You need a precision grated "mono-chromator" which is capable to SCAN over a spectral range. All Tyndall and everybody else had then was a crude band pass filter which can "see" only at a fixed wavelength. He was also unaware that any such measurement is meaning less, unless You first exclude all water vapor and that the absorption is a log function that progressively levels out as the CO2 concentration increases...the absorbance per distance unit decreases no matter how much more CO2 You add....the effect decreases per delta ppm.

Arrhenius` "pretty accurate" predictions turned out to be wrong by a factor of 80 times..!!! after the effect of CO2 doubling has been accurately measured with a state of the art Infrared Spectrophotometer.
The increase in absorption is so minute that you can`t observe it at all unless you exclude any trace of water vapor and work with Sodiumchloride crystal cell windows. If you use glass like Tyndall etc did a century ago that increase can`t even be measured because the moisture and the glass absorbed way more than the increase of CO2.
Go and visit a Chem Lab in a campus near you and ask them to show you an infrared spectrophotometer + a demonstration.
I`ve done thousands of IR analysis on Beckman, Perkin Elmer and other state of the art instruments and believe me I know what I`m talking about.

Let me put it in terms of Spencer`s "Yes Virgina" blanket analogy.
If you cover yourself with 200 blankets each "insulating" you as 1 ppm CO2 would you won`t get any warmer with 300 blankets

You might want to start a discussion with these guys:
5 Takeaways from NOAA?s New Study on Climate Change and Extreme Events | WRI Insights

You might learn a thing or two.

 

[editec]

It was terrible PR to call it global warming in the first place.

Warming sounds so benign, doesn't it.

I mean who doesn't like WARM?

GLOBAL WEIRDING is the term that truly descibes the trend.

The word WEIRD is derived from the German word for FATE, incidently.

I do NOT believe that we can actually predict how this change in climate will effect the world.

For instance, while the overall earth might be getting warmed, that does not mean that some places won't, experience something akin to an ICE AGE.

The northern Hemiphere on the E coast and Europe might, as a result of the end of the GULF current, experience extreme COLDER weather since it is the GULF STREAM that keeps both of those places so warm today.

We have probably opened a pandora's box as it regards climate.

And even if we had NOThing TO DO WITH IT, it seems fairly evident to me that something drastic is taking place.

I'll tell you what one thing most concerns me.

The ACIDIFICATION of the world's oceans.

We can as a species at least, survive almost any change in the climate.

But what we cannot survive is the collapse of the microfauna of the world's oceans.

Ands as so much of that microfauna are calcium shelled creatures, and the acidification of the oceans will kill off those speceies?

Well the ocean's microbiological life is really the system that has kept the balance between carbon dioxide and the world's oxygen for the last couple hundred million years.

When that balance is screwed up?

Shit's gonnas get REAL, folks