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.
Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.
Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979 Watts Up With That
UV exposure has increased over the last 30 years, but stabilized since the mid-1990s
The high latitudes of the southern hemisphere have seen ultraviolet exposure increase by as much as a quarter. The low latitudes have seen little increase, and the mid-and-high latitudes of the northern hemisphere have seen about a five percent increase. Though the size of UV wavelengths ranges from 290 to 400 nanometers, 305 nanometer UV is one of the most damaging wavelengths for humans. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Jay Herman
From NASA Goddard press release here
NASA scientists analyzing 30 years of satellite data have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most of the increase has occurred in the mid-and-high latitudes, and there’s been little or no increase in tropical regions.
The new analysis shows, for example, that at one line of latitude — 32.5 degrees — a line that runs through central Texas in the northern hemisphere and the country of Uruguay in the southern hemisphere, 305 nanometer UV levels have gone up by some 6 percent on average since 1979.
The primary culprit: decreasing levels of stratospheric ozone, a colorless gas that acts as Earth’s natural sunscreen by shielding the surface from damaging UV radiation.
The finding reinforces previous observations that show UV levels are stabilizing after countries began signing an international treaty that limited the emissions of ozone-depleting gases in 1987. The study also shows that increased cloudiness in the southern hemisphere over the 30-year period has impacted UV.
Marvelous. Debunking your arguement with an article from WUWT.
So, since the mid-90's the amount of UV reaching the earth's surface has decreased. Yet it continues to warm. Ah well, nice try, no brass ring.
Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979 Watts Up With That
UV exposure has increased over the last 30 years, but stabilized since the mid-1990s
The high latitudes of the southern hemisphere have seen ultraviolet exposure increase by as much as a quarter. The low latitudes have seen little increase, and the mid-and-high latitudes of the northern hemisphere have seen about a five percent increase. Though the size of UV wavelengths ranges from 290 to 400 nanometers, 305 nanometer UV is one of the most damaging wavelengths for humans. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Jay Herman
From NASA Goddard press release here
NASA scientists analyzing 30 years of satellite data have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most of the increase has occurred in the mid-and-high latitudes, and there’s been little or no increase in tropical regions.
The new analysis shows, for example, that at one line of latitude — 32.5 degrees — a line that runs through central Texas in the northern hemisphere and the country of Uruguay in the southern hemisphere, 305 nanometer UV levels have gone up by some 6 percent on average since 1979.
The primary culprit: decreasing levels of stratospheric ozone, a colorless gas that acts as Earth’s natural sunscreen by shielding the surface from damaging UV radiation.
The finding reinforces previous observations that show UV levels are stabilizing after countries began signing an international treaty that limited the emissions of ozone-depleting gases in 1987. The study also shows that increased cloudiness in the southern hemisphere over the 30-year period has impacted UV.
Marvelous. Debunking your arguement with an article from WUWT.
So, since the mid-90's the amount of UV reaching the earth's surface has decreased. Yet it continues to warm. Ah well, nice try, no brass ring.
Westwall, you just said the IR gets absorbed. Hence it warms the oceans. So where's the problem? Conservation of energy may not be denied. If the energy passes into the oceans, it warms the oceans.
You seem to be implying that the energy in the IR vanishes after it strikes the oceans. If that's not your claim, please tell us where you think the IR energy goes after it penetrates the ocean. It's actually somewhat of a complicated situation, but I'd like to see how far you've thought this through before I go further, and which particular bad science you're latching on to.
Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting itFor about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.
OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.
The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.
It's as simple as that. They are not credible.
Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.
It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.
Good day.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?
First off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.
Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.
Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.
Well, let us present how the physicists address it.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
No sense in re-inventing the wheel.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.
..................................................................................................................................
The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experiments over a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars, Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of F 50o, 5.50, and 7°C km-, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence and order of magnitude of the
predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3). Data now being collected by spacecraft at Venus and Mars (12) will permit more precise analyses of radiative and dynamical
mechanisms that affect greenhouse warming.
Dr. James Hansen is probably the most respected atmospheric physicist on earth at present.
James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[1] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[2]
From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
He currently directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[3] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.
James Edward Hansen
Born March 29, 1941 (age 73)
Denison, Iowa, U.S.
Fields Atmospheric physics
Institutions Columbia University
Alma mater University of Iowa
Thesis The atmosphere of Venus : a dust insulation model (1967)
Known for Radiative transfer, Planetary atmospheres,
Climate models
Influences James Van Allen
Notable awards Klopsteg Memorial Award (2011)
United States National Academy of Sciences
Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal
Westwall, you just said the IR gets absorbed. Hence it warms the oceans. So where's the problem? Conservation of energy may not be denied. If the energy passes into the oceans, it warms the oceans.
You seem to be implying that the energy in the IR vanishes after it strikes the oceans. If that's not your claim, please tell us where you think the IR energy goes after it penetrates the ocean. It's actually somewhat of a complicated situation, but I'd like to see how far you've thought this through before I go further, and which particular bad science you're latching on to.
Well, let us present how the physicists address it.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
No sense in re-inventing the wheel.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.
..................................................................................................................................
The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experiments over a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars, Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of F 50o, 5.50, and 7°C km-, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence and order of magnitude of the
predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3). Data now being collected by spacecraft at Venus and Mars (12) will permit more precise analyses of radiative and dynamical
mechanisms that affect greenhouse warming.
Dr. James Hansen is probably the most respected atmospheric physicist on earth at present.
James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[1] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[2]
From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
He currently directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[3] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.
James Edward Hansen
Born March 29, 1941 (age 73)
Denison, Iowa, U.S.
Fields Atmospheric physics
Institutions Columbia University
Alma mater University of Iowa
Thesis The atmosphere of Venus : a dust insulation model (1967)
Known for Radiative transfer, Planetary atmospheres,
Climate models
Influences James Van Allen
Notable awards Klopsteg Memorial Award (2011)
United States National Academy of Sciences
Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal
And you are STILL not addressing the facts I presented. Pull your head out of your ass and present something. This is the same tired old bullshit that doesn't address the facts of this theory and how it has failed.
GET WITH IT SILLY PERSON!
Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.
Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.
Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting itOK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.
The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.
It's as simple as that. They are not credible.
Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.
It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.
Good day.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?
First off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.
So that's what it comes down to. There are no climate scientists whose judgment can be trusted, and the thousands who agree with global climate change are all charlatans. Sure thing buddy. I didn't expect a rational answer to my questions anyway, but I did give you a fair chance. Keep that tinfoil hat tight, and you should be OK at least until the FEMA prisons are opened.
Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.
Wait. I thought your stupid "Theory" was the atmosphere was heating the deep ocean....which is it?
No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory." Period. Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models. EVERYTHING. Come back when you actually have some real data.
You do know what "data" is...right?
Since you're so sure you know what it is, why didn't you post any?
If the data is there to show CO2 does not cause the problem, it should be simple enough to find it.
worst co2 in the world ... China
Well, let us present how the physicists address it.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
No sense in re-inventing the wheel.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.
..................................................................................................................................
The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experiments over a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars, Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of F 50o, 5.50, and 7°C km-, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence and order of magnitude of the
predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3). Data now being collected by spacecraft at Venus and Mars (12) will permit more precise analyses of radiative and dynamical
mechanisms that affect greenhouse warming.
Dr. James Hansen is probably the most respected atmospheric physicist on earth at present.
James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[1] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[2]
From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
He currently directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[3] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.
James Edward Hansen
Born March 29, 1941 (age 73)
Denison, Iowa, U.S.
Fields Atmospheric physics
Institutions Columbia University
Alma mater University of Iowa
Thesis The atmosphere of Venus : a dust insulation model (1967)
Known for Radiative transfer, Planetary atmospheres,
Climate models
Influences James Van Allen
Notable awards Klopsteg Memorial Award (2011)
United States National Academy of Sciences
Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal
And you are STILL not addressing the facts I presented. Pull your head out of your ass and present something. This is the same tired old bullshit that doesn't address the facts of this theory and how it has failed.
GET WITH IT SILLY PERSON!
They NEVER address facts!
Climategate should have ended the Cult, but they carry on as if it was never revealed that they alter data to fit their theory.
They've never once addressed any facts and never can and never will
