Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 801 to 850 of 850

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Something you dont seem to understand is that forecasting models are almost never right. They arent expected to be right and no professional in any forecast dependent field would ever make 100% forecast dependent decisions.

    Moreover, forecast models are rarely totally wrong either. They are a compilation of selected, necessarily and methodologically limited and certainly not comprehensive historical information and data which then is likely further modified throughout with adjustments, assumptions and and formulas, regressions, etc based on history and employ assumptions and proven rules to project forward. At some level they will very likely be getting something right and something wrong.

    Your own views of the future will also entail you making and applying historical data and experience you have encountered and then projecting it forward based on assumptions you are making. Any forecasts you make will almost certainly be wrong as well.
    Let me understand you correctly.

    You're admitting tropical cyclones were predicted to increase, and instead they decreased.

    Am I correct?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  2. #802

  3. #803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's a good resource for you MrCombust: http://www.pickyourown.org/CNALedmonton.htm
    My post was about cyclones. Predictions about them were wrong. Changing the topic isn't debunking my post.

    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.

    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    My post was about cyclones.
    Correction. Your post was about cyclones in a very select cherry-picked point of time.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Predictions about them were wrong.
    If you allow only the minute amount of data you've cherry picked, you're correct!

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Changing the cherrypicked IS debunking my post.
    yup, ftfy. Notice the small edit


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.
    too late
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    okay! Lets talk.

  5. #805
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's a good resource for you MrCombust: http://www.pickyourown.org/CNALedmonton.htm
    My post was about cyclones. Predictions about them were wrong. Changing the topic isn't debunking my post.

    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.

    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    do we want to talk about hurricanes next? probably not.

    not to insult the hurricanes along with the cyclones but we're probably just not ready to respond to your version of the TRUTH about hurricanes quite yet.

    at this point, we're simply overloaded and just can't handle the TRUTH.

    maybe we just need some time to take a break if you're willing to give us that. say for a couple of years?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #806

    Default The TRUTH about fake carbon credits.

    Ontario has created a fake financial product called "carbon credits". They will do nothing for the environment and are worthless except... companies will be forced to buy and trade them under the cap and trade rules.

    Alberta is next.

    https://business.financialpost.com/o...-can-feel-good

    "
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #807
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.

  8. #808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.
    You're absoluty right. Bankrupting all the businesess will reduce CO2 emissions.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  9. #809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Something you dont seem to understand is that forecasting models are almost never right. They arent expected to be right and no professional in any forecast dependent field would ever make 100% forecast dependent decisions.

    Moreover, forecast models are rarely totally wrong either. They are a compilation of selected, necessarily and methodologically limited and certainly not comprehensive historical information and data which then is likely further modified throughout with adjustments, assumptions and and formulas, regressions, etc based on history and employ assumptions and proven rules to project forward. At some level they will very likely be getting something right and something wrong.

    Your own views of the future will also entail you making and applying historical data and experience you have encountered and then projecting it forward based on assumptions you are making. Any forecasts you make will almost certainly be wrong as well.
    Let me understand you correctly.

    You're admitting tropical cyclones were predicted to increase, and instead they decreased.

    Am I correct?
    I have no idea what they were predicting. However I would bet that some parts of their modelling got some things right and some things wrong. Moreover in predicting within any complex system, timing is often wrong. Thats why sometimes longer term predictions often perform better than short term predictions.

    Also, say they got it all wrong. That just means they will have to go back to the drawing board and try again. Thats the nature of science vs ideology.

    The issue of climate change has been distilled down into some simplistic threats that may or may not materialize and may or may not occur according to current predictive timelines. However, there are thousands of models being worked on and a good number of them will yield predictions that cant match reality now but will slowly evolve into useful predictive tools.

    We lived for decades with poor local weather predictions and took them with a grain of salt. Nonetheless we didnt abandon the forecasts but instead stuck with the idea of continuous improvement in such forecasting and today they are far better at short term local weather forecasts.

  10. #810
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.
    You're absoluty right. Bankrupting all the businesess will reduce CO2 emissions.
    actually there are a number of jurisdictions that have demonstrated exactly the opposite. as scotland phased out the use of coal for electricity generation and home heating and the costs of electricity and natural gas rose to the point where they became unaffordable - effectively bankrupting them - people reverted to cutting and burning peat and drastically increased co2 emissions as a result (along with smog and air pollution).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #811

    Default

    This link below speaks to the issue. Seems pretty clear that their predictive capabilities are limited and they know it. The point is, they are trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t so they basically expect their models to be wrong in some or other fashion.


    Impacts – XIV – Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change 1 – The Science of Doom

    https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/09/24...mate-change-1/

  12. #812

    Default The TRUTH. All time, record high, temperatures recorded......

    here....

    .

    and here...…..

    Last edited by MrCombust; 22-07-2018 at 05:53 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #813
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    ^
    and youre going to tell us these are noteworthy and relevant because???
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #814

    Default The TRUTH. More weather stations recording "global" warming............

    These stations tell a story. the story that the scientists in charge of measuring temperature data WANT a warming trend in the record, and will do ANYTHING to see that there is one.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  15. #815
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,484

    Default

    ^
    if youre measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesnt matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    These stations tell a story. the story that the scientists in charge of measuring temperature data WANT a warming trend in the record, and will do ANYTHING to see that there is one.
    ...
    Please provide the installation dates associated with each photo.

    You conclude that their locations are chosen to increase the temperature record so you must have the dates available to you. Equipment would have been updated over the years but the locations could go back to the 1970s and so that would predate any great conspiracy to choose distorting locations. (I can’t imagine A/C installers would wish to locate their equipment to upwardly bias the data. Well, on the other hand maybe I’m wrong and maybe the A/C industry could actually want to conspire to get people to perceive rising temperatures. It might bring forward sales. Hmmmmm... sorry, I mean hummmm.


    I would imagine weather stations at airports have always been near tarmac, leaky hanger buildings, etc. Older hangers being leakier would have raised surrounding temperatures more. The heat island effect of an A/C unit would only be a few metres and would depend on wind direct but the effect would be towards an upward bias if it had an effect. The effect of tarmac would be quite vast.

    Similarly North America cities have increased physical mass and energy consumption and so related heat dissipation could have increased. This would be offset through dramatically increase in the cooling effect of the maturing forest canopy. Reductions in diesel and other particulates would be providing less heat absorbing material. ...
    Last edited by KC; 23-07-2018 at 08:28 PM.

  17. #817

    Default

    So Mr Combust is your main issue with CO2 causing rising temperatures or with whether there are even rising temperatures?

  18. #818

    Default

    Cold wave reveals potential benefits of urban heat islands -- ScienceDaily

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0723143002.htm

  19. #819

    Default The TRUTH. About the Holocene maximum

    In a previous post Michael Mann debates with skeptics in a video. In the video Michael Mann says it's hotter now than it has been in 10,000 years.

    But there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence about the Holocene maximum. A 3,000 year warm period that ended about 6,000 years ago. In that warm period there was a forest where the 1km thick Athabasca glacier now rests. Here's another paper with evidence Norway was 6 degrees warmer than present. Are all the scientists studying past geological warm periods wrong? Where's Michael Mann's evidence the Holocene maximum never happened? Climate change rests on a parallel universe that ignores known, past warm periods, and known natural variability. How do the climate scientists address all the evidence of past warm periods? They ignore them, and pretend they never happened.

    "The Holocene Thermal Maximum around Svalbard, Arctic North Atlantic; molluscs show early and exceptional warmth"

    "Shallow marine molluscs that are today extinct close to Svalbard, because of the cold climate, are found in deposits there dating to the early Holocene. The most warmth-demanding species found, Zirfaea crispata, currently has a northern limit 1000 km farther south, indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6C warmer at around 10.29.2 cal. ka BP, when this species lived there."

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  20. #820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    when confronted, just tune them out. La-La-La. Disappear for a few days. Pretend like it doesn't exist.


  21. #821

    Default The TRUTH. Another climate change lawsuit thrown out of court

    Seems climate change lawsuits don't pass the bar...……….


    In a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling regarding protestors' violations of an injunction against trespass on the property of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project, Judge Affleck flatly rejected a defence that climate change was a higher obligation than rule of law in the province. (Docket: S183541 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Mivasair, 2018 BCSC 1239)


    http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...18BCSC1239.htm
    Last edited by MrCombust; 01-08-2018 at 11:30 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #822
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Uh, I don't think you'll find anyone with a shred of common sense that would take issue with that decision. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual science of climate change.

  23. #823
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,696

    Default

    Trudeau is rolling back, he'll never meet his targets lol.. While McKenna realises, we don't want to kill business.. Duh!

  24. #824

    Default

    Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-war...ne-warm-period

  25. #825

    Default The TRUTH. Welcome to the Ordovician period......

    About 450 million years ago........................

    CO2 is 7,000 ppm. compare to 400ppm of today.
    Life is abundant and expands in diversity.
    Tragically, the period ends in a massive extinction event thought to be brought on by falling temperatures.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  26. #826
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Are you claiming that the sun's output and the Earth's orbit were identical half a billion years ago, relative to today?

  27. #827

    Default The TRUTH. about oil in the arctic

    Why is there oil in the arctic?

    Oil in the arctic comes from the extensive, and abundance of life that once was.

    For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise.

    Now we live in a frozen world. During short inter glacial periods, the ice melts and Toronto is NOT covered in 1km of ice.

    The earth is getting colder. In a geological time frame it will soon be a frozen ball.

    Maybe CO2 will slow the process. The advocates of "climate change" don't want that.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  28. #828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Why is there oil in the arctic?

    Oil in the arctic comes from the extensive, and abundance of life that once was.

    For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise.

    Now we live in a frozen world. During short inter glacial periods, the ice melts and Toronto is NOT covered in 1km of ice.

    The earth is getting colder. In a geological time frame it will soon be a frozen ball.

    Maybe CO2 will slow the process. The advocates of "climate change" don't want that.
    “For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise. “

    I’d say not the North Pole.

    But many would agree that Torontoians can be very cold people.



    Now you’ve got me curious as to when the arctic arrived in the north.
    Last edited by KC; 07-08-2018 at 09:57 AM.

  29. #829
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    He apparently doesn't know the difference between billions and millions, either. Complex life has only existed on the planet for half a billion years.

  30. #830
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Came across this blog post that shows just one of the many ways "skeptics" will cherry pick and skew data to suit their ends: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08...-i-sucker-you/

  31. #831

    Default The TRUTH. Skeptics and cherry picking

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Came across this blog post that shows just one of the many ways "skeptics" will cherry pick and skew data to suit their ends: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08...-i-sucker-you/
    You can tell advocates 100 times skeptics don't dispute the earth has warmed. I've said this in a number of my posts here. Same argument again, and again. Marcel and his liar blog endlessly knocking down a strawman of what I DIDN'T say.

    But when NOAA tricks you by fudging the data higher, it's "science"

    Last edited by MrCombust; 09-08-2018 at 01:59 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  32. #832
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?

  33. #833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?
    No, you don't respond to what I actually say. You seem unable to grasp simple concepts.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  34. #834
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    I <3 the irony in all your posts.

  35. #835
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?
    No, you don't respond to what I actually say. You seem unable to grasp simple concepts.
    Nah, I grasp them just fine. You specifically said "For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise. " That's a direct quote. I ask again, how could it have been a tropical paradise for billions of years when complex life has only existed for roughly half a billion? "Tropical paradise" indicates jungles and palm trees and so on, when it would have in fact been barren with only the most basic of single cell archaea present and an un-oxygenated atmosphere up until 500 million years ago. No plant life whatsoever.

  36. #836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?
    No, you don't respond to what I actually say. You seem unable to grasp simple concepts.
    Nah, I grasp them just fine. You specifically said "For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise. " That's a direct quote. I ask again, how could it have been a tropical paradise for billions of years when complex life has only existed for roughly half a billion? "Tropical paradise" indicates jungles and palm trees and so on, when it would have in fact been barren with only the most basic of single cell archaea present and an un-oxygenated atmosphere up until 500 million years ago. No plant life whatsoever.
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  37. #837
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    Nah, I'll just keep demonstrating from time to time how profoundly ignorant you are about pretty much everything in the hopes that eventually you'll give up and stop leaving steaming piles of it here. Now, as for "paleology": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paleology

    the study or knowledge of antiquities and especially prehistoric antiquities
    Swing and a miss! The word you were looking for was "paleontology". That basic spell check you used left you high and dry.

  38. #838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    Nah, I'll just keep demonstrating from time to time how profoundly ignorant you are about pretty much everything in the hopes that eventually you'll give up and stop leaving steaming piles of it here. Now, as for "paleology": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paleology

    the study or knowledge of antiquities and especially prehistoric antiquities
    Swing and a miss! The word you were looking for was "paleontology". That basic spell check you used left you high and dry.
    The simple concepts I'm referring to, that you don't understand, is that your spell checking, confusion about metaphores, and off topic corrections, in no way disputes my posts about climate change, nor does it prove I'm "profoundly ignorant". But yes, once again I'm embarrassed about trying to have an intelligent discussion with a climate advocate.

    And if spell checking is all you have to refute my posts I suppose I have my own little victory.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 10-08-2018 at 01:29 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  39. #839

    Default The TRUTH. Research paper on radiative forcing over Antarctica, CO2 may be causing cooling

    "The Greenhouse Effect with Increasing CO2 Is Cooling Antarctica
    A research paper by the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Germany presents a radiative analysis of the greenhouse effect over central Antarctica using measurements and models to shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative in central Antarctica. An increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space over central Antarctica, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. Increasing CO2 causes some warming only in the portion of the atmosphere (the troposphere) where temperatures decline with altitude so that the radiative emissions from CO2 at higher altitudes are less than at lower altitudes. But the average altitude of the ice surface of Antarctica (over land) is 2126 m, and the ice surface in East Antarctica reaches 4082 m, which puts it above the troposphere. There in the stratosphere, temperatures increase with altitude, so CO2 at higher altitudes emit more radiation, which can escape to space without being re-absorbed, than CO2 nearer the ice surface due to its lower temperature. The temperature trend at the South Pole from 1957 2013 is 0.03 0.12 C, or no significant temperature change. The most negative greenhouse effect occurs in autumn with its peak in March, which is also the season with the strongest surface cooling.

    From the paper......

    "
    In section 1.5 it has been demonstrated, that global warming during the last decades has not been proven to occur over the highest elevated areas of Antarctica. There are even indications, that parts of the continent might have experienced slight cooling."

    http://epic.awi.de/38614/1/BzPM_0692_2015.pdf


    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  40. #840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "The Greenhouse Effect with Increasing CO2 Is Cooling Antarctica
    A research paper by the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Germany presents a radiative analysis of the greenhouse effect over central Antarctica using measurements and models to shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative in central Antarctica. An increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space over central Antarctica, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. Increasing CO2 causes some warming only in the portion of the atmosphere (the troposphere) where temperatures decline with altitude so that the radiative emissions from CO2 at higher altitudes are less than at lower altitudes. But the average altitude of the ice surface of Antarctica (over land) is 2126 m, and the ice surface in East Antarctica reaches 4082 m, which puts it above the troposphere. There in the stratosphere, temperatures increase with altitude, so CO2 at higher altitudes emit more radiation, which can escape to space without being re-absorbed, than CO2 nearer the ice surface due to its lower temperature. The temperature trend at the South Pole from 1957 2013 is 0.03 0.12 C, or no significant temperature change. The most negative greenhouse effect occurs in autumn with its peak in March, which is also the season with the strongest surface cooling.

    From the paper......

    "
    In section 1.5 it has been demonstrated, that global warming during the last decades has not been proven to occur over the highest elevated areas of Antarctica. There are even indications, that parts of the continent might have experienced slight cooling."

    http://epic.awi.de/38614/1/BzPM_0692_2015.pdf


    Very interesting, thank you.

    You do realize though that the findings of the paper actually support the idea that the overall global result of the greenhouse effect is positive, i.e. it causes warming?

    Considering the global distribution of the GHE as determined from satellite (figure 2.5) and from the CMIP5 historical model runs (figure 2.27) confirms that negative values of GHE only occur over the East Antarctic ice sheet. This holds true for monthly and longer averages.

  41. #841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "The Greenhouse Effect with Increasing CO2 Is Cooling Antarctica
    A research paper by the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Germany presents a radiative analysis of the greenhouse effect over central Antarctica using measurements and models to shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative in central Antarctica. An increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space over central Antarctica, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. Increasing CO2 causes some warming only in the portion of the atmosphere (the troposphere) where temperatures decline with altitude so that the radiative emissions from CO2 at higher altitudes are less than at lower altitudes. But the average altitude of the ice surface of Antarctica (over land) is 2126 m, and the ice surface in East Antarctica reaches 4082 m, which puts it above the troposphere. There in the stratosphere, temperatures increase with altitude, so CO2 at higher altitudes emit more radiation, which can escape to space without being re-absorbed, than CO2 nearer the ice surface due to its lower temperature. The temperature trend at the South Pole from 1957 2013 is 0.03 0.12 C, or no significant temperature change. The most negative greenhouse effect occurs in autumn with its peak in March, which is also the season with the strongest surface cooling.

    From the paper......

    "
    In section 1.5 it has been demonstrated, that global warming during the last decades has not been proven to occur over the highest elevated areas of Antarctica. There are even indications, that parts of the continent might have experienced slight cooling."

    http://epic.awi.de/38614/1/BzPM_0692_2015.pdf


    Very interesting, thank you.

    You do realize though that the findings of the paper actually support the idea that the overall global result of the greenhouse effect is positive, i.e. it causes warming?

    Considering the global distribution of the GHE as determined from satellite (figure 2.5) and from the CMIP5 historical model runs (figure 2.27) confirms that negative values of GHE only occur over the East Antarctic ice sheet. This holds true for monthly and longer averages.
    Yes, I do. The tagline at the bottom of every one of my posts addresses climate sensitivity. It's basic climate science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  42. #842
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,838

    Default

    Well my belief about global warming is over population and the use of burning fossil fuels. The world is not flat and does not spin like a controlled top.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  43. #843

    Default

    The three types of people around:

    (a) global warming is a fake designed to increase immoral taxation through the carbon tax

    (b) global warming is real, but the carbon tax is against my human rights

    (c) global warming is real, but the carbon tax won't do anything about it and should therefore be abolished.

    All tax-evading politics, nothing else. Which kind are you?

    (PS. If you think not only that global warming is real but that something politically strong should be done about it, then you are a dangerous radical and are best *********.)

  44. #844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Well my belief about global warming is over population and the use of burning fossil fuels. The world is not flat and does not spin like a controlled top.
    What about the empirical evidence CO2 is enhancing plant growth all over the world? That's a result of burning fossil fuels. It's a fact, and it's not going away.

    But you're right, if global warming is happening, over population is the source of the problem. Over population is the source of just about every environmental problem.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  45. #845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    Nah, I'll just keep demonstrating from time to time how profoundly ignorant you are about pretty much everything in the hopes that eventually you'll give up and stop leaving steaming piles of it here. Now, as for "paleology": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paleology

    the study or knowledge of antiquities and especially prehistoric antiquities
    Swing and a miss! The word you were looking for was "paleontology". That basic spell check you used left you high and dry.
    if anything, any response just encourages him to respond with even more piles

  46. #846
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Yes, I do. The tagline at the bottom of every one of my posts addresses climate sensitivity. It's basic climate science.
    Your misquoted and out of context tagline?

  47. #847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Well my belief about global warming is over population and the use of burning fossil fuels. The world is not flat and does not spin like a controlled top.
    What about the empirical evidence CO2 is enhancing plant growth all over the world? That's a result of burning fossil fuels. It's a fact, and it's not going away.

    But you're right, if global warming is happening, over population is the source of the problem. Over population is the source of just about every environmental problem.
    Where’s this proof? Are you accepting this CO2 greenhouse growth effect idea but rejecting the CO2 greenhouse temperature effect idea?

  48. #848
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    The Last time the Globe warmed
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4


    Interesting video that gives insight on the many aspects of climate change, including the causes and effects, and goes into the geological record of how we know what happened.

  49. #849
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,838

    Default

    Good video. The host talks fast and obviously reading from a teleprompter but he makes sense.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  50. #850

    Default The TRUTH. Just another fraudulent climate change video

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    The Last time the Globe warmed
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4


    Interesting video that gives insight on the many aspects of climate change, including the causes and effects, and goes into the geological record of how we know what happened.
    Climate advocacy video. Host pretends and reports on a mountain of information from 56 millions of years ago. He can't stop talking about CO2 and blames just about everything that happened on climate change caused by CO2. Like most climate advocacy sales pitches they pretend to have far more certainty than is realistic given the sparce evidence.

    CO2 levels during the Ordovician period were much higher and the CO2 spike was very short while temperatures were high for 100,000's of thousands of years. Basic information like this is left out.

    And its not the last time the earth warmed. During the Eemain warm period, only 130,000 years ago (not 55 million), elephants and hippos roamed England.

    Another fraudulent climate change video.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 12-08-2018 at 09:58 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •