Rasmussen: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[konradv]

Hate to break it to you s0n, but nobody's listening. Its 2011......nobody cares about the science or Co2 except the far left internet oddballs. Of course, I made a post over three months ago asking any of the k00ks to post up a link that proves otherwise and Im still waiting...........

So what? I'll just have to yell louder. This isn't a popularity poll, anyway.

 

[Trakar]

69% Say It

80% of the American people polled believe the government is hiding information about alien visitors, 64% believe aliens have contacted humans and 32% believe that people are being abducted by aliens.

Poll U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - CNN

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

 

[westwall]

69% Say It

80% of the American people polled believe the government is hiding information about alien visitors, 64% believe aliens have contacted humans and 32% believe that people are being abducted by aliens.

Poll U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - CNN

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

Indeed, much like that 97% of all scientists support the AGW theory meme. It's easy to get those kind of numbers when you only poll those who agree with you.

 

[Trakar]

69% Say It

80% of the American people polled believe the government is hiding information about alien visitors, 64% believe aliens have contacted humans and 32% believe that people are being abducted by aliens.

Poll U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - CNN

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

Indeed, much like that 97% of all scientists support the AGW theory meme. It's easy to get those kind of numbers when you only poll those who agree with you.

Considering that "those who agree with you" at the 97+% level are the most learned and knowledgeable individuals actively participating in a field of scientific research that they have devoted their lives to studying and understanding, I'd say that was pretty compelling support.

 

[IanC]

anyone who has followed the history of climate science knows there is a 100 per cent chance that the data has been fraudulently manipulated. Briffa Bodge anyone?

 

[rdean]

That's because Republicans know:

Science if a faith
Evolution a lie
Climate Change a conspiracy

Scientists are a bunch of lazy liberal liars who bilk the government of money, don't add anything to the country. They don't know anything. They should be run out of the country. After all, "Education is just a piece of paper".

Republicans have something better, "A Gut Feeling" and "Common Sense".

 

[westwall]

80% of the American people polled believe the government is hiding information about alien visitors, 64% believe aliens have contacted humans and 32% believe that people are being abducted by aliens.

Poll U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - CNN

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

Indeed, much like that 97% of all scientists support the AGW theory meme. It's easy to get those kind of numbers when you only poll those who agree with you.

Considering that "those who agree with you" at the 97+% level are the most learned and knowledgeable individuals actively participating in a field of scientific research that they have devoted their lives to studying and understanding, I'd say that was pretty compelling support.

They know less about the physical world and how it functions then a undergrad in geology after their second year of college. Geologists must know chemistry, physics, high level math, and know how to operate and maintain an array of scientific instruments that would drive a climatologist comatose. Climatologists know how to write code for computer programs that can't recreate the weather we had three days ago. And you think that that is supposed to be impressive?

Dude, you need to get out of your basement and head over to the Earth Sciences Department at your local University to see what real scientists do.

 

[westwall]

That's because Republicans know:

Science if a faith
Evolution a lie
Climate Change a conspiracy

Scientists are a bunch of lazy liberal liars who bilk the government of money, don't add anything to the country. They don't know anything. They should be run out of the country. After all, "Education is just a piece of paper".

Republicans have something better, "A Gut Feeling" and "Common Sense".

No, republicans know that bad science is bad science, whoever does it. Democrats know that too sunshine....why don't you?

 

[bripat9643]

Considering that "those who agree with you" at the 97+% level are the most learned and knowledgeable individuals actively participating in a field of scientific research that they have devoted their lives to studying and understanding, I'd say that was pretty compelling support.

That would be the same 97% of scientists who are sucking on the government tit and benefit financially from the global warming con.

 

[wirebender]

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

climate science speaks little about the realities of the world either. For example: Describe a mechanism, supported and predicted by the laws of physics that would have the atmosphere of the earth delivering more than twice the amount of energy to the surface of the earth that it receives from the sun.

 

[wirebender]

Considering that "those who agree with you" at the 97+% level are the most learned and knowledgeable individuals actively participating in a field of scientific research that they have devoted their lives to studying and understanding, I'd say that was pretty compelling support.

Clearly, you have never looked at the graduation requirements for a degree in climate science. Computer science, math all the way up to calculus I and a general chemistry class. Climate science is for those who want to call themselves scientists but can't cut the course work in the actual sciences. (chemistry/physics/ astrophysics, etc.)

For example:

Here is a program for a BS in climate science:

The Florida State University

Here is a program for a BS in chemistry:

BS in Chemistry | American University

Here is a program for an MS in climate science:

http://www.climatesciencesolutions.nau.edu/Worksheet.pdf

Here is a program for an MS in chemistry:

MS in Chemistry | American University

 

[BoycottTheday]

Say Anything » NASA: Space Aliens Could Attack Because of Global Warming

Oh God give me strength

 

[wirebender]

Say Anything » NASA: Space Aliens Could Attack Because of Global Warming

Oh God give me strength

Does that mean that NASA is now acknowledging the existence of advanced alien civilizations or have they simply stooped to trying to scare us with the boogie man?

 

[Trakar]

Indeed, much like that 97% of all scientists support the AGW theory meme. It's easy to get those kind of numbers when you only poll those who agree with you.

Considering that "those who agree with you" at the 97+% level are the most learned and knowledgeable individuals actively participating in a field of scientific research that they have devoted their lives to studying and understanding, I'd say that was pretty compelling support.

They know less about the physical world and how it functions then a undergrad in geology after their second year of college.

You do realize that most currently active, publishing climate scientists are geologists, physicists, chemists and mathematicians working in the field of climate research,...don't you?

James Hansen - BA in Physics and Astronomy, MS in Astronomy, Phd in Physics

Gavin Schmidtt - BA in Mathematics, Phd in Mathematics

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - MA A.B. in Physics, Knox fellowship in applied Mathematics and theoretical Physics, and a Phd in Aeronautics and Astronautics

Michael E. Mann - A.B. in applied Mathematics and Physics, MS in Physics, MPhil in Physics, MPhil in Geology and Geophysics, PhD in Geology and Geophysics.

Myles Allen - BS in Physics, Phd in Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics

Just a smattering from amongst the leaders in the field of Climate Science. CLimate science isn't some sort of cloistered sect hidden away from contact with the rest of science. That simply isn't how science is done.

Dude, you need to get out of your basement and head over to the Earth Sciences Department at your local University to see what real scientists do.

LOL, I spend quite a bit of time at my local university's physical and earth sciences departments, several days a week, generally, perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[Trakar]

Considering that "those who agree with you" at the 97+% level are the most learned and knowledgeable individuals actively participating in a field of scientific research that they have devoted their lives to studying and understanding, I'd say that was pretty compelling support.

That would be the same 97% of scientists who are sucking on the government tit and benefit financially from the global warming con.

I see, its a conspiracy!

So we aren't supposed to trust anyone who receives money or benefit from what they say?

Who does this leave?

 

[Trakar]

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

climate science speaks little about the realities of the world either. For example: Describe a mechanism, supported and predicted by the laws of physics that would have the atmosphere of the earth delivering more than twice the amount of energy to the surface of the earth that it receives from the sun.

Please cite and reference this proposed situation.

I know of no such situation, however, the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect returns almost as much energy to the Earth's surface as the Earth initially and directly receives from the sun. This has the rough effect of doubling the amount of energy the earth's surface would receive from the sun in an atmosphere without greenhouse gases.

In most typical energy balance diagrams

(such as this one from 7(i) Net Radiation and the Planetary Energy Balance )​

We see an initial TOA value of 100 units drops to 28 units being directly absorbed by surface materials, and a total of 23 units of diffuse and atmospherically "reflected" energy also adding to total energy absorbed by surface materials.

 

[westwall]

Considering that "those who agree with you" at the 97+% level are the most learned and knowledgeable individuals actively participating in a field of scientific research that they have devoted their lives to studying and understanding, I'd say that was pretty compelling support.

They know less about the physical world and how it functions then a undergrad in geology after their second year of college.

You do realize that most currently active, publishing climate scientists are geologists, physicists, chemists and mathematicians working in the field of climate research,...don't you?

James Hansen - BA in Physics and Astronomy, MS in Astronomy, Phd in Physics

Gavin Schmidtt - BA in Mathematics, Phd in Mathematics

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - MA A.B. in Physics, Knox fellowship in applied Mathematics and theoretical Physics, and a Phd in Aeronautics and Astronautics

Michael E. Mann - A.B. in applied Mathematics and Physics, MS in Physics, MPhil in Physics, MPhil in Geology and Geophysics, PhD in Geology and Geophysics.

Myles Allen - BS in Physics, Phd in Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics

Just a smattering from amongst the leaders in the field of Climate Science. CLimate science isn't some sort of cloistered sect hidden away from contact with the rest of science. That simply isn't how science is done.

Dude, you need to get out of your basement and head over to the Earth Sciences Department at your local University to see what real scientists do.

LOL, I spend quite a bit of time at my local university's physical and earth sciences departments, several days a week, generally, perhaps you should take your own advice.

I did up until I retired Many of my students have gone on to to do good work in the field as well.

 

[westwall]

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

climate science speaks little about the realities of the world either. For example: Describe a mechanism, supported and predicted by the laws of physics that would have the atmosphere of the earth delivering more than twice the amount of energy to the surface of the earth that it receives from the sun.

Please cite and reference this proposed situation.

I know of no such situation, however, the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect returns almost as much energy to the Earth's surface as the Earth initially and directly receives from the sun. This has the rough effect of doubling the amount of energy the earth's surface would receive from the sun in an atmosphere without greenhouse gases.

In most typical energy balance diagrams

(such as this one from 7(i) Net Radiation and the Planetary Energy Balance )​

We see an initial TOA value of 100 units drops to 28 units being directly absorbed by surface materials, and a total of 23 units of diffuse and atmospherically "reflected" energy also adding to total energy absorbed by surface materials.

Cute link. Where, prey tell, is the math to support the assertions made in the report? I followed every single link that should have had a mathematical proof to support it and not one did. In fact there is no math to be found ANYWHERE on the website. Kind of a major problem when trying to support a mathematical abstract eh?

 

[wirebender]

Polls speak little about the realities of the world, especially when conducted by politically biased organizations.

climate science speaks little about the realities of the world either. For example: Describe a mechanism, supported and predicted by the laws of physics that would have the atmosphere of the earth delivering more than twice the amount of energy to the surface of the earth that it receives from the sun.

Please cite and reference this proposed situation.

I know of no such situation, however, the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect returns almost as much energy to the Earth's surface as the Earth initially and directly receives from the sun. This has the rough effect of doubling the amount of energy the earth's surface would receive from the sun in an atmosphere without greenhouse gases.

Of course you don't. That you know little of the pseudoscience upon which the whole AGW hoax is buitl is abundantly clear.

Here is the energy budget upon which the hoax is based:

Before we get into the numbers, notice that the energy budget is based on a flat earth that is being irradiated over its entire surface 24 hours a day. That is the reality that the energy budgets upon which climate alarmism represnts.

Aright, lets take a look at it. See the yellow column that reaches the surface? It says 161, and below it reads "absorbed by the surface". That means that they are saying that 161 watts per square meter of energy is reaching, and being absorbed by the surface of the earth. Energy from the sun. The earth's only energy source.

Now take a look at the tan colored column over on the far right hand side of the graphic. It says 333 backradiation. At the bottom of that column also reads "absorbed by the surface". That is stating that 333 watts per square meter of energy is being radiated downward and absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere.

The surface of the earth, according to warmists, is receiving, and absorbing 161 watts per square meter from its only energy source and it is receiving, and absorbing more than twice that amount from the atmosphere. To the best of my knowledge, 161 X 2 = 322. That is less than half the watts per square that warmist claim the atmosphere is delivering to the surface of the earth.

So tell me, which physical law supports and predicts the idea that the atmosphere can deliver twice as much energy to the surface of the earth than its only energy source? If such a thnig can happen, then why don't we multiply energy by using reflectors? If the atmosphere can reflect an amount of energy equaling twice the amount of energy we receive from the sun, why can't we do that to end our energy problems?

Do you believe you can put an electric heater in your room and surround it with reflectors and by doing so, get that heater to put out a single watt of energy that you dont pay the electric company for? If the claim made by the energy budget upon which AGW alarmism were based were true, you should be able to coax more than 2,000 watts per square meter out of a heater with an initial output of 1,000 watts per square meter with no additional charge from the electric company. Do you believe you can achieve such a thing because if you do, I can tell you how to become a billionaire nearly overnight.

In most typical energy balance diagrams

(such as this one from 7(i) ​

Your link points to a cute representation of the energy budget, but not the one upon which AGW alarmisim is based. Your graphics also make claims that can not be. Lets take a look at them one at a time:



Cute, they way they break them into short wave and long wave in an attempt to confuse. Alright, the red arrow on the left says that the only energy source the earth has is delivering 28 "energy units" to the surface of the earth and while they don't explicitly say it as with the energy budget upon which alarmism is based, we must assume that since the arrow goes to the surface, that the energy is absorbed by the surface.

Then right next door, we have an arrow from the clouds saying that the surface of the earth is receiving, and absorbing 23 "energy units" as diffused energy from the sun so we have a total of 51 "energy units" from the earth's only energy source.

Then below that graphic, your guys have another graphic depicting longwave radiation.



We can see that it is flawed right off the bat because it shows no LW radiation incoming from the sun which is not so. Do you believe for a second that no longwave radiation from the sun reaches the earth?

In your second chart, the red arrow on the left claims that 117 "energy units" of LW radiation is leaving the surface of the earth. The green arrow on the right claims 23 "energy units" of "latent heat" are being radiated and the pink arrow on the far left claims 7 "energy units" of "sensible heat" are being radiated. That gives a total of 147 "energy units being radiated by the surface of the earth.

The first chart showed 51 "energy units" reaching the surface of the earth from its only energy source and now we have 147 "energy units" radiating out from the surface of the earth.

If that is accurate, then, of the total amount of energy radiating outward, only 34.7 % comes from its only energy source, the sun. Where does the rest of that energy come from? Well, if we look at your chart, the claim is that 96 "energy units" or 65.3 % of the LW energy reaching, and being absorbed by the surface of the earth is coming from the atmosphere. Where does the atmosphere get all that energy? Do you believe the atmosphere can somehow reflect and more than double the amount of energy that comes from the sun? (refer back to the question regarding coaxing more energy from the electric heater than you get from the electric company)

Do you really believe that the surface of the earth absorbs more energy from the atmosphere than it gets from the sun? If so, then as I asked in the first place, describe the mechanism by which it happens and then name the physical law that predicts, and supports such a thing.​

 

[Trakar]

climate science speaks little about the realities of the world either. For example: Describe a mechanism, supported and predicted by the laws of physics that would have the atmosphere of the earth delivering more than twice the amount of energy to the surface of the earth that it receives from the sun.

Please cite and reference this proposed situation.

I know of no such situation, however, the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect returns almost as much energy to the Earth's surface as the Earth initially and directly receives from the sun. This has the rough effect of doubling the amount of energy the earth's surface would receive from the sun in an atmosphere without greenhouse gases.

Of course you don't. That you know little of the pseudoscience upon which the whole AGW hoax is buitl is abundantly clear.

Here is the energy budget upon which the hoax is based:

Actually, that's a graphical representation of Trenberth's research results, from the looks of it, his 1997 paper published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society February, IINM.

If you really insist on going over this again in detail, please save a copy so we can refer back to it the next time. That said, it would probably be better to us a little more up-to-date graphic as both the TOA and transfer ratios have seen some slight revisions over the last 15 years, but what are you gonna do, unlike dogma, science is always about new understandings shaping what we know and how we understand things, it would certainly be easier if the world simply conformed to the way we think it should work, but I don't want you to get all blurry eyed so let's look at what you've got,...again, <sigh>

Before we get into the numbers, notice that the energy budget is based on a flat earth that is being irradiated over its entire surface 24 hours a day. That is the reality that the energy budgets upon which climate alarmism represnts.

LOL, seriously?!

"Science doesn't know about night!"

yeah okay, this isn't a preschool "teach your baby to read compendium," its time to put down the picture books and pay attention to what Trenberth's research involved and recorded. In simple, dated, graphic terms that diagram was meant to illustrate the general elements of a snapshot of the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) energy imparted by the Sun into the Earth system, how that energy translates through and in interaction with our planet's atmosphere and surface, and then how that energy is re-emitted and transmitted through our atmosphere back out into space. The sun shines on one hemisphere of the Earth 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year. When the Sun is shining on the Earth, the majority of the energy that it delivers to the Earth is in the form of visible wavelength (shortwave, red to violet light) slightly biased toward yellow, light energy. When this energy is re-emited it is in the form of InfraRed (IR) light. 100% of our Earth's surface emits longwave (IR) radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year.

Aright, lets take a look at it. See the yellow column that reaches the surface? It says 161, and below it reads "absorbed by the surface". That means that they are saying that 161 watts per square meter of energy is reaching, and being absorbed by the surface of the earth. Energy from the sun. The earth's only energy source.

Left-hand side of the graph we are only dealing with energy coming into the open system.
You don't count the atmosphere as part of the Earth? It's evident that Trenberth and anyone else properly reading and using his findings or that graphic should interpret the atmosphere as a very distinct and important part of the atmosphere, after all, the total solar energy impingent upon the Earth, at TOA is 341W/m^2(~100%), but the amount that reaches the atmosphere/surface boundary is only 184W/m^2(~54%) that means that elements of the atmosphere have absorbed (becoming more energetic/heating-up) or reflected nearly half of the energy impingent upon it. Looks like, from the graph, that the reflected amount from the atmosphere is 79W/m^2(~23%) meaning that the atmosphere absorbed about 78W(~23%) over the atmospheric column depth. So we have the Earth (atmosphere + surface) absorbing (161 + 78 =) 239W/m^2 (~70%) of the Sun's energy and reflecting 102W/m^2 (~30%) of the Sun's energy.

Now take a look at the tan colored column over on the far right hand side of the graphic.

Okay, other side of the graph, and we are dealing with radiation that is present and exiting the system

It says 333 backradiation. At the bottom of that column also reads "absorbed by the surface". That is stating that 333 watts per square meter of energy is being radiated downward and absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere.

No, it is saying that the warmed atmosphere is emitting a total of 532W of energy, 333W into the surface and 199W into space. But that is more a difference in completeness and perspective than substance so far.

The surface of the earth, according to warmists, is receiving, and absorbing 161 watts per square meter from its only energy source and it is receiving, and absorbing more than twice that amount from the atmosphere.

No, at a given period, the Earth is absorbing a total of 239W/m^2 from the sun and emitting a total of 239W/m^2

To the best of my knowledge, 161 X 2 = 322. That is less than half the watts per square that warmist claim the atmosphere is delivering to the surface of the earth.

The atmosphere is a part of the Earth. the entire Earth is intercepting a total of 341W/m^2 of primary solar energy, 102W/m^2 are being reflected and 239W are being absorbed directly by the atmosphere and the surface of the planet Earth. 239W are also being emitted by the atmosphere and surface of the planet to the heat sink of space.

So tell me, which physical law supports and predicts the idea that the atmosphere can deliver twice as much energy to the surface of the earth than its only energy source?

The effect you are trying to understand is known as "insulation," it occurs when energy emitted in one portion of an object is retarded (or delayed) in its ultimate exit from that open system. Greenhouse gases act as an insulation factor delaying the exit of energy from the Earth system, as the longwave emissions bounce around a bit between the surface and the lower levels of the atmosphere before they finally escape. Increase the Greenhouse gases, increase the insulation factor. Simple century old science with a lot of very basic and solidly supporting evidence and observation throughout chemistry and physics in support of its precepts.

If such a thnig can happen, then why don't we multiply energy by using reflectors?

ever wrap an insulating blanket around a water heater?

Do you believe you can put an electric heater in your room and surround it with reflectors and by doing so, get that heater to put out a single watt of energy that you dont pay the electric company for?

If you insulate your room to the point that your electric heater is emitting more heat than can escape from the room, then your room will continue to warm until it reaches a point where there is as much heat escaping as there is being pumped in by the heater. In the case of the Earth, the planet is emitting as much energy as it is absorbing. so it is at rough equilibrium in its current state, as the atmospheric GHG content increases so will the insulation factor, making the planet gradually warmer while maintaining balance in absorptions and emissions.

In most typical energy balance diagrams

(such as this one from 7(i) ​

Your link points to a cute representation of the energy budget, but not the one upon which AGW alarmisim is based. Your graphics also make claims that can not be. Lets take a look at them one at a time:



Cute, they way they break them into short wave and long wave in an attempt to confuse.
​

If that confused you, it wasn't because anyone attempted to confuse anything, it is just a simple explanation of what is happening using representative values (100%) etc., comparing these values to Trenberth's we can see a pretty fair approximation.
Of course, this first graph merely represents the Left half of Trenberth's graph.

Incoming Radiation 100 341(100%)
Reflected Radiation 30 102 (30%)
Absorbed by surface 28 161 (47%)
a bit off on that one but if you look at how they've split up the emissions and absorption areas its easy to see where the difference in methodology is yielding some slightly differing values for secondary processes, and that is simply an matter of preference between the research approaches. As long as the overall numbers and major events are covered, it really doesn't matter which method you use to reflect the complicated interactions that make up the secondary and tertiary processes.

Alright, the red arrow on the left says that the only energy source the earth has is delivering 28 "energy units" to the surface of the earth and while they don't explicitly say it as with the energy budget upon which alarmism is based, we must assume that since the arrow goes to the surface, that the energy is absorbed by the surface.

No, it says that there are 100 total units of energy being intercepted at the top of the atmosphere, 30 of these units are being reflected away and 70 units are being absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere and surface. 23 of those units absorbed by the atmosphere are re-emitted and absorbed by the surface.

Then below that graphic, your guys have another graphic depicting longwave radiation.

This is the equivilant of the right-hand side of the Trenberth graph and is devoted to the emissions of radiation from the Earth.

We can see that it is flawed right off the bat because it shows no LW radiation incoming from the sun which is not so. Do you believe for a second that no longwave radiation from the sun reaches the earth?

The previous graph deals with incoming radiation, this one deals with internal Earth system interactions during the emission process. We start with 117 units of energy emitted by the surface, 111 of those units are absorbed by the atmosphere, 6 of those excape directly. 64 of those absorbed by the atmosphere are also re-emitted and escape (64 + 6 = 70%).

In your second chart, the red arrow on the left claims that 117 "energy units" of LW radiation is leaving the surface of the earth. The green arrow on the right claims 23 "energy units" of "latent heat" are being radiated and the pink arrow on the far left claims 7 "energy units" of "sensible heat" are being radiated. That gives a total of 147 "energy units being radiated by the surface of the earth...

No, we have 117 units of energy being emitted by the surface of the Earth, 6 units escape directly and a 111 units are absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and combine with the other sources of energy transfer from conduction/convection (7 units) and evaporation (23). Add in the shortwave absorption from the initial incoming radiation and we get a total atmospheric energy content of 160 units, 96 of these units are re-emitted toward and re-absorbed by the surface, 64 of these units are emitted out to space and (with the initial 6 units that escaped directly from the surface) balance out the amount of energy that the Earth (atmosphere and surface) absorbed from the sun in the first place (70%).

It really isn't complicated or confusing as long as you understand what is going on and follow the progression laid out and discussed at the site linked, which is the reason I linked the site instead of just linking a picture and then making up my own explanation of what the picture "should be showing" instead of paying attention to the information the pictures, and more importantly the research the pictures are based upon, are trying to confer.​