Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[thereisnospoon]

You're confusing weather with climate.

Wrong, you and the AGW fools are confusing weather and climate. Man is not affecting either the weather or the climate.

Historically, it's been quite common for conservatives to be on the opposite side of the acceptance of new scientific discoveries if and when those discoveries challenged previously long-held (some might call them traditional) beliefs. Why should this be any different?

Well, I do see something a little different about it. Part of it seems to be an automatic reaction to the fact that liberals believe it. It's almost as if that's all it takes, really. Just let liberals embrace a new idea or discovery, and conservatives will flock to the opposite side as if on cue.

Of course, academia and scientific research organizations are overwhelmingly comprised of people who readily admit to being open to new ideas. <shudder> I think they're mostly on the liberal end of the political spectrum, as well. So, what do conservatives conclude from that? They decide that since scientists are more likely to be liberal in their political views, there scientific findings MUST automatically be suspect, as well.

Talk about specious reasoning!

Under normal conditions, I don't care about conservative sophistry as long as conservatives are only misleading their own flock of believers while leaving the rest of us to pursue objective truth regardless of where it leads. So, if you want to build a Creation Museum? Go for it! I don't care. But something as important as climate change is TOO important to the collective future of humanity (YES, I said collective future) to allow science deniers the leverage to prevent our country and our institutions from rising to the challenge while there's still time.

Different words same tune. More taxes, less personal liberty, more crushing regulations on commerce.

 

[thereisnospoon]

this should be put in the classrooms......but they'd probably fire the guy that did...

The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
10.14.10


› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISS Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.


NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

SO what?
There is no data that concludes human activity is directly responsible for any adjustment in the Earth's climate.
The one fact that drives you lefty tree huggers bat shit is the Earth's climate is cyclical.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Redfish -

The CO2 records do go back a very, very, very long way, and they are reliable.

Rather than just ridicule what is posted, why not do a little research and get up to speed?

Bring forth so we may be enlightened. Otherwise you can very very very your ass right into being dismissed as a radical tree hugger.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Redfish -

The CO2 records do go back a very, very, very long way, and they are reliable.

Rather than just ridicule what is posted, why not do a little research and get up to speed?

really? then lets see it. post the CO2 data from the years that I listed. I'll be waiting.

He doesn't have to. You must prove he's wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Save Liberty -

I was saying that if you don't understand why scientists use ice core samples, admit that you don't understand it, and do some research.

How smart do you think making posts like your last one when everyone reading the thread understands this better than you do?

You guys ranting about Al Gore look like five-year olds. You have no idea at all.

Oh bullshit. You tree huggers hitched your wagon to AlGore for years.

 

[thereisnospoon]

C02 is highly conductive to the transfer of heat

it makes one of the worst insulators

if anything C02 would transfer heat to a colder location

thus shedding heat from the earth to space

Why don't you show us the results from experiments in the quantities found in the atmosphere? If you increase CO2 and it responds in the way you say, then we should be losing heat to space right? That makes things colder.

the quantities of C02 found in the atmosphere are minor compared to other known

elements in the atmosphere known to retain heat

thermodynamics says heat transfers from heat to cold

and only work (forcing) can change that

you should be able to look it up on a chart

to see the various elements in the atmosphere

and see the various insulative properties of the gases found on earth

Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
Argon (Ar) 0.934%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %
Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %
Helium (He) 0.000524 %
Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %
Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%
Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055 %

nitrogen for example is much more insulative and makes up much more

of the atmosphere

Actually CO2 is a molecule made up of two elements already present in the atmosphere.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Save Liberty -

You didn't answer my question.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

Because they say you are wrong. Well...not so much wrong, as completely missing the point.

As we know, most everything is politicized so
it depends on who is paying for the research.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Redfish -

Let's try and stick with a little common sense here, eh?

There are charts going back as far as you want to go.

How reliable are CO2 measurements?

right...the total CO2 content is less than 0.04%. The chart makes it appear as though there is a dramatic rise in CO2 content. It's a panic chart. Alarmist.

 

[saveliberty]

Save Liberty -

You didn't answer my question.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

Because they say you are wrong. Well...not so much wrong, as completely missing the point.

As we know, most everything is politicized so
it depends on who is paying for the research.

Might not have entered your mind, but this isn't physics, its physical science moron. How are we to believe you, when you don't even understand which science is which?

 

[saveliberty]

Redfish -

Let's try and stick with a little common sense here, eh?

There are charts going back as far as you want to go.

How reliable are CO2 measurements?

First chart issues:

1. For the first ten years of direct measurement of CO2, ice cores show differing levels. After that point they match exactly. Seems highly unlikely. Also supports that ice cores are less accurate the further you go back in time.
2. How does the chart determine the anthropogenic output by man before instrumentation?

Second chart issues:

1. The use of two separate ice cores, why the switch?
2. Mauna Loa is a volcano, no ice core at all, why the switch if ice cores are so accurate?
3. The volcano out gasses at a much higher rate, concentrations will be higher.

Third chart issues:
1. The chart would have you believe out gassing by the volcano involves no CO2, which is false.
2. The chart does not disclose the other locations data was collected.
3. The chart shows a reading of 338 ppm in 1980. In comparing it to the second chart, you have to go about 40% up the red line before reaching that point. Where is the prior data for chart two coming from for that red line? Looks like they made it up, like normal.

 

[westwall]

CO2 has fluctuated over thousands of years and has varied a couple hundredths of a % up or down----according to ice core data which is questionable.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it. man is a microbe on a gnat on an elephants ass when it comes to the climate of the earth

Even when humans didn't have machines, they managed to build the great pyramids which are visible from outer space. In fact, a great number of human construction projects are visible from space, including airports, cities, dams, etc. The astronauts can see the lights of the cities from space too.

But nowadays, we have HUGE land moving machines which dig and haul coal out of incredibly large open pit mines in order to feed the industries that create our power and build even more machines, all of which churns out increasing amounts of CO2 as our population grows ever larger with a corresponding greater need for food, and housing, and consumer goods, and transportation...all of which pumps out even MORE CO2. You get the point, don't you?

Pretty impressive for 'gnats.'

Yep, and more CO2 means more and larger plants which are the bottom of the food chain. Thus, more CO2=more food!

 

[westwall]

Save Liberty -

You didn't answer my question.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

Because they say you are wrong. Well...not so much wrong, as completely missing the point.

As we know, most everything is politicized so
it depends on who is paying for the research.

Might not have entered your mind, but this isn't physics, its physical science moron. How are we to believe you, when you don't even understand which science is which?

Actually it is...it is a branch called ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. Do educate yourself on it.

 

[saveliberty]

As we know, most everything is politicized so
it depends on who is paying for the research.

Might not have entered your mind, but this isn't physics, its physical science moron. How are we to believe you, when you don't even understand which science is which?

Actually it is...it is a branch called ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. Do educate yourself on it.

Saigon mentioned American Physical Society, which encompasses all of physics. The atomsphere requires all physical sciences to understand how it works. Chemistry for example is an important aspect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Save Liberty -

You didn't answer my question.

You have to ask yourself who understands physics better - the American Physical Society, or you?

Because they say you are wrong. Well...not so much wrong, as completely missing the point.

As we know, most everything is politicized so
it depends on who is paying for the research.

Might not have entered your mind, but this isn't physics, its physical science moron. How are we to believe you, when you don't even understand which science is which?

Excuse me? Perhaps this post was meant for someone else lest I hold off on insulting you.
Go back and read my posts on this issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who the **** cares what it's called.
Global warming/climate change is a political tool based on junk science. Research paid for by those who support increasing taxes, more regulation on business and limiting our personal liberties.

 

[thereisnospoon]

CO2 has fluctuated over thousands of years and has varied a couple hundredths of a % up or down----according to ice core data which is questionable.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it. man is a microbe on a gnat on an elephants ass when it comes to the climate of the earth

Even when humans didn't have machines, they managed to build the great pyramids which are visible from outer space. In fact, a great number of human construction projects are visible from space, including airports, cities, dams, etc. The astronauts can see the lights of the cities from space too.

But nowadays, we have HUGE land moving machines which dig and haul coal out of incredibly large open pit mines in order to feed the industries that create our power and build even more machines, all of which churns out increasing amounts of CO2 as our population grows ever larger with a corresponding greater need for food, and housing, and consumer goods, and transportation...all of which pumps out even MORE CO2. You get the point, don't you?

Pretty impressive for 'gnats.'

Your point?
Those words appear to be of one of these whiny underachieving left over Seattle grunge slugs who spent 4 or more years in college getting themselves the full monty of liberal indoctrination. And a useless degree in Greek Philosophy or the laughable 'Women's Studies"...
Go hug a tree and go piss up one while you're at it.

 

[pjnlsn]

Mustang's confusion is a perfect example of how climate change doesn't belong in the classroom. Just more terms for the left to get wrong.

One's political views are irrelevant to whether some aspect of scientific work is valid or not. To say the least.

Oh but they are. In the climate issue, it's nothing but politics.
Look at the proposals elicited by those supporting the theory of man made climate change.
All proposals contain some sort of penalty. Whether they be additional taxation, more government oversight on the business of individuals, more draconian regulations on commerce.

One's political views have no effect on the validity of any aspect of any scientific work. To think so is, if I might make a personal statement, is ridiculously self-serving. And as a note, very little of the above is even about what is termed climate science, and more about what one reads in the news, and about politicians and politics, which again is not relevant.

The government could exist entirely to only do what you, he who goes by the handle 'thereisnospoon,' want and it still wouldn't mean that the world would have or would not have a certain characteristic, or a certain nature.

 

[S.J.]

One's political views are irrelevant to whether some aspect of scientific work is valid or not. To say the least.

Oh but they are. In the climate issue, it's nothing but politics.
Look at the proposals elicited by those supporting the theory of man made climate change.
All proposals contain some sort of penalty. Whether they be additional taxation, more government oversight on the business of individuals, more draconian regulations on commerce.

One's political views have no effect on the validity of any aspect of any scientific work. To think so is, if I might make a personal statement, ridiculously self-serving. As a note, very little of the above is even about what is termed climate science, and more about what one reads in the news, and about politicians and politics, which again is not relevant.

The government could exist entirely to only do what you, he who goes by the handle 'thereisnospoon,' and it still wouldn't mean that the world would have or would not have a certain characteristic, or a certain nature.

The problem with what you're saying is that this whole global warming hoax is politically motivated in the first place.

 

[Saigon]

One's political views have no effect on the validity of any aspect of any scientific work. To think so is, if I might make a personal statement, ridiculously self-serving. As a note, very little of the above is even about what is termed climate science, and more about what one reads in the news, and about politicians and politics, which again is not relevant.

Exactly that - and it is no coincidence that most of the climate sceptics on this board hold such incredibly extreme political views that one is currently claiming that the UK Conservative Party is not conservative.

Such people seem to assume that everyone is as incredibly extreme and biased as they are, whereas in reality most scientists are more interested in science than they are in politics.

I have no problem with people holding extreme political views, but people should be honest about that extremism. If you are so right wing that Hitler starts to look left wing - as at least one poster has claimed - the problem in perspective probably isn't that of the scientists.

 

[Saigon]

The problem with what you're saying is that this whole global warming hoax is politically motivated in the first place.

But the only person who think so are right wing extremists.

Conservative parties right around the world are up to speed on climate change - it's only the extremists who deny it.