4 Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax

[hurricanewatcher]

Coldest September since 2012!!!!

There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.

 

[SSDD]

That's not what the experts say.

Ahhh...the ignorance of experts.

I suppose asking you to use your brain for just a second is out of the question, but what the hell...someone who actually can think may read this.

Look into the atmosphere of Venus. The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C. Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K. Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.

So do the math and tell me why, at a point in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, but is composed mostly of CO2, the temperature is not considerably warmer once you take into account the difference in incoming solar energy if the greenhouse effect behaves as climate science claims.

I suppose that you believe it is just a wild coincidence that one can accurately predict the temperature of all the planets with atmospheres just by using the ideal gas law and incoming solar radiation. You really believe that, don't you?

The greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here and then only if you use an ad hoc fudge factor.

​

Of course you want to believe fake science from a blog,[/QUOTE]

 

[SSDD]

So again...that would be a no...you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Just as I said. All the rest is nothing more than smoke screen to divert from the fact that you can't provide even one piece of real data to support your faith.

It was covered before. Ground measurements were made which observed the amount of back-radiation by CO2. Ask your favorite physicist, Prof Raeder about the physics of that.

Sorry guy....the ground measurements you are referring to were made with pyrogeometers which are measuring nothing more than the amount and rate of change in an internal thermopile. I asked for measurements of discrete bands of radiation emitted by CO2 made with instruments at ambient temperature. Again, turn them towards the earth or horizontal to the earth and you don't need to cool them to measure discrete bands of radiation....turn them towards the sky and it is a different story...you can't measure radiation coming from above unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

Nice of you to demonstrate once again how easily you are fooled by instrumentation. You have lost this discussion over and over...do you think somehow you will win it this time with the same old bullshit arguments and zero observed measured evidence of what you believe is happening? Good luck with that.

 

[Flash]

AGW is the biggest scam (outside of socialism) ever inflicted upon humans.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now this is truly funny.

You don't have even a basic grasp of the physics involved. I posted the LOG of your beloved CO2 a few posts back and you have yet to respond to my question, what does it show?

It shows I don't need to respond to nonsense.

Thank you for admitting that you do not have even a basic grasp on the physics of the garbage your spewing...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Right now...cooler

Yeah right. It is well known that the history of global warming is a succession of cooling periods...

http://www.columbia.edu

Oh look another cherry picked snipet.... of just a warming period and not the cooling period that preceded it..

Do you idiots ever learn?

 

[cnm]

There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.

Absolutely. After all, what this graphic shows is a series of declining temperature anomalies, one after another...

Global Temperature

 

[deanrd]

First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?


Here’s what the author of this piece writes:

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html

Republicans believe Trump.
They can be fooled into anything.

 

[SSDD]

Republicans believe Trump.
They can be fooled into anything.

Not sure what this has to do with trump...or bush...or any other republican. I was a skeptic back when climate science was telling us to gear up for a new ice age. This is about observed, measured evidence....or the lack of it. There is not a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

Since there is no actual observed measured evidence of the climate, which is certainly an observable, measurable, entity, that we are altering the global climate, exactly why would anyone, republican, democrat, or independent believe the claims that we are?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.

Absolutely. After all, what this graphic shows is a series of declining temperature anomalies, one after another...

Global Temperature

You have broken the dumbass meter...

Lets put your "snipet" in perspective..

The current rise is not unusual in earths cyclical cycle nor is it outside natural variation cause. The fact you CHOSE to "snipet" only the section of warming calls you out a liar and a deceiver..

Now why would you leave out the end of the LIA? because its meant to scare people into giving up their lives and freedoms. You far left radical socialists/communist liars need to be dealt with IMHO!

ETA: And yes the long term trend is COOLING..... Your simply and factually a liar as is the IPCC..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Given the cycle and slope, can you guess what is about to happen? I can and its with 100% certainty..

 

[Wuwei]

Look into the atmosphere of Venus. The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C. Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K. Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.

So do the math and tell me why, at a point in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, but is composed mostly of CO2, the temperature is not considerably warmer once you take into account the difference in incoming solar energy if the greenhouse effect behaves as climate science claims.

If you want to use the atmosphere height on Venus at the point where the pressures are equivalent, I agree that is a reasonable baseline to test the “ideal gas law theory” of temperature as a function of altitude. That baseline altitude for Venus is about 50 KM. I would agree that the pressures from that baseline point up would be close because of the ideal gas law under the effect of gravity predicts that.

However, the interest here is in the temperature profile, or lapse rate. Compare the lapse rate for the two planets, earth starting at zero KM and Venus starting at 50KM. You see that they are entirely different quantitatively and qualitatively.

EARTH​

VENUS​

Notice at 50 KM above earth which is equivalent in pressure to 100 KM above Venus, the temperature of the earth is at a local maximum while the temperature of Venus is at a local minimum.

Also, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

Is it coincidence that the Earth temperature is in the ball park of Venus at 50 KM? I couldn't begin to guess.

The ideal gas law fails miserably in predicting the lapse rate of those two planets which are wildly different in atmospheric content.

.

 

[SSDD]

Look into the atmosphere of Venus. The temperature and pressure profiles from NASA tell us that at an altitude where the pressure is 1000mb (sea level on earth) the temperature is 339K, or 66C. Warmer than earth which is about 15C or 288K. Venus, however is closer to the sun and as such receives about 1.9 times more energy from the sun than we get here on earth.

So do the math and tell me why, at a point in the atmosphere of Venus where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth, but is composed mostly of CO2, the temperature is not considerably warmer once you take into account the difference in incoming solar energy if the greenhouse effect behaves as climate science claims.

If you want to use the atmosphere height on Venus at the point where the pressures are equivalent, I agree that is a reasonable baseline to test the “ideal gas law theory” of temperature as a function of altitude. That baseline altitude for Venus is about 50 KM. I would agree that the pressures from that baseline point up would be close because of the ideal gas law under the effect of gravity predicts that.

However, the interest here is in the temperature profile, or lapse rate. Compare the lapse rate for the two planets, earth starting at zero KM and Venus starting at 50KM. You see that they are entirely different quantitatively and qualitatively.

EARTH​

VENUS​

Notice at 50 KM above earth which is equivalent in pressure to 100 KM above Venus, the temperature of the earth is at a local maximum while the temperature of Venus is at a local minimum.

Also, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

Is it coincidence that the Earth temperature is in the ball park of Venus at 50 KM? I couldn't begin to guess.

The ideal gas law fails miserably in predicting the lapse rate of those two planets which are wildly different in atmospheric content.

.

On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.

With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.

So the bottom line is that the ideal gas law damned near nails the temperature on venus just as it does on any other planet with an atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

I asked for measurements of discrete bands of radiation emitted by CO2

No point in continuing this in two different threads. My response is in the thread,
Wow some Yale/Harvard guy agrees..........

 

[Wuwei]

On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.

With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.

So the bottom line is that the ideal gas law damned near nails the temperature on venus just as it does on any other planet with an atmosphere.

That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

In other words, your +10 K/km simply does not work for higher altitudes and even goes negative at certain ranges.

 

[Billy_Bob]

On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C. This tells you that the primary factor determining temperature on venus is the thickness of the atmosphere, not its composition.

With a constant dry lapse rate an atmosphere twice as think would be twice as warm....an atmosphere three times as thick would be three times as warm...etc. etc.etc.

So the bottom line is that the ideal gas law damned near nails the temperature on venus just as it does on any other planet with an atmosphere.

That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

In other words, your +10 K/km simply does not work for higher altitudes and even goes negative at certain ranges.

Physical rotation speed, Composition of the atmosphere, external gravity draws (moons) are all reasons why there is only one change in temp as the depth thickens.. While the weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature, there are mitigating factors which affect its circulations.

 

[SSDD]

That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

Actually, it doesn't change smoothly just once.

sorry guy, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't predict the temperature of venus while the ideal gas law does...just as it predicts the temperatures of every planet with an atmosphere.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?

 

[Billy_Bob]

That does not explain why, from 0 to 120 KM above earth, the temperature strongly changes directions three times while the temperature from 50 to 170 KM on Venus changes smoothly just once.

Actually, it doesn't change smoothly just once.

sorry guy, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't predict the temperature of venus while the ideal gas law does...just as it predicts the temperatures of every planet with an atmosphere.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?

That quotation is not mine...

I was attempting to show why the circulation patterns are different. On earth there are thermoclines which hold temperature due to earths rotation an combinations of makeup. On Venus the composition is such that there are no thermoclines.

 

[SSDD]

That quotation is not mine...

Sorry about that....corrected

I was attempting to show why the circulation patterns are different. On earth there are thermoclines which hold temperature due to earths rotation an combinations of makeup. On Venus the composition is such that there are no thermoclines.

Doesn't much matter to him...he can't accept that there is a real problem with the greenhouse hypothesis...and the fact that there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support it is irrelevant to him...the model says its right and he is programmed to believe models over reality whenever he is asked to.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?


Here’s what the author of this piece writes:

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html

Now hear this:

‘Sobering’ New UN Report Challenges Republican Climate Hawks’ Free-Market Dogma | HuffPost

I am 71 hears old and I actually fear reincarnation more than death and this is why. I do not want to come back into a world on fire, plagued by drought, extreme weather, and famine That is where we are headed. The pig headed and greedy conservatives had better wake up and realize that they can't kill the earth for short term profits which is exactly what this is all about.

Younger people had better wake the **** up and think about their future regardless of their spiritual beliefs

A landmark new United Nations report warning of catastrophic global warming doesn’t seem to have shaken many Republican climate hawks’ faith that market tweaks alone can deliver the unprecedented emissions cuts needed to avert disaster.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. consortium of researchers from 40 countries, said Sunday the reductions needed to avoid average global warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

“The only force that I know of on the planet that can deliver innovation as quickly as we need it is the free enterprise system,” said former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), now the executive director of RepublicEn, a group urging Republicans to support a ca

And please spare us the hysterical horsesit which I can already hear about the evil UN plotting to usurp our soverenty and establish a one world government . Get the **** over it.

I’d wouldn’t want to go through life as a frightened person, I’d hate to go through as an ignorant person. How does it feel for you to be both?