Papers Disprove Catastrophic Human-Induced Global Warming and Scientific “Consensus”

[bluestreak]

That's one factor, but it's much much hotter than the decreased distance allows for.

EDIT: bluestreak was first.

he's all yours,

 

[rioted]

..... the laws of thermodynamics,.......

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics, or is it just a phrase you use to give your ”arguments” a veneer of science? How does the heat from the sun get here by travelling through vast distances of near absolute zero temperatures? Surely, it is impossible for heat to move from the cold of space to the warmth of the planet??

 

[Crispy]

he's all yours,

Can't be bothered, I've tried before.
Yes, that means you win, bigfish

 

[laptop]

OK.

I give up too.

Bigfish is right.

There is no connection between climate change and carbon emissions.

There isn't even a greenhouse effect.

The Moon is kept cold by special invisible refrigerators.

The Sun is made of ferrite.

Word salad giraffe makes sense.

Huge cut-n-pastes from other bulletin boards are a sensible way of advancing the sum of human knowledge.

Cape Verde is a hotbed of sanity.

 

[DotCommunist]

you are a crackpot aren't you BigFish?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics, or is it just a phrase you use to give your ”arguments” a veneer of science? How does the heat from the sun get here by travelling through vast distances of near absolute zero temperatures? Surely, it is impossible for heat to move from the cold of space to the warmth of the planet??

Tut tut, your scientific knowledge is sadly out of date. Didn't you catch any of the changes brought about by the Fishean paradigm shift?

Surely you know that planets are hot or cold because of the degree to which ever-replenishable mineral reserves burn under their crust?

 

[ViolentPanda]

you are a crackpot aren't you BigFish?

That's rather harsh on defective crockery, dude.

 

[WouldBe]

Why is venus so hot?

Why is mars with a 95% CO2 atmosphere so (relatively) cold?

 

[Crispy]

Why is mars with a 95% CO2 atmosphere so (relatively) cold?

because that atmosphere is incredibly thin

 

[MikeMcc]

because that atmosphere is incredibly thin

And there is less illumination (inverse-square rule).

 

[Crispy]

yeah, that's the main reason of course.
mars' atmosphere hardly makes any difference really, there's not much of it.

 

[david dissadent]

What really really really pisses me off about the solar forcing argument.....


is it keeps a small candle of hope alive in me, that in a year or maybe 5 the sun will change its energy output back to what it was in 1800 and everything will go back to how it was.

I dont really believe it will, but the hope is there. I dont really think people understand how quickly things are going wrong.

I just deep down wish BigFish was right.

 

[fela fan]

I just deep down wish BigFish was right.

And that we could believe what we read in the media on the subject, instead of knowing that the writers are most likely following some agenda in writing what they write.

And maybe he is right david...! It's all way out of my league all this stuff, but i often wonder in this world of ours that is run by the dollar bill or pound note what bullshit is being spun for our consumption. In other words climate change is either true or it's to certain corporations' benefit for us to believe this to be the case.

 

[dash_two]

And that we could believe what we read in the media on the subject, instead of knowing that the writers are most likely following some agenda in writing what they write.

And maybe he is right david...! It's all way out of my league all this stuff, but i often wonder in this world of ours that is run by the dollar bill or pound note what bullshit is being spun for our consumption. In other words climate change is either true or it's to certain corporations' benefit for us to believe this to be the case.

Or it's to certain corporations' benefit for us not to believe this to be the case. I think the oil lobby has a bit more PR clout than the wind turbine lobby.

 

[Random]

I just deep down wish BigFish was right.

It seems to be that Bigfish is one of these Marxists who, like mainstream economists, don't want to admit that there are any limits to growth - they want to ignore the environment as a factor, and believe that resources are essentially infinite.

THis website claims that the Science and Public policy Institute was set up with a grant from Exxon-Mobil, by the way.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1310

 

[bigfish]

And that we could believe what we read in the media on the subject, instead of knowing that the writers are most likely following some agenda in writing what they write.

Peter Horrocks, head of BBC TV News, is getting a right royal roasting from readers who don't believe a word he's written over on The Editors BBC blog. In a piece called "No line" Horrocks rejects charges that the BBC promotes a partisan "line" on climate change. The responses from readers are generally quite critical, but this one struck me as pretty much on the money:

Dr Kevin Law wrote:
I have not laughed so much in years. Reading the above defence of 'no bias' towards championing climate change was hilarious. The BBC is the biggest cheerleader for climate change in the UK. It does this at so many levels. 1. It tends to report only the research that supports climate change. 2. Its idea of a balanced discussion is to have two supporters of climate change and no sceptics. BBC Breakfast is the worst offender of this. 3. It relates every weather event to climate change without any evidence at all. (The recent floods are an example). 4. It gives a platform to Climate Change advocates whilst seldom doing the same for sceptics. 5. It showed the Climate Change Concert in July all day and allowed pro climate change speakers to rant and rave on prime time TV without any attempt to put their views into perspective. 6. To my knowledge the BBC has never made a TV programme countering the claims made for climate change, but has made very many in favour. 7 It allows sometimes outrageous claims to be made by the pro-climate change lobby on the flimsiest of evidence without ever challenging such claims. All in all the BBC has no integrity in this area what so ever. I simply dont believe anything I hear from the BBC over climate change as i know they have an agenda and I suspect are acting as a propaganda arm of the Government. So much for impartiality and independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/08/no_line.html#commentsanchor

 

[bigfish]

OK.

I give up too.

Don't forget to switch the light off on your way out.

 

[smokedout]

Or it's to certain corporations' benefit for us not to believe this to be the case. I think the oil lobby has a bit more PR clout than the wind turbine lobby.

but probably not that much more clout than the nuclear power lobby

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The great thing is that nowadays, it doesn't matter what these thinktanks and pocket professors come up with so much; it's just FUD, and ineffective FUD at that.

 

[bigfish]

The great thing is that nowadays, it doesn't matter what these thinktanks and pocket professors come up with so much; it's just FUD, and ineffective FUD at that.

That's an excellent description of the IPCC and the so called climate science 'experts' it employs - well said!

 

[bigfish]

Erm, re-readiates heat? Isn't it reflection of attenuated infra-red radiation? Infra red radiation is not heat.

When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR radiation it causes an increase in the kinetic energy of the particles that form that molecule. Kinetic energy (or motion) causes the particles to emit heat, which in turn is transferred to other less hot regions of the molecule or to other systems of lower heat density. Thus, the radiative effect of C02 cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Contrary to what the IPCC models suggest, C02 in the stratosphere cannot warm the troposphere. The troposphere is dominated by water vapor, where the 2nd law also applies, since the temperature gradiant increases as we move toward the surface. In other words, nothing in the atmosphere can warm the surface radiatively.

No “greenhouse warming” signature is observed in reality

Source: HadAT2 radiosonde observations, from CCSP (2006), p116, fig. 5.7E.


Computer-predicted signature of greenhouse warming

Source: CCSP, 2006, p25, fig. 1.3​

Land and oceans radiate IR, atmospheric water vapor (and to a lesser extent C02) absorb IR, and by conduction and convection, heat is transferred to other atmospheric components such as oxygen and nitrogen. Radiation from the troposphere up is from all the components of the atmosphere, dominated by nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor. It’s a mistake to consider radiation on its own.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

 

[goldenecitrone]

OK.

I give up too.

Bigfish is right.

There is no connection between climate change and carbon emissions.

There isn't even a greenhouse effect.

The Moon is kept cold by special invisible refrigerators.

The Sun is made of ferrite.

Word salad giraffe makes sense.

Huge cut-n-pastes from other bulletin boards are a sensible way of advancing the sum of human knowledge.

Cape Verde is a hotbed of sanity.

Is that where they keep all the cheese? (-: Great thread. LOL.

 

[DotCommunist]

 

[Bob_the_lost]

When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR radiation it causes an increase in the kinetic energy of the particles that form that molecule. Kinetic energy (or motion) causes the particles to emit heat, which in turn is transferred to other less hot regions of the molecule or to other systems of lower heat density. Thus, the radiative effect of C02 cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Contrary to what the IPCC models suggest, C02 in the stratosphere cannot warm the troposphere. The troposphere is dominated by water vapor, where the 2nd law also applies, since the temperature gradiant increases as we move toward the surface. In other words, nothing in the atmosphere can warm the surface radiatively.

Particles cannot emit "heat", they can in turn radiate or transmit energy through collisions. Some of the radiation from the atmosphere will be absorbed by the earth. If you look at it as a system there's only three ways for heat to leave the atmosphere, radiation to the earth, conduction to the surface and radiation to space.

In other words you don't have a clue about physics. Note, i've stated this without refering to such stupid comments as "hot regions of the molecule" or "heat density".

 

[goldenecitrone]

I reckon he studied physics at the same place Jazzz learned all about architecture.

 

[dash_two]

In other words, nothing in the atmosphere can warm the surface radiatively.

So how come it gets colder at night when the sky is cloudless?

And how come the Earth is around 30C warmer than the Moon?

 

[Fruitloop]

I think Bigfish should explain again why fusion can't power the sun's energy output. That one had me chuckling all day.

 

[dash_two]

He is a big fish in a little pond among us credulous minnows. Presumably some thought like that inspired his choice of name.

 

[stdPikachu]

When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR radiation it causes an increase in the kinetic energy of the particles that form that molecule. Kinetic energy (or motion) causes the particles to emit heat, which in turn is transferred to other less hot regions of the molecule or to other systems of lower heat density. Thus, the radiative effect of C02 cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Contrary to what the IPCC models suggest, C02 in the stratosphere cannot warm the troposphere. The troposphere is dominated by water vapor, where the 2nd law also applies, since the temperature gradiant increases as we move toward the surface. In other words, nothing in the atmosphere can warm the surface radiatively.

So if the CO2 in the stratosphere is absorbing all of the energy from the sun, how come the ground is so warm? Is it just remnant bolognese sauce from the FSM? That would go *great* with the cheese from the moon, and I guess that puts the theory that the moon was formed from the proto-earth to rest.

The answer, of course, is that not all IR is absorbed on the first pass. No-one is saying that the atmosphere warms the surface radiatively, because it doesn't. IR that makes it through the various 'ospsheres hits the ground, some of it warms the ground, the rest is reflected.