Refute this if you can AGW deniers:

[whitehall]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

Note the ambiguous words "may" and "suggest". They use those words because the program is based on opinion rather than science. Leave it to numbskulls on the left to depend on pop culture for their information.

 

[westwall]

There isn't a sole here who can REFUTE that.

Neither is there a sole here who can PROVE that.

All anybody here can do is point to some EXPERT whose proof they WANT US to believe.

That's all I got out of it. No proof either way, by either side. So it seems to cancel the other out and a lot more money is spent.

There is a ton of proof that does point the "other way" which is the right way, the scientific way, in short the truth....which is always the first casualty when the media "debates" science.
It does not seem to register what kind of crap Roy Spencer`s "back-radiation" assertions are. Every engineer can easily show it`s the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine and Roy has back pedaled from that silly "a cold plate can make a heated hot plate even hotter" :
http://www.tech-know-group.com/archi...ry_21Mar12.pdf

See, Spencer no longer says that photons coming from the colder body can heat a warmer body. He changed it to "can accumulate more energy".
...After he has been driven in a cul de sac by engineers..!
But any engineer can tell You that "net energy accumulation" does not give You an increase in TEMPERATURE.
The cop-out Roy has used to opt out from his miracle photon effect that only happened in his strange "Yes Virginia" conception what a photon is has boxed him in even further. No matter which way You slice it if You add another cold mass to a hot mass, yes it can "accumulate" more energy...but first You have to add this energy...before You can accumulate more.
And 380 ppm CO2 does not "accumulate" the extra energy Roy and everybody else needs to show the temperature increase their beloved computer models predict.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ot-that-he-is-stupid-to-boot.html#post6403529

That`s it for Roy`s "energy accumulation" as far as CO2 is concerned.
We ( engineers) haven`t even began yet to publish just what kind of crap "science" the climate models use when it comes to the albedo effect these flat earth discers have been using (so far) in conjunction with Roy`s idiotic photon concept:

Here they say:
Climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3

And here they say:
Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The average overall albedo of Earth, its planetary albedo, is 30 to 35%...As the total amount of reflected radiation cannot be directly measured by satellite, a mathematical model of the BRDF is used to translate a sample set of satellite reflectance measurements into estimates of directional-hemispherical reflectance and bi-hemispherical reflectance (e.g.[9]).

The Global warmists need an albedo as low as possible to get to the doomsday scenario...so naturally they opted to an albedo of 0.3

But in "media science" TV like the crap this guy quotes:


....an albedo difference of 5 % is not a big deal, no more than huge solar outbursts that dump enough energy to power the entire U.S. for a whole year. Yet the same "climate expert" computer models also make this claim:

Solar radiation management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By intentionally changing the Earth's albedo, or reflectivity, scientists propose that we could reflect more heat back out into space, or intercept sunlight before it reaches the Earth through a literal shade built in space. A 0.5% albedo increase would roughly halve the effect of CO2 doubling.

I hope You know the difference between a .5% albedo and 0.5% albedo INCREASE .
They stated that if the albedo effect were to increase from 30% just to 31.6 % that would cancel out what they claim CO2 doubling allegedly does

Which goes to show how massive the cheat is by cherry picking the 30 % albedo over the 35 % albedo or not using the mean between the 2 for their computer model predictions.
Just to show You how far out of whack these wackos have been:
A new albedo parameterization for use in climate models over the Antarctic ice sheet

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D05114, 10 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010JD015113
A new albedo parameterization for use in climate models over the Antarctic ice sheet
The agreement between modeled and observed albedo at Neumayer, Dronning Maud Land, is very good, and subtle variability in albedo is well captured by the model. December–February mean differences in modeled and observed net shortwave radiation range from −8.7 to +3.8 W m−2 between 1995 and 2004, with a mean value of −2.7 W m−2. This is a considerable improvement compared to the previous albedo parameterization in the model, which led to overestimates of the net shortwave fluxes by +15.0 to +22.7 W m−2, or 40–55% of the observed net shortwave flux, in the same period.

This is what happens when flat earth science collides with actual science that uses observed data instead of "model" data.

Tell me how would You even get to an "average" albedo when You consider how reflectivity works, ...7/10 of the earth`s surface is water.

Beyond 60 deg (angular) it has an average albedo effect of 43 %...that`s almost as good as the arctic ice sheet...
But that does not even register in any of the flat earth disc computer model averaging / climate change predictions.

Every day, no matter what season we are in 1/3 rd of their computer model flat disc "average" is wrong by more than 13 % when the sun approaches the 135 Meridian West...13 % wrong for almost 4 out of 12 hours each day, all year long

And that`s only the albedo errors that have been used INTENTIONALLY to arrive at the CO2 doomsday scenario.
So shut up making noises like :

Refute this if you can AGW deniers:
good luck

Because You don`t even have the foggiest notion of physics & engineering.
If You do then show me how You would work out a realistic computer model albedo effect ..like an "average" out of that:
Surface Typical
albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04[2]
Worn asphalt 0.12[2]
Conifer forest
(Summer) 0.08,[3] 0.09 to 0.15[4]
Deciduous trees 0.15 to 0.18[4]
Bare soil 0.17[5]
Green grass 0.25[5]
Desert sand 0.40[6]
New concrete 0.55[5]
Ocean ice 0.5–0.7[5]
Fresh snow 0.80–0.90[5]

And as far as large vegetation covered forested areas are concerned You better work in how the albedo varies with the season.
Last not least don`t omit the overcast albedo effect:
Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The average overall albedo of Earth, its planetary albedo, is 30 to 35%, because of the covering by clouds, but varies widely locally across the surface, depending on the geological and environmental features.

So " Papageorgio " ...Refute that ! before You ask me or anyone else to refute any more stupid global warming "science" claims You have seen on Television

Good Luck

I think You got a severe dose of back radiation watching left-wing media "science lessons" on television

I will suggest one modification to your oterwise excellent albedo chart Polar, and that is for desert areas....

Large sand areas do indeed register a albedo of 40 but mixed volcanic areas register around 30.

 

[westwall]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

Note the ambiguous words "may" and "suggest". They use those words because the program is based on opinion rather than science. Leave it to numbskulls on the left to depend on pop culture for their information.

"May", "suggest" and "could" are the words of charlatans...not scientists.

 

[Dot Com]

you flat earth discers (deniers) crack me up

 

[SSDD]

you flat earth discers (deniers) crack me up

You think it is funny to have your argument torn into such small pieces so quickly? It took exactly 1 post for someone to point out that the whole thing was guesswork and not founded on any fact at all. By the time someone actually looked up the "study" it was known that in order for any of the projected disaster to happen, sea level would first have to rise almost 20 inches. That is funny considering that sea level is falling at present over most of the ocean. Then there is that inconvenient fact that the whole thing was based on a computer model that assumes sea levels are going to rise 20 inches anytime soon.

The whole thing is, in fact, a joke and the punch line is that you actually thought it couldn't be refuted.

 

[alan1]

Science isn't political, it's science.
Yer argument failed the moment you tried to make it so.

Where's the politics? You're the one that introduced it. You headed straight for it without discussing the science at all, blue notwithstanding. Typical, because the deniers know they lost the scientific battle a long time ago.

Statements such as "may" or "suggest" are not defined science, they are an agenda.
Science produces facts not agendas. Politics produces agenda not facts.
I really don't understand why the liberal agenda is focused on speculation rather than on scientific fact. Maybe rdean can explain that for you, he seems to live in a fantasy land where science and facts are defined by people that understand neither.

 

[polarbear]

you flat earth discers (deniers) crack me up

It`s plain to see that You are indeed cracked up, totally...have You been snorting crack or something ? It went right by You that it`s the "climate science" crackpots that were using the "flat disc" average albedo all along.
Be a good sport, go watch some more AGW TV informercials and bring them back here. It`s been fun so far.

 

[Oddball]

Science isn't political, it's science.
Yer argument failed the moment you tried to make it so.

Where's the politics? You're the one that introduced it. You headed straight for it without discussing the science at all, blue notwithstanding. Typical, because the deniers know they lost the scientific battle a long time ago.

Statements such as "may" or "suggest" are not defined science, they are an agenda.
Science produces facts not agendas. Politics produces agenda not facts.
I really don't understand why the liberal agenda is focused on speculation rather than on scientific fact. Maybe rdean can explain that for you, he seems to live in a fantasy land where science and facts are defined by people that understand neither.

^^^^
For y'all scoring at home: Pwnage.

 

[polarbear]

I will suggest one modification to your oterwise excellent albedo chart Polar, and that is for desert areas....

Large sand areas do indeed register a albedo of 40 but mixed volcanic areas register around 30.

I concur, but chose to make that point with the ocean and at that location, 135 deg West, because that`s where the error is huge.
But I do like Your suggestion :
Desert sand has a 0.4 albedo and the air above it is dry . While large green vegetation areas such as rain forests have a lower albedo ( .15 - 0.18) and the air above it is humid. Water vapor is a better "greenhouse gas" than CO2 by a long shot , yet a low "back radiation" clear sky desert area is generally hotter than a large forest area under higher "back radiation" overcast at the same latitude. This "back radiation" reminds me of the "sound barrier" where the consensus was that it`s something like a brick wall...till Chuck Yaeger made fools of the consensus

deniers- swing & miss. I'll give you people some more time to try to use your pretzel logic to discount it

Explain that with Your pretzel logic...or Roy Spencer`s method of circular "proof"

 

[Dot Com]

OMG I just noticed something. Is THAT monstrosity your siggie? lol. We have an 11-line limit here sport.

 

[polarbear]

OMG I just noticed something. Is THAT monstrosity your siggie? lol. We have an 11-line limit here sport.

"Lol" is that all You can utter ?
I did that just for You sport...because I wanted to make sure You would notice something and all You did notice, is that it`s a "big picture" but not what`s on it. You are not just cracked up,...You blew Your mind somewhere along the line,...and I was hoping I could help You out to finish the job.

Because it might dawn on You if You actually read it that I could get You to something a whole lot more "mind blowing" to than the crack You snort that cracks You up. But it since ~100 years it does`nt come as a powder any more. They make it in sticks and I`ld have to give it to You anally:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2GHL8VhMjo"]Mr Wint and Mr Kidd - "Bombe Surprise" - YouTube[/ame]