Find them. I went to a top 15 University and minored in Biology (requirements included Physics and Chemistry).
I don't state them as fact if I don't remember the source(s).Do you remember the source of all the things you learn? Stop being silly please.
Since you claim to understand, let's just save some time. What do you question of what I say? In this thread, and several others, I have given far better explanations of what causes global warming than the liberal agenda proclaims.
Task me. Ask real questions of substance of me. Not what other people say.
I dare you.
Or you could find these unbiased articles we've been discussing instead of deflecting.
Chicken.
I knew you were a waste of time. Goodbye asshole.
My waste of time was asking you to provide a single article that opposes the idea of global "warming" that wasn't funded by someone with interest in saying global "warming" doesn't exist. You failed and I was right. Til next time WC.
Stats don't mean . Al Gore's predictions are just guesses. Most of the time states are just possibilities. For example, you may mention some stats about plane crashes or drunk driving crashes. Those stats are not guarantees that you personally will die in a plane crash or drunk driving crash. They just say it's possible. It's also possible that you could win the lottery but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. The fad that is global warming is dying down. It's no longer a trendy thing anymore. People have lost interest.
I think Shasta just wants me to give him an article that he can then link a RealClimate dot com article disputing it. Then, I'll have to say why the RealClimate article is wrong, and he won't have the intelligence to decide the truth himself. His bottom line will end up who had the most articles. The idiot says the 'deniers' are funded by oil. So what. Some are. Nobody else has much money to fund scientific research to dispel the propaganda the government grants are supplying to those causing the fear.
Shasta... Have any research not funded by government en ies?
No, you fail. If you understand the sciences as you claim, then tell my why what I said that is not true, using your understanding of science. Not someone elses research.
Like people like Al Gore don't have anything to gain...
He must be pissed that his investments in companies that deal with Carbon Credits isn't going as planned.
Not really.
I'm not an expert in the field. Neither are you. I'd rather read and discuss actual research. Still waiting on that article.If you understand the sciences as you claim, then tell my why what I said that is not true, using your understanding of science. Not someone elses research.
Why do people always go to Al Gore? You think he's a scientist or somethin?
OK asshole, this site is boring right now and being a Sunday morning, I have a little time. There's no need to be an expert. The sciences involved are simple to understand. Apparently, you are lying about your knowledge.
How about these:
Is NASA data OK, or will you claim it's an oil funded?
Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination, part of text:New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.Please note that Hansen is one of the alarmists, but his NASA research like this remains unnamed when he is in alarmist mode."Black carbon reduces the amount of energy reflected by snow back into space, thus heating the snow surface more than if there were no black carbon," Hansen said.
Soot's increased absorption of solar energy is especially effective in warming the world's climate. "This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a carbon-dioxide forcing of the same magnitude," Hansen noted.
Soot and Global Warming:
BLACK SOOT AND SNOW: A WARMER COMBINATION:New research from NASA and Columbia University climate scientists shows that more than 25 percent of the increase in average global temperature between 1880 and 2002 may be due to soot contamination of snow and ice worldwide. Pure snow and ice can be blindingly bright, reflecting large amounts of incoming radiation back into space, whereas snow and ice that is contaminated with black carbon absorbs incoming solar radiation. The scientists estimate that a soot content of only a few parts per billion (ppb) can reduce snow’s ability to reflect incoming radiation by 1 percent. In North American, soot has reduced snow’s reflectivity by 3 percent.
This image shows the results of computer models of the impact of soot on global temperatures between 1880 and 2002. Soot has caused the greatest increase in temperature in the high northern la udes, as shown by the large swaths of red, orange, and gold across the top of this image.
In addition to its contribution to global warming, soot also speeds up melting of snow and ice, meaning it is probably partly responsible for the rapid decline in the world’s glaciers. Soot in the atmosphere causes regional haze that depresses plant (including crop) productivity, and it is a significant health hazard. For more on this story, read the GSFC press release.
How about this conclusion by Biology Cabinet, who used NASA research:
Global Tropospheric Temperature Deviations since the Medieval Age
By Nasif Nahle, Wendy Noriega and Adip Said
12 February 2006
Please note in the below graph that temperatures were higher about 950 AD than they were in 1998, and that CO2 did nothing in historical terms:
Please note in the below graph there is a correlation with solar irradiance to temperature and is well understood in the field of thermodynamics. CO2 as a greenhouse is not linear like solar radiation is. Past one 100 to 200 ppm of CO2, adding more CO2 does almost nothing.
Read the above link for understanding.
I also like the works of PHD Jeffrey A. Glassman:
INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE
CO2: "WHY ME?"
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2
SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT OF EL NIÑO
I've come to the conclusion that human beings do, in fact, affect the climate, as do livestock, termites, and every living creature on earth.
Even a single butterfly can affect a complex system like climate in ways we don't understand --> Butterfly Effect
What I don't buy into is the notion of catastrophic global warming, or, "climate change", whereby certain "tipping points" are reached and Manhattan ends up under water.
By the way, climate does CHANGE. Always has -- always will -- even after humans are long gone, climate will continue to change.
Goooooood day.
So just by SCANNING that article you posted, I found this:
So we can believe some of what he says, but not all of it I take it? And I enjoyed how you excised that from your quotes.Hansen cautioned, although the role of soot in altering global climate is substantial, it does not alter the fact greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate warming during the past century.
why do you keep calling me names?
The WC MantraThere's no need to be an expert.
Is that why we (the collective we as in scientists who study this stuff for a living) still don't understand it fully?The sciences involved are simple to understand.
I am not. My goal was to not let you off the hook in posting an article that you claimed you would have no trouble finding.Apparently, you are lying about your knowledge.
Maybe this is a silly question, but how is soot produced? Are there naturally occurring black carbon particles?
Enjoy as you wish. Remember, I explained Hansen is an alarmist. He is the one responsible for falsifying the NASA/NOAA temperature data that has since been corrected. He has an agenda.
Because you annoy me. If you had a scientific background, you would come to your own conclusions based on the data, rather than believing those who you agree with. Show me you understand the sciences, else I will continue to belittle you for saying you did.
Just how many real scientists do understand and maintain that man is the cause of global warming? It's very few now. Maybe 1% as many as the 30,000+ I linked earlier.
I know that. That's why I hesitated. Like I said, no matter what I post, you will discount it. You are wasting my time unless you can give me a scientific reason to discount it. Not someone else's talking points.
There are some, but it is primarily from burning of wood, oil, etc. I have repeatedly said in past threads that it is the only measurable cause for anthropogenic warming. In the 1970's, we implemented the Clean Air Act. We started putting scrubbers on our soot emitting factories and power plants. What we have in the norther ice is from Asia, who doesn't use clean burning technologies like we do. It is being carried by the winds, melting the norther ice. It is causing warming, and the ice is melting. It is not melting from increased CO2 in the air.
And it's funny that liberals are always wanting to "Save the Planet." Mother Earth will still be here after we are long gone. Shouldn't we worry about ourselves?
Hansen's work cannot be trusted, only the raw data he uses can. Consider this:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
August 2007 Update and Effects
Then why did you use that article?
How do you know what I believe?Because you annoy me. If you had a scientific background, you would come to your own conclusions based on the data, rather than believing those who you agree with.
You're belittling me?Show me you understand the sciences, else I will continue to belittle you for saying you did.
Just how many real scientists do understand and maintain that man is the cause of global warming? It's very few now. Maybe 1% as many as the 30,000+ I linked earlier.I would ask for any source on that 1% of 30,000 but I know you don't have one.
I didn't discount that last one. In fact, it looks pretty good to me.I know that. That's why I hesitated. Like I said, no matter what I post, you will discount it.
I can't and won't.You are wasting my time unless you can give me a scientific reason to discount it.
Have I been using someone else's talking points?Not someone else's talking points.
You probably should've found a better article then. One that doesn't include "Hansen cautioned, although the role of soot in altering global climate is substantial, it does not alter the fact greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate warming during the past century" or "black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century". I wonder what makes up the other 75%.There are some, but it is primarily from burning of wood, oil, etc. I have repeatedly said in past threads that it is the only measurable cause for anthropogenic warming. In the 1970's, we implemented the Clean Air Act. We started putting scrubbers on our soot emitting factories and power plants. What we have in the norther ice is from Asia, who doesn't use clean burning technologies like we do. It is being carried by the winds, melting the norther ice. It is causing warming, and the ice is melting. It is not melting from increased CO2 in the air.
I had no choice that he was a coauthor of the article now, did I.
Yes, I'm belittling you. How do I know what you believe? I have a pretty good guess by the way you proceeded.
You're right, I don't have one. I did say "maybe." It is my opinion.
Tell me. Is there a 30,000 pe ion of scientists who have signed a pe ion believing in anthropogenic global warming doe to CO2? The closest you'll find is the IPCC report that had most the scientists involved abandon the project. Several have had their names removed from the project that were cited. I think only a few dozen believe in the IPCC report that were involved.
Dr. Glassman does some fine work.
I didn't think you could. I understand all of the concepts with the sciences I learned in High School. I keep forgetting schools today aren't the same as they used to be.
Maybe not, but then why do you believe in CO2 causing warming?
I guess it's a matter of knowing how to parse data. The article acknowledges a significant portion of heating due to black carbon. As for the remaining warming, thermal equations bear out that the sun is the primary contributor to global warming. It has increased by a little over 0.01% over the last century, resulting in a minimum thermal increase of 0.3 Celsius. CO2 still has a small effect, but very small. This is the hardest to quantify. It would only be 0.125 C if CO2 accounts for 12% of the greenhouse effect. I base that on the formula K=(p*0.0555)ln(P+1) where K is the greenhouse temperature rise in Kelvin (or Celsius), P is CO2 in ppm, and lower case p is the percent of the greenhouse gas. This is assuming the greenhouse effect is 33 degrees at 383 ppm, therefore 12% of 33 is 3.96 degrees of warming at 383 ppm. 1900 = 320 ppm and 2000 = 383 ppm. If you want to believe that CO2 accounts for 26% of the greenhouse effect, then the delta T would then be 0.261 K. Just over 1/4 degree increase. You see, greenhouse gases, because of how they interact with spectral energy, are logarithmic. The curves look like this:
If you extend that out all the way to 5000 ppm (5% CO2) then you get this:
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-02-2009 at 02:42 PM.
Does that mean this is the only unbiased article you could find?
You're calling me a liar. I'm not sure that's "belittling".Yes, I'm belittling you.
Ok why don't you lay out what you think I believe if you're so sure you know.How do I know what you believe? I have a pretty good guess by the way you proceeded.
That's not how you used the word maybe. You used it as a qualifier for your 1% guess. The maybe in your sentence was meant to give you some deviation from 1%. I'd challenge you to find do entation of between .2% and 4% of 30,000 but I know you can't.You're right, I don't have one. I did say "maybe." It is my opinion.
I dunnoTell me. Is there a 30,000 pe ion of scientists who have signed a pe ion believing in anthropogenic global warming doe to CO2?
And you can prove this right?The closest you'll find is the IPCC report that had most the scientists involved abandon the project. Several have had their names removed from the project that were cited. I think only a few dozen believe in the IPCC report that were involved.
Sounds jewish.Dr. Glassman does some fine work.
Didn't want to.I didn't think you could.
Are you saying you can disprove what you were so happy to show me as proof?I understand all of the concepts with the sciences I learned in High School. I keep forgetting schools today aren't the same as they used to be.
I believe it has a hand in it (whoops I helped you out) based on scientific data I saw in college.Maybe not, but then why do you believe in CO2 causing warming?
Mostly anthropogenicI guess it's a matter of knowing how to parse data. The article acknowledges a significant portion of heating due to black carbon.
Oh averages. They get us all into trouble when trying to prove global "warming" exists or doesn't.As for the remaining warming, thermal equations bear out that the sun is the primary contributor to global warming. It has increased by a little over 0.01% over the last century, resulting in a minimum thermal increase of 0.3 Celsius.
I thought this stuff was easy to understandCO2 still has a small effect, but very small. This is the hardest to quantify.
slow down their chief. Where are you getting these data points?It would only be 0.125 C if CO2 accounts for 12% of the greenhouse effect. I base that on the formula K=(p*0.0555)ln(P+1) where K is the greenhouse temperature rise in Kelvin (or Celsius), P is CO2 in ppm, and lower case p is the percent of the greenhouse gas. This is assuming the greenhouse effect is 33 degrees at 383 ppm, therefore 12% of 33 is 3.96 degrees. 1900 = 320 ppm and 2000 = 383 ppm. If you want to believe that CO2 accounts for 26% of the greenhouse effect, then the delta T would then be 0.261 K. Just over 1/4 degree increase. You see, greenhouse gases, because of how they interact with spectral energy, are logarithmic. The curves look like this:
If you extend that out all the way to 5000 ppm (5% CO2) then you get this:
Here's something else. Al Gore uses the worse case science he can find. That means he used the 26% CO2 Greenhouse effect. From wiki: Greenhouse GasThe chart he uses:When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26% [worse case 26%]
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%
My chart at 26% converting the Y axis to downward forcing in watts per meter has the identical curve:
Not at all. I'm just not going to look and look. I went strait to NASA because I know they have good data.
I'll just keep it simple that you believe in the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax.
That would take some serious research. All I know for certain is that 30,000 people have not stood up together proclaiming man is causing global warming. I cannot recall 3,000, or even 300. Can you show me 300?
I don't know where that data would be. I have listened to interviews bot at least two people who were initially on the IPCC science council, then left. One said he had to threaten a lawsuit to get his name removed. In the end, only a handful of climatologists did the final editing. The hundreds they claim is bull because most only had a had in compiling data.
Does that matter?
I say bull . I say you can't.
What? I'm just not doing anything important at the moment.
Black Carbon is mostly anthropogenic. Like I explained earlier, I agree with that. My claim is that it has the 2nd greatest global warming effect, behind solar irradiation changes. CO2 changes are probably in 3rd place.
Care to elaborate?
Quantifying it is tricky, but understanding the effect isn't. Quantifying CO2 is next to impossible for several reasons. The primary on in my opinion is the nature of the spectral absorption. Quantifying solar heat is simple linear math, and little remains when you account for it. The heat collected by black carbon is also linear. Thing with CO2 is what ever warming effect you get at 20 ppm, you don't double the heating until you reach about 400 ppm. The math is logarithmic, still mathematically simple, but again. Quantifying it isn't. Understanding it's nature has a simple truth. Doubling CO2 amounts to less than a 20% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2. Thing with the alarmists, is they ignore other factors and focus on CO2. The see the effect of a 0.7 C increase since the 1700's and attribute all of it to CO2. First of all, that would require CO2 to either have more than 26% of the greenhouse effect, or that there was only 240 ppm in 1700. So many other paleoclimate science facts they flat out ignore to make CO2 the culprit.
Everyone, even the alarmists agree, CO2 is logarithmic. I simply apply the formula to different stated opinions of the levels. It's just simple algebra.
I actually made a minor mistake comparing the two graphs. Can you spot it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
