Page 5 of 228 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #41
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    you do realize that science has been known for nearly 200 years. right?
    Someone used a bottle with CO2 in it to measure how much it increased in a bottle. That was all that was figured out in that research. With 200 year old technology.

    Skeptics are not, and have not, argued that position is wrong. It is 1.1wm^2.

    The Theory, as you seem ignorant of, also states there will be a 3X increase of water vapor. It is right in the equation. I downloaded it from NASA and checked years ago. I can send you the file if I can find it. At nearing on 600ppm, The Theory says we should have an increase of 4.4mw^2 of warming.

    The argument is on the FEEDBACK.

    So, no, stop bringing up the 200 year old argument. That is not relevant, we all agree here.

    The disagreement is on the amount of feedback water vapor will have. Sorry for the confusion, but do try and keep up.

    The result is, the models, using a feedback of 3X, result in far more warming than we would see in reality. Hence, the chart way above that shows exactly that. Models far exceeding reality.

    The bit from Lindzen above shows there is a negative feedback, not a positive one.

    CO2 is still looking to bring in 1.1wm^2 of warming - but instead of the net resulting in 4.4wm^2, we are looking at less than 1wm^2.

    Got it? I can explain further, but lets see if you get this point understood to begin with.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #42
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    What is your metric for this assertion?

    How does currently available data and research compare to other scientific knowns/unknowns?
    As a corollary, what needs to be demonstrated for the science to be "consensus"? We don't want goalposts on wheels, after all.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Someone used a bottle with CO2 in it to measure how much it increased in a bottle. That was all that was figured out in that research. With 200 year old technology.

    Skeptics are not, and have not, argued that position is wrong. It is 1.1wm^2.

    The Theory, as you seem ignorant of, also states there will be a 3X increase of water vapor. It is right in the equation. I downloaded it from NASA and checked years ago. I can send you the file if I can find it. At nearing on 600ppm, The Theory says we should have an increase of 4.4mw^2 of warming.

    The argument is on the FEEDBACK.

    So, no, stop bringing up the 200 year old argument. That is not relevant, we all agree here.

    The disagreement is on the amount of feedback water vapor will have. Sorry for the confusion, but do try and keep up.

    The result is, the models, using a feedback of 3X, result in far more warming than we would see in reality. Hence, the chart way above that shows exactly that. Models far exceeding reality.

    The bit from Lindzen above shows there is a negative feedback, not a positive one.

    CO2 is still looking to bring in 1.1wm^2 of warming - but instead of the net resulting in 4.4wm^2, we are looking at less than 1wm^2.

    Got it? I can explain further, but lets see if you get this point understood to begin with.
    oh, we are back to the models ....

    the models were wrong because the world cut its co2 emissions faster than the models had predicted we would, ergo there was less warming. when the models were recomputed with known co2 emissions ... they are right back in line.



    do you think in 200 years, someone might have repeated that experiment? how dumb do you think the worlds smartest chemists are exactly?
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #44
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    do you even read what you post?
    You obviously didn't read my reply.

    It is 160wm^2 reflected back into space from 390wm^2 or so input, and 120wm^2 reflected back down.

    That is both: a 40wm^2 difference and over 100 times more important than CO2, at 1.1wm^2

    Mid day clouds, as tracked across the tropics form and reflect sunlight when water gets above 85 degrees. Increased cloud DO form when cosmic radiation is higher - resulting in lower temperatures, far in excess of 1.1wm^2

    Still with me? Easy math here.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    As a corollary, what needs to be demonstrated for the science to be "consensus"? We don't want goalposts on wheels, after all.
    when no evidence presented fundamentally disagrees with the finding.

    yes, there is always more to be studies and we find oddities that seem to buck trends and do the opposite of things all the time. but when these are the minority, or are only in specialized cases where we know and understand why ... then we have a useful rule of science.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    You obviously didn't read my reply.

    It is 160wm^2 reflected back into space from 390wm^2 or so input, and 120wm^2 reflected back down.

    That is both: a 40wm^2 difference and over 100 times more important than CO2, at 1.1wm^2

    Mid day clouds, as tracked across the tropics form and reflect sunlight when water gets above 85 degrees. Increased cloud DO form when cosmic radiation is higher - resulting in lower temperatures, far in excess of 1.1wm^2

    Still with me? Easy math here.
    i trust the phds who wrote the paper, and the folks who confirmed there findings who wrote the paper.

    they found that clouds did both, and that significantly changing the cloud cover of the USA did not effect temps to any significant degree.

    if you want to become a world famous scientist and destroy global warming, you are free to submit your own paper.


    you are peddling a theory that is based on multiple levels of insanity.

    1. we don't know cosmic rays seed clouds
    2. we don't think cloud cover changes the temp of the earth that much
    3. we don't know that cosmic rays have been increasing or decreasing

    so your theory hinges on a bunch of things we don't know or believe to be false.

    meanwhile, we have models that predict and back compute known measurements that confirm that the warming is due to radiation effects due to carbon gases. and we know its not the sun. it also makes sense based on what we know of chemistry and physics. and we have verified directly these theories with orbital measurements.

    this is why your internet sleuthing, isn't winning you a Nobel prize any time soon.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 10-27-2017 at 02:29 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #47
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    oh, we are back to the models ....

    the models were wrong because the world cut its co2 emissions faster than the models had predicted we would, ergo there was less warming.
    No.

    The US cut CO2 output. China made up for that.



    It actually exceeded all but one level of estimation.

    The models are wrong because they ALL run hot. They use a feedback that is to high. Even if the skeptics are wrong, even if Lindzen is wrong - they ALL run high.

    You are wrong in this claim Gordon.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #48
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    if you want to become a world famous scientist and destroy global warming, you are free to submit your own paper.
    Lindzen already did for me, but thanks though.

    Same with CERN. Unless you don't believe CERN? They might be lying. Huh.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #49
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    you are peddling a theory that is based on multiple levels of insanity.

    1. we don't know cosmic rays seed clouds
    2. we don't think cloud cover changes the temp of the earth that much
    3. we don't know that cosmic rays have been increasing or decreasing
    https://press.cern/press-releases/20...strial-climate

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that the increase in aerosols and clouds since pre-industrial times represents one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate change5. CLOUD is designed to understand how new aerosol particles form and grow in the atmosphere, and their effect on clouds and climate.
    CLOUD also finds that ions from galactic cosmic rays strongly enhance the production rate of pure biogenic particles – by a factor 10-100 compared with particles without ions. This suggests that cosmic rays may have played a more important role in aerosol and cloud formation in pre-industrial times than in today’s polluted atmosphere.

    A paper published simultaneously in Science (Bianchi, F., et al. Science, doi 10.1126/ science.aad5456 (link is external), 2016) describes an observation of pure organic nucleation at the Jungfraujoch observatory by the same mechanism reported by CLOUD. The measurements did not involve CLOUD directly but most of the authors are also members of the CLOUD collaboration.

    “The observation of pure organic nucleation at the Jungfraujoch is very satisfying,” said Kirkby. “It confirms that the same process discovered by CLOUD in the laboratory also takes place in the atmosphere.”
    https://watchers.news/2017/05/13/int...m-and-climate/

    Data provided by the students of Earth to Sky Calculus and Dr. Tony Phillips of SpaceWeather.com show cosmic ray levels are intensifying, as the Solar Minimum approaches, with an approximately 13% increase since March 2015. This article provides a brief overview of some of the consequences for our planet, its climate and us.

    Today, May 13, 2017, marks the 34th day in 2017 that the Sun has been spotless. This exceeds the total number of spotless days in entire 2016 by 2.

    "The accelerating pace of spotlessness is a sign that Solar Minimum is approaching," Dr. Phillips explains, adding that forecasters expect the sunspot cycle to reach its nadir in 2019 - 2020.

    Although many people think Solar Minimum is boring, this is wrong, he says. "During the nadir of the sunspot cycle, the entire heliosphere changes its personality with many consequences for the space around our planet. One of the most important changes involves cosmic rays, high-energy radiation reaching Earth from deep space. As sunspot numbers decline, cosmic rays intensify."

    Intensifying cosmic rays
    1) Wrong
    2) Wrong
    3) Wrong

    I am going to be busy here for a bit. Feel free to do some counter research to your points.

    I found a big mistake in my stuff (well, I feel it is) and you might also.

    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #50
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Lindzen already did for me, but thanks though.
    Lindzen is retired, he's a professor emeritus. I guess the actual faculty at MIT are lying in your view.


    http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/...resident-trump
    Last edited by PBSteve; 10-27-2017 at 03:14 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

Posting Permissions

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