Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.
Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.
The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.
The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.
One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.
Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.
The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.
The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.
The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.
One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.
Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.
The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.
Isn't it interesting that the US Standard Atmosphere accurately predicts the temperature from the ground up to the edge of the atmosphere without any greenhouse effect...and no fudge factor?
You have fallen for a hoax Ian...and you, like most people who fall for hoaxes believe that you are to intelligent to fall for a hoax, so you can't bring yourself to believe it...CO2 is irrelevant beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...The atmospheric temperature gradient is a product of mass/gravity/pressure...and further...the US standard atmosphere still remains the gold standard and has not changed in the slightest even after nearly half a century of so called greenhouse emissions.
It's a pity that you have so much invested in this hoax that to admit that you have fallen for it is to somehow admit to yourself that you aren't nearly as smart as you had thought that you were....
Being that it has never once been tested with temperature readings, I stand by the fact that GHGs don't warm up the planet. Adding heat to the surface has never ever been proven. Not one time. If it had, there'd be a friggin link that you all could post up that shows that adding CO2 will cause more heat. Any yet......................crickets. So excuse me while I simply say, you all are nuts and you follow no scientific methodology since you can't produce said experiment. PacMan is eaten.The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.
The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.
One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.
Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.
The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.
Isn't it interesting that the US Standard Atmosphere accurately predicts the temperature from the ground up to the edge of the atmosphere without any greenhouse effect...and no fudge factor?
You have fallen for a hoax Ian...and you, like most people who fall for hoaxes believe that you are to intelligent to fall for a hoax, so you can't bring yourself to believe it...CO2 is irrelevant beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...The atmospheric temperature gradient is a product of mass/gravity/pressure...and further...the US standard atmosphere still remains the gold standard and has not changed in the slightest even after nearly half a century of so called greenhouse emissions.
It's a pity that you have so much invested in this hoax that to admit that you have fallen for it is to somehow admit to yourself that you aren't nearly as smart as you had thought that you were....
You know, I am one of the few here that have openly supported your position that the atmosphere in our gravity field is the major framework for both temperature and weather. I have asked you on numerous occasions to expand your explanations but you refused.
The model you referenced is for dry air only as you already know but chose to hold back. It is a starting point, not the whole picture.
The surface point in the pathway of energy entering and leaving the terrestrial system is only important because we live there. total energy input always equals total energy output to a very close degree but there are many variations possible at any point along the path, due to local conditions like the Greenhouse Effect or larger energy transport systems like air circulation which is driven by gravity effects.
You are prone to focusing on one aspect and then ignoring everything else. The world, and the physics behind it are not that simple.
The earth has been warming and most of the ice melted and sea levels rose more than 100 meters...it wasn't due to CO2 and the fraction of a degree that is claimed to have happened in the past century certainly wasn't due to CO2.
Being that it has never once been tested with temperature readings, I stand by the fact that GHGs don't warm up the planet. Adding heat to the surface has never ever been proven. Not one time. If it had, there'd be a friggin link that you all could post up that shows that adding CO2 will cause more heat. Any yet......................crickets. So excuse me while I simply say, you all are nuts and you follow no scientific methodology since you can't produce said experiment. PacMan is eaten.The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.
The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.
One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.
Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.
The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.
Isn't it interesting that the US Standard Atmosphere accurately predicts the temperature from the ground up to the edge of the atmosphere without any greenhouse effect...and no fudge factor?
You have fallen for a hoax Ian...and you, like most people who fall for hoaxes believe that you are to intelligent to fall for a hoax, so you can't bring yourself to believe it...CO2 is irrelevant beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...The atmospheric temperature gradient is a product of mass/gravity/pressure...and further...the US standard atmosphere still remains the gold standard and has not changed in the slightest even after nearly half a century of so called greenhouse emissions.
It's a pity that you have so much invested in this hoax that to admit that you have fallen for it is to somehow admit to yourself that you aren't nearly as smart as you had thought that you were....
You know, I am one of the few here that have openly supported your position that the atmosphere in our gravity field is the major framework for both temperature and weather. I have asked you on numerous occasions to expand your explanations but you refused.
The model you referenced is for dry air only as you already know but chose to hold back. It is a starting point, not the whole picture.
The surface point in the pathway of energy entering and leaving the terrestrial system is only important because we live there. total energy input always equals total energy output to a very close degree but there are many variations possible at any point along the path, due to local conditions like the Greenhouse Effect or larger energy transport systems like air circulation which is driven by gravity effects.
You are prone to focusing on one aspect and then ignoring everything else. The world, and the physics behind it are not that simple.
You know, I am one of the few here that have openly supported your position that the atmosphere in our gravity field is the major framework for both temperature and weather. I have asked you on numerous occasions to expand your explanations but you refused.
The model you referenced is for dry air only as you already know but chose to hold back. It is a starting point, not the whole picture.
These early atmospheric scientists began this effort to model the atmosphere with the basic physics of gases and air known since the 1800's from the ideal gas law, 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's second law of motion (F=ma=mg), the physical chemistry of molecular weights, partial pressures of each gas, heat capacities of individual gases and air at both constant pressure and constant volume, the gravitational acceleration constant, barometric formulae, Boltzmann's constant, Avogadro's number, mean atmospheric molecular weights, number density of individual species, total number density, atmospheric mass density, mole volume, scale height, geopotential height of gravitational potential energy (PE), mean air-particle speed, mean free-path of air molecules, mean collision frequency, calculated speed of sound, dynamic viscosity, kinematic viscosity, coefficient of thermal conductivity, and on and on...
And never once used any "radiative forcing" from any IR-active greenhouse gases or any radiative calculations from any greenhouse gases whatsoever to produce an accurate 1-D model that could calculate Earth's entire pressure, mass density, temperature, and molecular-scale temperature as a function of geopotential altitude (geopotential height ~ geopotential altitude ~ gravitational potential energy (PE)) profile from the surface to the edge of space.
Fig. 3 from the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document below. Note the "Molecular-scale temperature is a function of the geopotential altitude." Thus, the kinetic temperature of the particular molecular masses and compositions of the atmosphere is a function of the geopotential height (which is the gravitational potential energy (PE) accumulated at that height) which adiabatically sets the pressure at that geopotential height. This is another way of saying temperature is a function ofatmospheric mass/gravity/pressure, which is exactly what the Maxwell atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure 33C greenhouse effect claims, not "radiative forcing" from greenhouse gases.
The entire US Standard Atmosphere physical model was derived from physical laws assuming a completely dry atmosphere without any water vapor (the so called primary greenhouse gas) or anynatural or man-made CO2 whatsoever (since CO2 at 0.03-0.04% contributes negligibly to atmospheric mass). It was only after the entire dry atmosphere model was finished that the average water vapor in Earth's atmosphere was added back in solely by changing one essentially constant parameter (on an annual & global basis):
the heat capacity of air at constant pressure (Cp) (on a global annual average basis)
of the atmosphere to calculate the tropospheric lapse rate, since water vapor has a high heat capacity more than double that of N2, O2, and CO2 (which are all lower and close to the same). This is the primary means (other than clouds) by which water vapor cools the Earth surface and atmosphere, since by the lapse rate equation
dT/dh = -g/Cp
where
dT = change in temperature
dh = change in altitude
g = gravitational acceleration constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure
the change in temperature dT is inversely related to a change in heat capacity (Cp). Note also that temperature T is a function of the constants gravity (g) and (Cp), and that neither g or Cp (within the temperature range of Earth's atmosphere) are a function of temperature (T).
Since water vapor increases heat capacity (Cp) in the lapse rate equation, it decreases the temperature (T) at any altitude (h) including the surface where (h) = 0, and decreases the lapse rate by half from the dry rate 9.8 C/km to the wet rate of 5 C/km if the atmosphere is fully saturated with water vapor.
The scientists involved with the US Standard Atmosphere calculated the global average lapse rate of 6.5 K/km on the basis of the known heat capacity constants of water vapor and measured global average water vapor concentrations, to calculate and confirm with observations that it is ~6.5 C/km, intermediate as expected between the dry and wet fully saturated adiabatic lapse rates, and thus this is the value used to calculate the global annual average temperature, pressure, and density profile of the Standard Atmosphere. We now know from weather balloon and satellite measurements that the global average total water vapor is quite constant, and there is little agreement about whether it has stayed the same or slightly increased or decreased over the past 35 years of the satellite era.
The tiny 0.03-0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere does not contribute in any significant way to atmospheric molecular mass, molecular density, partial pressures, heat capacity (Cp), etc., thus in the multiple versions of the US Standard Atmosphere models, the calculated CO2 effect on the atmospheric temperature was so negligible that the atmospheric scientists thereafter completely discarded CO2 from their model calculations of the atmosphere. The same potential effects were calculated for what is called today the "20 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2" methane; these atmospheric scientists found the mass contribution and heat capacity to the atmosphere from methane was far too negligible to consider, thus, it was also discarded from the model along with CO2.
The surface point in the pathway of energy entering and leaving the terrestrial system is only important because we live there. total energy input always equals total energy output to a very close degree but there are many variations possible at any point along the path, due to local conditions like the Greenhouse Effect or larger energy transport systems like air circulation which is driven by gravity effects.
You are prone to focusing on one aspect and then ignoring everything else. The world, and the physics behind it are not that simple.
The earth has been warming and most of the ice melted and sea levels rose more than 100 meters...it wasn't due to CO2 and the fraction of a degree that is claimed to have happened in the past century certainly wasn't due to CO2.
Let's try this again.
What do you believe is causing it?
The earth has been warming and most of the ice melted and sea levels rose more than 100 meters...it wasn't due to CO2 and the fraction of a degree that is claimed to have happened in the past century certainly wasn't due to CO2.
Let's try this again.
What do you believe is causing it?
I have already stated what I think over and over...the fact that you don't seem to be able to remember is just one more bit of evidence on the already massive pile that you are a lying piece of shit....
As I said...that great ball of fire in the sky...and the mass of our atmosphere combined with gravity....and the energy produced by the earth's own internal engines control, regulate, and determine our climate...CO2 is meaningless beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.
Interesting how you label any data that tends to show your errors as worthless without even a hint of evidence to support the charge.
Why don't you show us some data that uses as many proxies as did Shakun and Marcott but presents some different picture? Why don't you show us that the world hasn't warmed since 1880? Why don't you show us that the Arctic hasn't melted? Why don't you show us the Antarctic glacier flow rates haven't quintupled and that the WAIS hasn't irreversibly destabilized? Why don't you show us that the world's glaciers aren't disappearing? Why don't you show us that the ocean's heat content hasn't increased by septillions of joules in the last two or three decades?
Eh? Why?
I believe that is an accurate representation of the data analyzed and collected by Shakun and Marcotte, by Hadley and showing the IPCC's A1B scenario. I believe (with good reason) that Shakun's and Marcotte's work are the two best temperature reconstructions of the Holocene assembled to date. Current temperatures are warmer than the Holocene Optimum. There is NO evidence that the Minoan or Roman warm period were global.
From Wiki
Roman Warm Period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD.[1] Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.[2]
Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation.[3] Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.[4]
The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis.[5] It was popularized by an article published in Nature in 1999.[6]
