Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bama Reb

Suspended
Nov 2, 2005
14,446
0
0
On the lake and in the woods, AL
Global warming IS happening and to believe otherwise is that either delusional or a result of being severely uninformed/misinformed.
Whether global warming, cooling, or any other type of climatic or environmental changes are happening aren't even in the debate. The topic is whether Mankind is the primary cause and why, and what if anything can be done to reverse it.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,619
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Whether global warming, cooling, or any other type of climatic or environmental changes are happening aren't even in the debate. The topic is whether Mankind is the primary cause and why, and what if anything can be done to reverse it.
But probably 1/2 of the posts here deal with discrediting and/or debating whether it even exists.
Your second sentence is 100% correct.
 

Bama Reb

Suspended
Nov 2, 2005
14,446
0
0
On the lake and in the woods, AL
But probably 1/2 of the posts here deal with discrediting and/or debating whether it even exists.
Your second sentence is 100% correct.
Of course it exists, and has been since the beginning of time, long before mankind stood upright and built his own shelter. Naturally, how he was able to effect his climate and/or environment at that early stage is beyond me.
 

BamaFlum

Hall of Fame
Dec 11, 2002
7,176
1,609
287
53
S.A., TX, USA
Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Generally accepted catalyst for AGW was the industrial revolution when we started pumping copious quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. We were around 280ppm of CO2 at that time. At about 400ppm now.
But rising CO2 doesn't always mean rise in temps. Water vapor and solar activity have more to do with temperature variations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...issions-up-sharply-yet-temperatures-are-flat/
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

But rising CO2 doesn't always mean rise in temps. Water vapor and solar activity have more to do with temperature variations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...issions-up-sharply-yet-temperatures-are-flat/
Huh? Water is a more potent greenhouse gas, yes, but it's possible saturation in the atmosphere is capped by temperature. Adding another greenhouse gas that doesn't condense out like water has an obvious effect. CO2 is a potent GHG and the result of widespread emission has been understood for quite some time.

And the these small perturbations in solar activity do not explain the recent warming.

Also noted that Mr. Taylor is citing Dr. Spencer, who I mentioned earlier as behaving unethically on this matter.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,727
362
Mountainous Northern California
Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Huh? Water is a more potent greenhouse gas, yes, but it's possible saturation in the atmosphere is capped by temperature. Adding another greenhouse gas that doesn't condense out like water has an obvious effect. CO2 is a potent GHG and the result of widespread emission has been understood for quite some time.

And the these small perturbations in solar activity do not explain the recent warming.

Also noted that Mr. Taylor is citing Dr. Spencer, who I mentioned earlier as behaving unethically on this matter.
If you can't attack the science then by all means attack the person. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can you refute the science and not just the scientist?

As for water vapor, it is counted on in the positive feedback loop in many climate models that indicate catastrophic consequences and the most extreme outliers in temperature that scaremongers love to spout on about. CO2 has diminishing return on investment as a warming agent because the relationship is not linear. It is because of this LAW of diminishing returns as the concentration of a GHG increases that positive feedback mechanisms like water vapor are so important to the climate models' wild extreme increases in temperature. There is very little left in the capacity of CO2 as a GHG because it has reached close to 95% of its total possible warming effect. Water vapor in the form of clouds acts like a blanket at night and is heavily counted on in the extreme model predictions. As for solar activity, nothing to my knowledge has disproven its effects. In fact, research over many decades indicate it does have an effect. The most recent period of solar activity and measurements are a source of great controversy in the scientific community. I won't name any names, because they are probably all discredited and thoroughly debunked already.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

If you can't attack the science then by all means attack the person. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can you refute the science and not just the scientist?
I'm hung over and tired, so this is going to be ugly. Pardon the typos.

Roy Spencer has a deceptive graph he parrots constantly involving the model runs. He's basically lying his butt off. If that isn't unethical, I don't know what is. There's a good reason I named him as one I believe behaved unethically when you threw the goofball accusation at me that I believe it of al contrarian scientists.



This is an example of what I'm talking about. If you want the deceptive nature of the graph explained in detail, I'll be happy to do so at your request.

As for water vapor, it is counted on in the positive feedback loop in many climate models that indicate catastrophic consequences and the most extreme outliers in temperature that scaremongers love to spout on about.
Reference for this portion.

The best way to have a significant effect on water vapor is to somehow raise temperatures. There are many complexities with feedbacks discussed in the reference above. The point is that it is a feedback, because humidity is so strongly influenced by temperature, rather than by emissions.

As a GHG, I would estimate it's about 2x as important as CO2, but it's pretty much inhibited by temperatures. If you add a lot of wate into the atmosphere, it rains out, so humidity is maintained at and equilibrium. Therefore addingwater into the atmosphere don't have much effect on the total water vapor content. The best way to have a significant effect on water vapour is to raise temperatures. This is why water vapor is a feedback, and carbon dioxide as a forcing. Added carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere a long time, and contributes to a stronger greenhouse effect and higher temperatures. This tends to raise specific humidity, which increases water in the atmosphere as well, and that makes the greenhouse effect stronger again. Again, there are many complexities here. Try reading the above paper.

CO2 has diminishing return on investment as a warming agent because the relationship is not linear. It is because of this LAW of diminishing returns as the concentration of a GHG increases that positive feedback mechanisms like water vapor are so important to the climate models' wild extreme increases in temperature. There is very little left in the capacity of CO2 as a GHG because it has reached close to 95% of its total possible warming effect.
Reference. Also my own experience concerning spectrometers.

The Inference of substantial forcings for increasing CO2 is perfectly consistent with scientific LAW, thank you very much.. I'm well aware of the logarithmic nature concerning CO2's absorption characteristics. If you are are asserting that CO2 is not a potent GHG and further emissions are of little consequence, then that's an odd and frankly wrongheaded assertion. you are mixing up the effect of a single frequency of light with the effect on the whole spectrum.

The major effect of increasing concentrations of a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs thermal radiation, CO2, for instance, is to increase absorption in the shoulders or wings of the main absorption band. This is a basic detail of the transmission of light in a gas which should be covered in any decent text on the matter. CO2 absorbs strongly in one particular band, so pretty much all of that frequency is absorbed. Further increases of CO2 have negligible further effect on the absorption in the middle of that band. However, the width of the saturated band increases, as more and more frequencies shift from being marginally absorbed to mostly absorbed and the net effect of this is the basis for the logarithmic relation between density and temperature.

I find it hilarious when people try to minimize our emission and the nature of CO2. It's one of the most solidly established aspects of the whole problem!

Going to sleep. Rest of your post and more cleanup tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,727
362
Mountainous Northern California
Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

I am well aware of all the above. The alarmist models have not been accurate in forecasting or in replicating the past. They simple do a poor job and this has been well documented. Have they improved? To some degree, yes, but they still do a poor job. The true cause of all this hot air is obviously barn fans anyway.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

I am well aware of all the above. The alarmist models have not been accurate in forecasting or in replicating the past. They simple do a poor job and this has been well documented. Have they improved? To some degree, yes, but they still do a poor job.
Have they been 100% accurate? Certainly not. They're models after all. Still, they haven't been too terribly far off the mark.





There will never be a perfect model, but that's no reason to lie about them as Spencer is doing above.

The true cause of all this hot air is obviously barn fans anyway.
You're wrong. It's the methane from our cows. Get it right. ;)
 

BamaFlum

Hall of Fame
Dec 11, 2002
7,176
1,609
287
53
S.A., TX, USA
Those models are great to a certain extent but they are a very small sample size when it comes to the climate of the earth over long periods of time. At one point, the Arctic was a vast warm ocean. Whose to say the earth won't go back to that stage?
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Those models are great to a certain extent but they are a very small sample size when it comes to the climate of the earth over long periods of time. At one point, the Arctic was a vast warm ocean. Whose to say the earth won't go back to that stage?
Well it certainly wouldn't do that quickly. A change like that on a brief timescale would be catastrophic. Rapid ecological changes are what leads to extinction events.

It's not really important. Who cares what happens a million years from now if we could be causing problems in the near future?
 
Last edited:

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
26,511
20,450
337
Breaux Bridge, La
Well it certainly wouldn't do that quickly. A change like that on a brief timescale would be catastrophic. Rapid ecological changes are what leads to extinction events.

It's not really important. Who cares what happened a million years from now if we could be causing problems in the near future?
who said it's happening on a brief timescale? Geez....his point, is that the temperature fluctuates on the Earth and has for billions of years. We don't know what is normal and what isn't. Think of it this way.....

You see Auburn as a major player on the Football landscape....and a team that should be top-notch each and every year...

We see Auburn as a team that gets hot every now and then -- it's usually due to Man-made contributions....(maybe to a Church fund, for example)

But the football environment is supposed to be one where Auburn only has a good team once every 10-15 years.....that's the way its supposed to be......and when it has a good team more than once a decade.....everyone tends to freak out (see the Liberal Manifesto for more details)....

You see "Global Warming" like I see "Auburn Football" -- when the temperature gets too hot too fast, someone must be doing something that they aren't supposed to....

I see "Global Warming" like "Auburn Football" as well -- but my view is -- "maybe someone is doing something they aren't supposed to" or "maybe someone is manipulating the numbers to make it look like they are better than they really are"

I hope that helps.... ;)
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,258
5,930
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
who said it's happening on a brief timescale? Geez....his point, is that the temperature fluctuates on the Earth and has for billions of years. We don't know what is normal and what isn't.
He mentioned it in the context of the models, as if it was some sort of shortcoming on their part. The models generally don't deal with timescales thousands to millions of years into the future. For good reason.


Think of it this way.....

You see Auburn as a major player on the Football landscape....and a team that should be top-notch each and every year...

We see Auburn as a team that gets hot every now and then -- it's usually due to Man-made contributions....(maybe to a Church fund, for example)

But the football environment is supposed to be one where Auburn only has a good team once every 10-15 years.....that's the way its supposed to be......and when it has a good team more than once a decade.....everyone tends to freak out (see the Liberal Manifesto for more details)....

You see "Global Warming" like I see "Auburn Football" -- when the temperature gets too hot too fast, someone must be doing something that they aren't supposed to....

I see "Global Warming" like "Auburn Football" as well -- but my view is -- "maybe someone is doing something they aren't supposed to" or "maybe someone is manipulating the numbers to make it look like they are better than they really are"

I hope that helps.... ;)
Ha ha ha. :rolleyes:

Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,727
362
Mountainous Northern California
The models do ok from 1990 on. Does that mean you win? Or did time exist before 1990. I'm only interested because there are some memories I'd like to keep and others I'd like to forget....so I guess I'm not rooting for either way as it would be a wash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.