More Environmentalist Fraud!!!

[Bern80]

Weren't these so called "scientist" screaming global cooling 35 years ago?

If you were logical in your thought processses instead of merely ideological, you'd have to wonder what would make so many scientists change their minds in a relatively short period of time. Of course, the denier position has very little to do with science and everything to do with politics. The main objection apparently is that, they just don't like Gore. I don't pay much attention to those types, because those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore!

Gore gets brought up by the opposition for some legitimate reasons. Like why is the figurehead for AGW NOT a scientist? Why won't he debate anyone on the issue if he's so right about it? Might he have some financial reasons (carbon credits) for proporting AGW? Whether you believe in AGW or not, one has to admit, that this most vocal of spokespeople is far from credible.

No, I don't. He isn't getting this stuff out of thin air. He may be a bit dramatic in his presentation, but the gist of the science is right on.

No it didn't. He perported that CO2 drive temperature increase when the evidence says the opposite is true. He was also one that used the now infamously inaccruate hockey stick graph. he didn't present much in the way of science at all.

 

[Bern80]

According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy.

LOL!!! Crack a science text sometime, westy. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is NEVER lost, it's CONSERVED!!!

Try some intellectual honesty. What it means is you don't get as much out as what you put in.

 

[konradv]

CO2 drive temperature increase when the evidence says the opposite is true.

Could you present that evidence. "They" say that there's an 800 year delay in something or other?!?! Could you show evidence that CO2 molecules hold infra-red radiation 800 years before re-emitting it? You seem to be merely parroting talking points you heard elsewhere. Got any knowledge or ideas of your own? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[Bern80]

CO2 drive temperature increase when the evidence says the opposite is true.

Could you present that evidence. "They" say that there's an 800 year delay in something or other?!?! Could you show evidence that CO2 molecules hold infra-red radiation 800 years before re-emitting it? You seem to be merely parroting talking points you heard elsewhere. Got any knowledge or ideas of your own? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Do you have any for yours? 'They' i.e. Gore showed is nice big graph showing CO2 rising along with temps, a graph that was shown to be totally inaccurate. But two things happening at the same time does not a correlation make.

The whole pont trying to be made with the thermodynamics law is that if one is trying to 'harvest' (for lack of a better word) the potential energy out of something to be used as kinetic energy, it is not possible to get all of the potential energy out of that input. the argument is essentially that CO2 is the cause of temperature increase (which is only a little bit true in the first place). Assuming the law of thermodynamics is correct that should mean the more CO2 you put into the system the LESS heat you can generate.

 

[westwall]

You're listening to people who are feeding you lies. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. That's a well established fact. If CO2 continues to rise and statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what's the other half doing?!?! Remember, there's a little bugaboo called Conservation of Energy that the deniers like to ignore. Crack a science book sometime. Merely parroting phrases you've heard from others doesn't cut it with me. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all energy decreases towards entropy. So riddle me this batman, how do you get MORE energy by passing it through a CO2 membrane? According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy. Try following your own advice and read a good book, one that has actual real science in it.

You folks are chasing the proverbial perpetual motion machine.

Damn, you are either really stupid, or good at pretending to be a total idiot.

And of course we all know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics also disproves evolution. Walleyes, you are getting more pathetic on a daily basis.

Excuse me? The Second Law makes no statements at all about evolution you twit. It is a fundamental understanding of the universe that energy is not created it is merely changed in state. Chemical energy is converted to heat which can then be used to power a machine to generate electricity.

At every stage of the process energy is lost. The trick is to lose as little energy as possible in each stage, thus all that silly nonsense we are allways carping about relating to efficiencies, which you bozo's can't seem to get through your thick skulls.

So the question old fraud is how can you take 100 units of whatever you want to call it and pass it through the atmosphere (one stage) hit the Earth (second stage) bounce back up through the atmosphere (third stage) strip a little of that energy away from the outgoing radiation (fourth stage) bounce BACK down to the Earth again (fifth stage) and hit the Earth again (sixth stage). And every time you do that you lose energy. So how is that perpetual motion machine working there for you?

 

[westwall]

According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy.

LOL!!! Crack a science text sometime, westy. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is NEVER lost, it's CONSERVED!!!

Wow, you REALLY are ignorant aren't you? I didn't even bother to reference a real science site as I don't think you could understand a bit of it so I just referenced your favourite wikipedia in the hope that maybe you could understand that.

In order this is what the Second Law means
In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process.

In the neighbourhood of any equilibrium state of a thermodynamic system, there are equilibrium states that are adiabatically inaccessible.


Energy dispersal
The second law of thermodynamics is an axiom of thermodynamics concerning heat, entropy, and the direction in which thermodynamic processes can occur. For example, the second law implies that heat does not flow spontaneously from a cold material to a hot material, but it allows heat to flow from a hot material to a cold material. Roughly speaking, the second law says that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time, and consequently less concentrated energy is available to do useful work. Energy dispersal also means that differences in temperature, pressure, and density even out. Again roughly speaking, thermodynamic entropy is a measure of energy dispersal, and so the second law is closely connected with the concept of entropy.


Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I understand that there are some REAL big words being used here but there are dictionaries on the web to help you with those.

 

[westwall]

CO2 drive temperature increase when the evidence says the opposite is true.

Could you present that evidence. "They" say that there's an 800 year delay in something or other?!?! Could you show evidence that CO2 molecules hold infra-red radiation 800 years before re-emitting it? You seem to be merely parroting talking points you heard elsewhere. Got any knowledge or ideas of your own? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Here is just one article that presents the evidence there are MANY, MANY more...if you cared to look

Russians: Warm causes CO2, not vice versa | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

 

[westwall]

According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy.

LOL!!! Crack a science text sometime, westy. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is NEVER lost, it's CONSERVED!!!

Try some intellectual honesty. What it means is you don't get as much out as what you put in.

Sadly they have none. It has become their religion, now it is all faith based, thus reason flew out the window years ago.

 

[IanC]

CO2 absorbs certain bands of infrared radiation. Increasing concentration of CO2 absorbs more of that reflected heat but with diminishing returns. Eg double the CO2 will absorb less than double the energy.

Does anyone have a source that describes the percentage of that infrared band already being absorbed, and the extra heat that would be captured with repeated doubling of atmosheric CO2? I would also be interested in finding out how large of a factor that particular IR band is in radiating heat away from the planet. TIA

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, well documented, with a lot of links. If you wish to do serious research, it is a good place to start.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another good source for information, and some very interesting ways in which proxy data is developed, is this site.

Methane catastrophe

 

[westwall]

Another good source for information, and some very interesting ways in which proxy data is developed, is this site.

Methane catastrophe

Total and utter BS. If the theory held water it would have happened when the planet was much hotter...guess what it didn't.

Some other info the true believers don't want you to see.

The Achilles' heel of the computer models (which form the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering), is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it. The global water cycle is complicated, with at least as much unknown as is known. Water starts by evaporating from oceans, rivers, lakes and moist ground, enters the atmosphere as water vapor, condenses into clouds and precipitates as rain or snow. Each transition from one form of water to another is influenced by temperature and each water form has an enormous impact on global heat processes. Clouds have a huge, inaccurately quantified cooling effect: they reflect heat received from the sun, though how much is unknown. Water on the Earth's surface has different effects on retaining the sun's heat, depending on whether the water is liquid and dark, as are the oceans, which are highly absorbent; or ice, which is reflective; or snow, which is even more reflective than ice. Such water cycle factors cause huge swings in the Earth's heat balance; they interact with global temperatures in ways that are beyond the ability of computer climate models to predict.

The first global warming modelers simply threw up their hands at the complexity of the water problem and essentially left out the atmospheric water cycle. Over time a few features of the cycle were patched into the models, all based on unproven guesses at the effect of increased ocean evaporation on clouds, the effect of clouds on reflecting the sun's energy and the effect of cloud warming on rainfall and snow. All of these "band aid" equations are hopelessly inadequate to repair the computer models' inability to describe the water cycle's role in temperature.

Besides the inability to deal with water, the other huge embarrassment facing the modelers is the well-researched and well-established fact published in many papers that temperature changes first and CO2 levels change 600 to 1,000 years later. Any rational person would immediately conclude that CO2 could not possibly cause temperature if the rise in CO2 in comes centuries after the rise in temperature. The computer modelers as usual have an involuted response: They say the temperature increase is initiated by the "relatively weak" effect of increasing heat from the sun during the rising phase of the Milankovich cycle (Milankovich's meticulously calculated cycles on rising and falling heat input from the sun are universally accepted by astrophysicists). That effect initiates the warming of the oceans, which - just as Dr. Martin Hertzberg says - releases lots of CO2. According to the modelers the released CO2 is the real culprit because it amplifies the "relatively weak" effect of the sun, turning minor warming into a really serious matter.

This is a cleverly concocted gloss which would be a wonderful argument for demonstrating that once warming starts, CO2 will make it worse and worse until all life on earth dies. Unfortunately for the climate modelers the history of the earth's many temperature and CO2 swings tells us that it obviously does not get worse and worse. After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical Milankovitch decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an ice age ensues. Where the modelers' clever gloss founders is onm explaining how the "relatively weak" decrease in the sun's heat makes all that extra CO2 disappear. Obviously the "bad" C02 must disappear due to some "feedback" that the modelers haven't thought of yet, i.e., one that keeps the earth's climate in rough equilibrium.


Alexander Cockburn: Dissidents Against Dogma

 

[Old Rocks]

Another good source for information, and some very interesting ways in which proxy data is developed, is this site.

Methane catastrophe

Total and utter BS. If the theory held water it would have happened when the planet was much hotter...guess what it didn't.

Some other info the true believers don't want you to see.

The Achilles' heel of the computer models (which form the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering), is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it. The global water cycle is complicated, with at least as much unknown as is known. Water starts by evaporating from oceans, rivers, lakes and moist ground, enters the atmosphere as water vapor, condenses into clouds and precipitates as rain or snow. Each transition from one form of water to another is influenced by temperature and each water form has an enormous impact on global heat processes. Clouds have a huge, inaccurately quantified cooling effect: they reflect heat received from the sun, though how much is unknown. Water on the Earth's surface has different effects on retaining the sun's heat, depending on whether the water is liquid and dark, as are the oceans, which are highly absorbent; or ice, which is reflective; or snow, which is even more reflective than ice. Such water cycle factors cause huge swings in the Earth's heat balance; they interact with global temperatures in ways that are beyond the ability of computer climate models to predict.

The first global warming modelers simply threw up their hands at the complexity of the water problem and essentially left out the atmospheric water cycle. Over time a few features of the cycle were patched into the models, all based on unproven guesses at the effect of increased ocean evaporation on clouds, the effect of clouds on reflecting the sun's energy and the effect of cloud warming on rainfall and snow. All of these "band aid" equations are hopelessly inadequate to repair the computer models' inability to describe the water cycle's role in temperature.

Besides the inability to deal with water, the other huge embarrassment facing the modelers is the well-researched and well-established fact published in many papers that temperature changes first and CO2 levels change 600 to 1,000 years later. Any rational person would immediately conclude that CO2 could not possibly cause temperature if the rise in CO2 in comes centuries after the rise in temperature. The computer modelers as usual have an involuted response: They say the temperature increase is initiated by the "relatively weak" effect of increasing heat from the sun during the rising phase of the Milankovich cycle (Milankovich's meticulously calculated cycles on rising and falling heat input from the sun are universally accepted by astrophysicists). That effect initiates the warming of the oceans, which - just as Dr. Martin Hertzberg says - releases lots of CO2. According to the modelers the released CO2 is the real culprit because it amplifies the "relatively weak" effect of the sun, turning minor warming into a really serious matter.

This is a cleverly concocted gloss which would be a wonderful argument for demonstrating that once warming starts, CO2 will make it worse and worse until all life on earth dies. Unfortunately for the climate modelers the history of the earth's many temperature and CO2 swings tells us that it obviously does not get worse and worse. After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical Milankovitch decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an ice age ensues. Where the modelers' clever gloss founders is onm explaining how the "relatively weak" decrease in the sun's heat makes all that extra CO2 disappear. Obviously the "bad" C02 must disappear due to some "feedback" that the modelers haven't thought of yet, i.e., one that keeps the earth's climate in rough equilibrium.


Alexander Cockburn: Dissidents Against Dogma

Ol' Walleyes, you stupid ass, it did happen several times. The PT extinction event and the PETM event, to name just two. There are a few more times it happened, with major and minor extinctions as a result.

The book gives the times, and the evidence for each of these. Also, the methods used for the evidence, which you wouldn't understand, but a reasonably intelligent individual might find interesting.

 

[IanC]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, well documented, with a lot of links. If you wish to do serious research, it is a good place to start.

Thanks Old Rocks. Your site didn't actually address my question but I will look it over more carefully when I have time. The one graph that did bother me was the one that called the increase in CO2 levels 'exponential'. The line itself does not show the typical severe increasing rise associated with graphs of that nature, although I suppose that CO2 production is proportional to the human population which is 'exponential' in growth. Is population control one of the main platforms for amelioration of global warming?

 

[westwall]

Another good source for information, and some very interesting ways in which proxy data is developed, is this site.

Methane catastrophe

Total and utter BS. If the theory held water it would have happened when the planet was much hotter...guess what it didn't.

Some other info the true believers don't want you to see.

The Achilles' heel of the computer models (which form the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering), is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it. The global water cycle is complicated, with at least as much unknown as is known. Water starts by evaporating from oceans, rivers, lakes and moist ground, enters the atmosphere as water vapor, condenses into clouds and precipitates as rain or snow. Each transition from one form of water to another is influenced by temperature and each water form has an enormous impact on global heat processes. Clouds have a huge, inaccurately quantified cooling effect: they reflect heat received from the sun, though how much is unknown. Water on the Earth's surface has different effects on retaining the sun's heat, depending on whether the water is liquid and dark, as are the oceans, which are highly absorbent; or ice, which is reflective; or snow, which is even more reflective than ice. Such water cycle factors cause huge swings in the Earth's heat balance; they interact with global temperatures in ways that are beyond the ability of computer climate models to predict.

The first global warming modelers simply threw up their hands at the complexity of the water problem and essentially left out the atmospheric water cycle. Over time a few features of the cycle were patched into the models, all based on unproven guesses at the effect of increased ocean evaporation on clouds, the effect of clouds on reflecting the sun's energy and the effect of cloud warming on rainfall and snow. All of these "band aid" equations are hopelessly inadequate to repair the computer models' inability to describe the water cycle's role in temperature.

Besides the inability to deal with water, the other huge embarrassment facing the modelers is the well-researched and well-established fact published in many papers that temperature changes first and CO2 levels change 600 to 1,000 years later. Any rational person would immediately conclude that CO2 could not possibly cause temperature if the rise in CO2 in comes centuries after the rise in temperature. The computer modelers as usual have an involuted response: They say the temperature increase is initiated by the "relatively weak" effect of increasing heat from the sun during the rising phase of the Milankovich cycle (Milankovich's meticulously calculated cycles on rising and falling heat input from the sun are universally accepted by astrophysicists). That effect initiates the warming of the oceans, which - just as Dr. Martin Hertzberg says - releases lots of CO2. According to the modelers the released CO2 is the real culprit because it amplifies the "relatively weak" effect of the sun, turning minor warming into a really serious matter.

This is a cleverly concocted gloss which would be a wonderful argument for demonstrating that once warming starts, CO2 will make it worse and worse until all life on earth dies. Unfortunately for the climate modelers the history of the earth's many temperature and CO2 swings tells us that it obviously does not get worse and worse. After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical Milankovitch decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an ice age ensues. Where the modelers' clever gloss founders is onm explaining how the "relatively weak" decrease in the sun's heat makes all that extra CO2 disappear. Obviously the "bad" C02 must disappear due to some "feedback" that the modelers haven't thought of yet, i.e., one that keeps the earth's climate in rough equilibrium.


Alexander Cockburn: Dissidents Against Dogma

Ol' Walleyes, you stupid ass, it did happen several times. The PT extinction event and the PETM event, to name just two. There are a few more times it happened, with major and minor extinctions as a result.

The book gives the times, and the evidence for each of these. Also, the methods used for the evidence, which you wouldn't understand, but a reasonably intelligent individual might find interesting.

Prove it. The PETM was a whopping 6 degrees C higher than today (just about the same as during the Roman Warming Period and there was no death and destruction then was there?) and lasted for an estimated 20, 000 years. There was no widespread death and destruction during the PETM either.

I present your favorite wikipedia and I have highlighted the relevant sections in red and blue for the reading impaired. As you can see even they have to admit that "acidification" has no effect and if it in fact happens (which is highly doubtful) the effect was to make the corals STRONGER They furhter say that only forams were affected and the rest of the biosphere seemed to do damn good. In fact the explosion of mammalian life is considered "intriguing"...nice attempt at minimising how widespread the eruption of life was.


Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.

So clearly the mass extinction event wasn't

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic); this means that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[10] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[23][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[24] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[25] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[26] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[26] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[27] and weakly calcified forams.[28]
The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[29] – which may (perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[29]

 

[skookerasbil]

Old Rocks is evidently getting his ass handed to him by West...........................

Great sh!t..............really. Who cant see Old Rocks sitting at his PC pounding away at the keys with his fingers while having a fcukking mental meltdown. Because his sh!t looks patheitic as hell next to the astute posts of pwn posted up by West................
If people havent noticed..........everything is a catasrophe to Old Rocks. Methane........oil...........temperature.........ice...........snow...........hurricanes..............everything is a fcukking catastrophy ALL THE TIME!!!



Oh and let me quickly point out to the curious who are peeking in on this forum to get educated on this stuff............the links that Old Rocks posts up are all hyperpartisan k00k websites with extreme environmental agenda's and interests. All are very motivated to post up the canned science #'s they deem fit to document. Go check out these sources at Sourcewatch and you will see major contributions from all the nut-ball organizations like the Sierra Club, GreenPeace et.al. so OF FCUKKING COURSE everything you read there is going to look like the end of times is near...............












I love this forum!!!.............more fun than a frog in a glass of milk.

 

[mudwhistle]

If you wingnuts had to forego lies, innuendo, and stupidity, you would have no tactics.

Guess we have no tactics. Remember...all we do is say no. We've just been sitting back watching it happen on the left. When the left is eating itself alive the best thing is just pass them the salt.

You can't have it both ways.....even though you think you can.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, well documented, with a lot of links. If you wish to do serious research, it is a good place to start.

Thanks Old Rocks. Your site didn't actually address my question but I will look it over more carefully when I have time. The one graph that did bother me was the one that called the increase in CO2 levels 'exponential'. The line itself does not show the typical severe increasing rise associated with graphs of that nature, although I suppose that CO2 production is proportional to the human population which is 'exponential' in growth. Is population control one of the main platforms for amelioration of global warming?

Ok, I think this is what you are looking for.

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, well documented, with a lot of links. If you wish to do serious research, it is a good place to start.

Thanks Old Rocks. Your site didn't actually address my question but I will look it over more carefully when I have time. The one graph that did bother me was the one that called the increase in CO2 levels 'exponential'. The line itself does not show the typical severe increasing rise associated with graphs of that nature, although I suppose that CO2 production is proportional to the human population which is 'exponential' in growth. Is population control one of the main platforms for amelioration of global warming?

No. Not in an of itself. In fact, what those that study the subject are afraid of is that an adrupt climate change will create a form of population control that no one can ameliorate.

We create GHGs chiefly through our production of electricity and transportation system. There are many other ways that we can produce electricity without GHGs. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, all can contribute to our energy supply, and replace the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Old Rocks]

And to answer you next question concerning water vapor, here is the real answer on that;

Given the IR absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O, why is it that we are concerned about CO2? - Yahoo! Answers