the stuff does not boil instead it sublimates it goes from solid dry ice form directly to a gas at normal real world temp and pressure
It transform from solid directly to gas and some how that means there is no boiling point.
quote
that has nothing to do with how the gas behaves or how it absorbs and emits heat that makes it a greenhouse gas and is a ''look a squirrel '' attempt to misdirect
(1) Yet you just said it transitions from solid to gas with out a liquid state, You recognize that fact but can't see how it would presents a challenge to AGW....
quote
that has nothing to do with how the gas behaves or how it absorbs and emits heat that makes it a greenhouse gas and is a ''look a squirrel '' attempt to misdirect
(2) If how it absorbs and emits heat is irrelevant what properties make it a greenhouse gas. If it can not perform as claimed then it's contribution to the global greenhouse is "zero".
But nice squirrel but I'm more of a steak and lobster guy myself.....
Greenhouse effect of CO2 molecules measured directly for the first time ever, using laboratory instruments that measured the amount of heat energy that was being reflected back to the earth's surface from CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
The significance of this experiment is that it provided direct, empirical confirmation of the greenhouse effect of CO2, in a completely natural setting, to confirm what had already long ago been demonstrated in any number of laboratory experiments that were conducted with small samples of CO2-enriched air, confined in flasks or test tubes.
Here's a nine-minute video presentation on the evidence FOR anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. It's drawn from the most recent edition of the IPCC's periodic updates that describe the consensus among climate researchers, working all around the globe.
For anyone who would dismiss this brief video presentation as "sketchy" or "unsupported", here's the link that takes us behind the scenes, and puts us face-to-face with the very sizable technical report that is "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis", from the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Here's a couple of the more readable explanations of the Greenhouse Effect that are online:
That is theory. Show me the PROOF. Show me the study that PROVES the theory. Show me the independent verification of the original study. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.
Then show me how a tax on industrial countries will fix it. Maybe if we give all our money to the UN so we cannot afford anything other than walking then everything will be ok?
proof is easy to see in real time if you are not blind from fear or greed
the sun is currently in a low spot reduced output cycle in the past a dip in spot numbers had led to a drop in temperature look up the maulder minimum
but in the current cycle temps are up not just the air but ocean and land also and the sea-ice at the poles is dropping in area people who can see the problem realize the CO2 increase is why and the solution is to limit the CO2 output
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
post a link to a video demonstrating the claim instead articles and videos of people merely "restating" the claim. Even if their claim is based on experiments they (claim to) have witnessed, I would imagine those experiments would have to be so compelling that upon viewing - we would get it.
Does co2 absorb and emit heat deflect and reflect heat or is it passive All of the above?
If co2 as it applies to AGW has only 2 points of disagreement.
1) Is the human contribution of co2 causing a rise in global temperature. 2) Is co2 (as a greenhouse gas) capable of producing a global rise in temperature.
The answer to both of those have to be yes for our current efforts to affect global temperatures to even make sense. If either of those are NO, then curbing Human emission is not an effective answer or response.
You guys say that co2 has a cause and effect relation between IR and atmospheric/oceanic temperatures.
Not once has anyone posted proof of how co2 performs this cause and effect. No, what gets posted are articles and videos of people presenting information, measurements, etc AS IF the co2 cause and effect are undeniably true. To which I have irrationally requested - show me the co2 performing as claimed.
A very simple experiment would settle it .... Yet there is no video from either side of the argument.
2 jars 1 with co2 1 with plain old room quality air Drop in a thermometer in both jars Cap both of them off Sit them out side Watch the temperature Track it from sun up - sun down Track it again Sun down - sun up
The average temperature should remain higher in the co2 jar, after you adjust for internal psi, at every reading with no further influence beyond the sun, earth and wind...
This would be a simple and cheap experiment I can not believe no one has done it and the video is not already available.
You guys say that co2 has a cause and effect relation between IR and atmospheric/oceanic temperatures.
Not once has anyone posted proof of how co2 performs this cause and effect. No, what gets posted are articles and videos of people presenting information, measurements, etc AS IF the co2 cause and effect are undeniably true. To which I have irrationally requested - show me the co2 performing as claimed.
A very simple experiment would settle it .... Yet there is no video from either side of the argument.
2 jars 1 with co2 1 with plain old room quality air Drop in a thermometer in both jars Cap both of them off Sit them out side Watch the temperature Track it from sun up - sun down Track it again Sun down - sun up
The average temperature should remain higher in the co2 jar, after you adjust for internal psi, at every reading with no further influence beyond the sun, earth and wind...
This would be a simple and cheap experiment I can not believe no one has done it and the video is not already available.
Sounds like it's so simple you can disprove the relationship. Have at it and prove the science wrong!! You'll be a hero of the deniers.
I agree Rinse posted a vid a while back and I think I may have as well. Anyways there are lots of papers written about it, peer reviewed by scientists but you seem to know more, have at it.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-03-2017).]
There was 1 video that I came across on youtube. It featured 2 drinking cups. 1 with air and the other co2. But it did not demonstrate heat absorption or emission. It did show how placing c02 gas between an ir heat source and an ir camera reduces the visibility of the ir heat source.
The video presented the following problems for me
1. did not show co2 causing a temperature increase
2. to see the difference in ir visibility the camera had to be move so that the line of sight was through the top and bottom of the cup. the view through the sides of the cups were exactly the same and both blocked ir from the camera.
Had he simply left it on the desk and measured the temperature inside the cups, I would have accepted that. I'll post a link to the video when I located it again. Oddly it was among the first search return using my phone but no where when is searched from my pc.
Added : video found
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 01-03-2017).]
There was 1 video that I came across on youtube. It featured 2 drinking cups. 1 with air and the other co2. But it did not demonstrate heat absorption or emission. It did show how placing c02 gas between an ir heat source and an ir camera reduces the visibility of the ir heat source.
The video presented the following problems for me
1. did not show co2 causing a temperature increase
2. to see the difference in ir visibility the camera had to be move so that the line of sight was through the top and bottom of the cup. the view through the sides of the cups were exactly the same and both blocked ir from the camera.
Had he simply left it on the desk and measured the temperature inside the cups, I would have accepted that. I'll post a link to the video when I located it again. Oddly it was among the first search return using my phone but no where when is searched from my pc.
Princeton Environmental Institute (http://www.princeton.edu/pei/)
Princeton Environmental Institute, Grand Challenges program (http://www.princeton.edu/grandchallenges/)
NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory, GMD Carbon Cycle Gases Group (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/index.html). Access CO2 data and information on the NOAA greenhouse gas study program.
Scripps CO2 program and Ralph Keeling’s web site (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/home/index.php) Access CO2 data, view results, access biography of Charles David Keeling.
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/) Access data on fossil fuel combustion rates and other carbon cycle data.
NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Carbon Program (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/). View descriptions and data dealing with ocean carbon cycle research.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) Access reports giving authoritative information about global climate change
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-03-2017).]
2. Use the Search field at the top and enter "greenhouse effect demonstration"
3. Select from the YouTube videos that are retrieved. After two sponsored links (Ads), there are more than a dozen--and that's without using the Next Page function at the bottom to see even more. They range from just over a minute to less than 10 minutes of video. Here's one (just 3 minutes) from cable TV's well known episodic series, "The Mythbusters".
What is it about these YouTube video demonstrations of the greenhouse effect that leaves you with doubts or unanswered questions?
You seem to be "hung up" on the one aspect of this that no one else with any perspective or opinion about it even disputes: That CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases (starting with CH4 or methane) absorb more energy when they are illuminated with visible light and reemit more of that energy in the IR or thermal energy spectrum, than the other major natural molecules of the atmosphere, which are N2 and O2.
The underlying reason resides within the realm of quantum physics. It's about the difference, at the quantum level, between molecular bonds that are symmetric (O2, N2) and molecular bonds that are asymmetric (CO2, CH4). The asymmetric bonds have a magnetic moment and that is what causes these "greenhouse" molecules to absorb more energy from sunlight and reemit this energy in the IR or heat energy wavelengths.
Respecting the complexity of all of the natural systems and cycles that determine the earth's climate, there is no possibility that any laboratory experiment or series of laboratory experiments could ever prove (or disprove) the reality of man-made global warming. There has to be a collaboration, using different and independent lines of evidence, including many direct observations of the earth and its systems, from weather stations, satellites, subsurface ocean sensors and the like. The "laboratory" for climate researchers is no less than the entire planet and its atmosphere and exosphere.
I hope that this--from just a few posts back--did not go by you without your taking notice.
February 25, 2015
Greenhouse effect of CO2 molecules measured directly for the first time ever, using laboratory instruments that measured the amount of heat energy that was being reflected back to the earth's surface from CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
The significance of this experiment is that it provided direct, empirical confirmation of the greenhouse effect of CO2, in a completely natural setting, to confirm what had already long ago been demonstrated in any number of laboratory experiments that were conducted with small samples of CO2-enriched air, confined in flasks or test tubes.
Those 2 videos are intended support co2 related warming. Yet It visually offers more evidence to the contrary.
Look at what the camera is reporting : No increase in temperature (would occur w/absorption) No increase heat emission (re-radiated after absorption)
The camera is telling you that it can not see heat from the flame or hand when viewing through a wall of CO2.
This stupid video - again is another example
No it doesn't have CO2. It has ice water. Look at it. you can not see even a flicker of IR (heat) from his hand through that bowl. Unless you think his in missing a hand and merely supporting that bowl on a nub.....
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the colder ice water is absorbing heat. And it will continue to absorb heat until it's temperature is greater than the air temperature around it.
You guys and the sources you have linked to have all claimed that CO2
->O adsorbs Inferred radiation
-><-O adsorbs and re-emits Inferred radiation
Those videos support something that look more like Deflection and reflection.
-><- I O I <-->
Now if you're saying that CO2 is reflecting inferred back to it's source and therefor deflecting it from a straight path, I certainly agree with that idea. if it has the ability to deflect and/or reflect IR back to it's source then it becomes hard for me to accept that the blanked is biased as to where the heat IR comes from.
but in the current cycle temps are up not just the air but ocean and land also and the sea-ice at the poles is dropping in area people who can see the problem realize the CO2 increase is why and the solution is to limit the CO2 output
According to NASA most recent study....
"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.
the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers)."
"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.
the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers)."
your Oct. 7, 2014 report is two YEARS out of date as are the numbers that are even older climate is a moving target do try to keep up to date both poles are loosing ice do to the warmer oceans do to CO2
your Oct. 7, 2014 report is two YEARS out of date as are the numbers that are even older climate is a moving target do try to keep up to date both poles are loosing ice ...
Roger's may be, but a quick search produces stats from NASA as of 2016. Easy to find. You know this.
Liberals are a moving target. Always changing history.
Both Poles are gaining ice. It is a planet. Much bigger than you and I. Chill out, so to speak and have a beer.
No thanks I tried 2 of those and found no experiment that demonstrates the claim.
That's not to say one does not exist deep in that haystack.
Tell you what, It's your haystack and you claim there is a needle in there. Dive right on in there and pull it out for us.
I'll bet there is not one in there or you would have used it.
Nice try but you are the one saying you don't believe that C02 is causing warming which flies in the face of the science, it's your needle in the haystack of good science and I suspect your needle doesn't exist. You keep saying how easy it is to disprove so have at it, be a hero.
Why not face the fact that you nor I am an expert in climate science and the science is pretty involved. Paring it down to simple experiments can be helpful in understanding the basics but it takes years of data and the expertise to interpret the data to come to a consensus about such issues. Much like pretty much every major recognized scientific organization in the world has regarding this issue.
Average Arctic sea ice extent for November set a record low, reflecting unusually high air temperatures, winds from the south, and a warm ocean. Since October, Arctic ice extent has been more than two standard deviations lower than the long-term average. Antarctic sea ice extent quickly declined in November, also setting a record low for the month and tracking more than two standard deviations below average during the entire month. For the globe as a whole, sea ice cover was exceptionally low.
If this was the only indicator maybe it would be more debateable.
''SUNSPOTS VANISH, SPACE WEATHER CONTINUES: As 2017 begins, one thing is clear. Sunspots are vanishing. So far, the sunspot number has been zero almost every day: Jan. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. A close look at today's sun reveals no dark cores at all:
The increasingly-blank face of the sun is a herald of Solar Minimum. Sunspot numbers rise and fall with an ~11-year period, slowly oscillating between Solar Max and Solar Min. In 2017, the pendulum is swinging toward minimum.''
you are the one saying you don't be96thlieve that C02 is causing warming which flies in the face of the science, it's your needle in the haystack of good science and I suspect your needle doesn't exist. You keep saying how easy it is to disprove so have at it, be a hero.
You guys keep saying it's backed by science but the only evidence presented is someone else saying it's proven science. But where is the proven science. Thats what I keep asking about and it is not delivered.
Again the simplest question that scientist should be able to answer is
"Where is the observable absorption and emission of heat by co2."
Hell if it does it and it is proven , then showing it should not be an issue.
Throughout this long thread, co2 has been said to
Absorb ir heat Emitted ir heat Cause global atmospheric tempertures to rise Cause ocean temperatures to rise
So why is it that you guys can only produce drawings, animations and commentary about the science instead of the science itself.
If that proof existed you would have found it and it would be rhe first fact you toss at doubters.
I don't have to accept an unproven claim.
"Where is the observable absorption and emission of heat by co2."
It's that simple. I don't buy things without seeing them for myself. If you do, thats your right to do so.
But lets not bs anyone here. The proof just has not been shown.
The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.
“We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area,” says Feldman.
The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires.
That is an excerpt from a longer report.
"First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface"
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Climate researcher Judith Curry is resigning from her tenured post at Georgia Tech. Dr Curry has become well known for her longstanding skepticism that human activities are the most significant cause of recent and current global warming. This is an on--air interview with Tucker Carlson of FOX News.
Video is just under 5 minutes, plus a brief commercial advertisement that precedes the interview.
Published on Feb 27, 2015 These graphs show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth’s surface. The first graph shows C02 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of C02 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to C02 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity. The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. (Credit: Berkeley Lab)
The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever Mike van Biezen
It made sense. Knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that our industrialized world is adding a large amount of it to the atmosphere on a yearly basis, I accepted the premise that this would cause global temperatures to rise. But one day about 7 years ago, I looked at the ubiquitous graph showing the “global” temperature of the last 150 years and noticed something odd. It was subtle, and as I found out later, disguised so that it would be overlooked. There appeared to be a period of about 40 years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit. As a data analysis expert, I could not ignore that subtle hint and began to look into it a little more. Forty years is a long time, and while carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing exponentially over the same period, I could not overlook that this showed an unexpected shift in the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Thus I began to look into it a little further and here are some of the results 7 years later.
Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct. The global average temperature has increased since the 1980’s. Since the 1980’s glaciers around the world are receding and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980’s, especially during the summer months. The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980’s. The global warming community has exploited these facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures. But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data. VideoGlobal warming melting Tibetan glaciers
Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:
1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.
The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983. By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records. In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records. When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago. This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.
2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:
Starting at the end of 1978, satellites began to collect temperature data from around the globe. For the next 20 years, until 1998, the global average temperature remained unchanged in direct contradiction to the earth-bound weather station data, which indicated “unprecedented” temperature increases. In 1998 there was a strong El Nino year with high temperatures, which returned to pre-1998 levels until 2001. In 2001 there was a sudden jump in the global temperature of about 0.3 degrees centigrade which then remained at about that level for the next 14 years, with a very slight overall decrease in the global temperatures during that time.
3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:
If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing remarkable. For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100 years, including those found in Greenland. Comparing today’s temperatures to the 1980’s is like comparing our summer temperatures to those in April, rather than those of last summer. It is obvious why the global warming community does this, and very misleading (or deceiving).
4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:
Many places around the world experienced a quite significant and persistent cooling trend to the point where scientists began to wonder if the world was beginning to slide into a new ice age period. For example, Greenland experienced some of the coldest years in 120 years during the 1980’s, as was the case in many other places around the world. During that same 40-year period, the CO2 levels around the world increased by 17%, which is a very significant increase. If global temperatures decreased by such a significant amount over 40 years while atmospheric CO2 increased by such a large amount we can only reach two conclusions: 1. There must be a weak correlation, at best, between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, 2. There must be stronger factors driving climate and temperature than atmospheric CO2.
5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:
It has been shown that nighttime temperatures recorded by many weather stations have been artificially raised by the expulsion of radiant heat collected and stored during the daytime by concrete and brick structures such as houses, buildings, roads, and also cars. Since land area of cities and large towns containing these weather stations only make up a very small fraction of the total land area, this influence on global average temperature data is significant. Since the daytime and nighttime temperatures are combined to form an average, these artificially-raised nighttime temperatures skew the average data. When one only looks at daytime temperatures only from larger urban areas, the “drastic global warming” is no longer visible. (This can also be seen when looking at nearby rural area weather station data, which is more indicative of the true climate of that area).
6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:
Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching An Inconvenient Truth, higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around. Any college freshman chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is colder. That is why the CO2 level during the ice ages was so much lower than the levels today. That doesn’t take away the fact that we are artificially raising the atmospheric CO2 levels, but just because we do, that doesn’t mean that this will cause temperatures to increase in any significant way. The 40-year cooling period between 1940 and 1980 appear to support that premise. What we can conclude is that the ice ages were not caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2 levels and that other stronger factors were involved with these very large climate changes.
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2. It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth. That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.
8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:
Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced. But it is hard to convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval warm period. Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods during the last 10,000 years. There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder. The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline. Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter cold winters. The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our recent history.
9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years
The notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific basis. Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years. It is no secret that glaciers advanced to unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age. Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps saw their homes threatened and fields destroyed by these large ice masses. Pleas went out to local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance. Around 1850, the climate returned to more “normal” temperatures and the glaciers began to recede. But then between 1940 and 1980, as the temperatures declined again, most of the glaciers halted their retreat and began to expand again, until warmer weather at the end of the last century caused them to continue the retreat they started 150 years earlier. Furthermore, we now know that many of the glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago. As a case in point, there is a glacier to the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen Glacier. It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick. A Scandinavian research team bored ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist. It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist but have returned because of the onset of colder weather. Today’s temperatures are much lower than those that were predominant during the Holocene era as substantiated by studying the many cores that were dug from Greenland’s ice sheet.
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true. Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.
There are many more specific areas that I have researched and for which I have compiled data and presentation material, equally compelling regarding at exposing the fallacies of global warming. A new twist has swept the global warming movement lately, especially since they had to admit that their own data showed that there was a “hiatus” on the warming, as illustrated in the 2014 IPCC report; their data showed an actual cooling over the last 10 years. The new term: “climate change” is now taking over, such that unusual events of any kind, like the record snowfall in Boston, can be blamed on the burning of fossil fuels without offering any concrete scientific data as to how one could cause the other.
Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-11-2017).]
That was an impressive-looking column that was just posted by "the Moose".
If I were going to attempt a deeper dive on that one, I think I would start by using the attribution at the very end and seeing what I could come up with online using one of the online search engines. I tend to go with Google Advanced, as much out of habit, as for any solid reason. There is also Google Scholar but I have not used it much or hardly at all. I think I should try using it (Google Scholar) more often.
In other words, I would start my "dive" by online searching, based on this:
quote
Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science.
And here's a thought that is most especially directed towards Pennock's correspondent (I just like to say that) jmclemore
You keep saying that there is no direct or straightforward and convincing scientific observation or experiment that confirms what the "warming side" has long been asserting about the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth's atmosphere. The "greenhouse effect" of CO2.
This is the one report in a commonly referenced scientific journal that I think comes the closest to responding to your particular skepticism on this point:
TITLE OF JOURNAL ARTICLE Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
AUTHORS D. R. Feldman, W.D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Miawer and T. R. Shippert
FROM THE JOURNAL Nature (volume 519)
PUBLISHED ONLINE 25 February 2015
This article is what the journal Nature calls a "letter".
This is how the editors at Nature have condensed this letter:
quote
Model studies have been used to quantify the effects of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on infrared energy balance and thus climate over the past 200 years, but observational data are scarce. This paper presents empirical evidence for the effect of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on the Earth's surface energy balance. The increase in surface radiative forcing between the years 2000 and 2010 measured at two experimental sites is directly attributable to the 22 parts per million increase in atmospheric CO2 over that decade and tallies with model results.
You can also see the first paragraph (a long paragraph) of this article, online, at Nature. Access to the complete report is based on some monetary reimbursement. In other words, access to the full report is limited by a "pay wall". http://www.nature.com/natur...ure14240.html#access
I would use online searching, based on all of the information that I am posting here about the article, to try to find someone who has any kind of "beef" with this material that was published as a "letter" in the journal Nature. In other words, someone who says that they have debunked this particular report and explains why they think it is false or misleading.
Perhaps I will try this (searching) at some point. But the same option of online searching is also open for you.
Arctic Sea Ice extent: 12,892,000 Km2 (1,146,000 km2 below average, 124,000 km2 below last year's) Antarctic Sea Ice extent: 4,872,000 km2 (1,153,000 km2 below average, 1,132,000 km2 below last year's)
no spots on the sun but the ice is still melting
why ?
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
The whole point is that the Earth is ever changing...thats what its done for billions of years. Like everything it has ups and downs of everything. Florida was supposed to be under water by now by 'science' 15 years ago. It really hasnt changed at all as of today. My cousin lives right on a Tampa beach and her yard is the same as it was when she moved there years ago. An uncle lives on the ocean in Key West. His house and dock is still right where they always have been. Same for Manhattan Island. Running around yelling the end of the world is not doing anything.
The whole point is that the Earth is ever changing...thats what its done for billions of years. Like everything it has ups and downs of everything. Florida was supposed to be under water by now by 'science' 15 years ago. It really hasnt changed at all as of today. My cousin lives right on a Tampa beach and her yard is the same as it was when she moved there years ago. An uncle lives on the ocean in Key West. His house and dock is still right where they always have been. Same for Manhattan Island. Running around yelling the end of the world is not doing anything.
No the point is the earth is changing more quickly than expected and that the change is largely caused by man. These changes will have huge detrimental repercussions on man and the environment in the future. Sure plenty of old farts won't care cause they'll be dead and gone soon and denying that their children will have to pay for their misdeeds is a common practice. Kick the can, cover your eyes and raze the earth. No one ever said people weren't selfish.
Ok, so the Earth will be uninhabitable 500,000 years from now. Who cares. I certainly dont. Ya im selfish. Im only concerned with maybe the next 10 years tops. Go blame the inventor of the gas engine...he started it. Oh wait, he dont care either since he died in 1891.
No the point is the earth is changing more quickly than expected and that the change is largely caused by man. These changes will have huge detrimental repercussions on man and the environment in the future. Sure plenty of old farts won't care cause they'll be dead and gone soon and denying that their children will have to pay for their misdeeds is a common practice. Kick the can, cover your eyes and raze the earth. No one ever said people weren't selfish.
...oh really and "they" know exactly what to expect on how the earth is suppose to change?
...oh really and "they" know exactly what to expect on how the earth is suppose to change?
perhaps a bit better then the deniers who put beans in their ear and go la la la
why do you demand exact expectations ? knowing a volcano will erupt ''soon'' is science demands to ''know'' exactly when and exact total output and direction of the kill zone is voodoo
