A Measurement of CO2 Climate Forcing, and an estimation of it's increase.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 Truth - Inside Job
Next: Brain Locus as Radio Re: Precision definition of life versus nonlife Chapt 21 #255 Atom Totality #27 Brain Locus theory
From: Dawlish on 2 Aug 2010 02:56 On Aug 1, 11:20 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Aug 1, 2:39 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > > You seem to have trouble with the basic science. > > I expected many people on this forum would, that > > is why I included the following link in my original post: > > > To get a grip on global warming science, Here are some lectures > > recorded in a classroom at a world class university: > > >http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA75A0DDB89ACCD7 > > Roger, you can't say you weren't given an opportunity to make a > retraction. Best just to post the same thing again Roger. This particular stupid's stance is that he knows the answers and no-one else in climate science does. That makes him a prime stupid who has a special chair in the stupid seats. If the world ends up with 2C+ (always "if" from a sceptic) this particular stupid will still be saying "show me proof". Tell him to find a laboratory that is atmosphere sized and do the measurements in that - oh! we have one. It's called planet earth and all measurements show warming, all measurements show CO2 increasing continually, all the physics shows that CO2's radiative properties will cause atmospheric heating and this stupid still bleats for proof, whilst saying that it simply *cannot* be CO2 until he has that proof. That's delusion, not science. The trouble is Denk (and the stupids) could be right. The other trouble is that he's not a scientist, neither are they; so who would you back to be correct?
From: Benj on 2 Aug 2010 02:59 On Aug 1, 5:04 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > You seem to have trouble with the basic science. > I expected many people on this forum would, that > is why I included the following link in my original post: > > To get a grip on global warming science, Here are some lectures > recorded in a classroom at a world class university: > > http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA75A0DDB89ACCD7 The trouble with language and basic science is coming from you. Note the conclusions of the article: "We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate." Note that gases being considered include CH4, O3 as well as CFCs. I have already noted that if there is an anthropogenic link to climate change it is doubtless through things such as CH4 and CFCs and that ALSO includes the link to they decline of phytoplankton based upon Ozone degradation due to anthropogenic chemicals. Phytoplankton form the very bottom rung of the food chain hence of great importance and with dire consequences if disrupted. But you can't really "sell" clean air, can you? So all you propagandists keep pushing the lie that it is CO2 that needs to be "cap and trade" controlled. So your plan is to get very rich, live like kings for a few years, enjoy your wealth, and then die with the rest of us when your incompetent leadership destroys the planet, when you actually COULD have used these efforts to fix some of these problems instead of making yourselves rich. I really don't think that we, the rest of your victims, should allow you to get away with this scam. What is being "forced" here is the conclusion that everyone's energy bills need to be doubled to port money to you and yours. No need to drag out that old Video of the "climate science appreciation" class for non-science majors planning on being on the IPCC someday. Lots of nonsense things get said in classrooms in "major universities". Proves nothing but that politics exists inside as well as outside universities.
From: Benj on 2 Aug 2010 03:04 On Aug 1, 8:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Can you show us where the term "greenhouse gas" is defined? > > Here's some background for you from the American Institute of Physics > > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm > > Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases > http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html Ain't it great once you've got the leadership of a major organization in your pocket? The propaganda then knows no limits. I wonder why the membership isn't smart enough to figure out the way they've been scammed by their trusted leaders? The whole of science is getting a black eye by these guys and the physics sheep don't have a clue. Since AIP wishes to now engage in politics instead of science, I wonder why they've never polled their membership on "AGW"? Think they are afraid of the opinions they'd get?
From: Dawlish on 2 Aug 2010 07:54 On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, Tom P <werot...(a)freent.dd> wrote: > On 08/02/2010 12:20 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 2:39 pm, Roger Coppock<rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > >> You seem to have trouble with the basic science. > >> I expected many people on this forum would, that > >> is why I included the following link in my original post: > > >> To get a grip on global warming science, Here are some lectures > >> recorded in a classroom at a world class university: > > >>http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA75A0DDB89ACCD7 > > > Roger, you can't say you weren't given an opportunity to make a > > retraction. > > Read the first sentence in the Nature article again: > "The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, and > a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse > gases has been established" > > You could even try moving your lips at the same time. > > Now read this sentence: > > "Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from > variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation, which is a > measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the > gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect" > > Now try reading this sentence: > "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant > increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with > concerns over radiative forcing of climate." > > Get it? You are telling a prize stupid Tom; he won't get it, I can assure you. *>))
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2010 08:18
On 8/2/10 12:47 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > On Aug 1, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/1/10 6:59 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >> >>> On Aug 1, 4:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI) >>>> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ >> >>> Can you show us where the term "greenhouse gas" is defined? >> >> Here's some background for you from the American Institute of Physics >> >> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect >> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm >> >> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures& Greenhouse Gases >> http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html > > Did you know that there is no peer-reviewed and/or experimental > evidenc that CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? Easily fooled, are you? |