China. The enviros are SO quiet when it comes to this country
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE
Wednesday, January 17, 9:00pm
"Shifting Nature" looks at China's environment. Included: how
industrialization and climate changes have led to unhealthy air,
pollution in rivers and water shortages; a solution that would involve
Three Gorges, the world's largest hydraulic project.
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
Rich why are hiding behind a bogus name
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE
I think the group name makes my position on global warmers clear.
BTW, professor, how much of your career now depends on the study and
support of the theory of global warming?
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RWPasken/index.html
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
Since you took the time to look up my website, did you take the time to
look at any of it? Probably not since you would not of tried to
intimidate me. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF RESEARCH IS INVOLVED WITH GLOBAL
WARMING. I AM A METEOROLOGIST NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST. I just look at data
and draw conclusions based on tested theory. You on the other hand
seem to start with a political position and a conclusion and then
scream rant and rave. Strange since in other groups you act completely
differently. I even posted in agreement with you.
Science Fraud Buster
rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> Rich why are hiding behind a bogus name
Tell us more about "Rich" hiding behind the bogus name.
Bawana
rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
> > rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> > > Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
> > > > PBS
> > > >
> > > > Wednesday, January 17, 9:00pm
> > > >
> > > > "Shifting Nature" looks at China's environment. Included: how
> > > > industrialization and climate changes have led to unhealthy air,
> > > > pollution in rivers and water shortages; a solution that would involve
> > > > Three Gorges, the world's largest hydraulic project.
> > >
> > > Rich why are hiding behind a bogus name
> >
> > I think the group name makes my position on global warmers clear.
> > BTW, professor, how much of your career now depends on the study and
> > support of the theory of global warming?
> > http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RWPasken/index.html
>
> Since you took the time to look up my website, did you take the time to
> look at any of it? Probably not since you would not of tried to
> intimidate me. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF RESEARCH IS INVOLVED WITH GLOBAL
> WARMING.
> I AM A METEOROLOGIST NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST.
> I just look at data
> and draw conclusions based on tested theory.
Give us just ONE tested theory that you draw conclusions from.
BTW
It nice to put a face to the poster.
So far, I only know what you and Tturd Packer look like.
Unlike the lardass from Emory, you seem normal.
Of course, you must have extra toes, or something.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You are wrong. We start with no real opinion on this and presuming that
the scientists that bring it forward have some validity with their
science and are not complete liars. Then as it becomes clear that the
proponents of AGW, have absolutely no actual science and ignore every
piece of valid data that contradicts the end conclusion they have
created and support, we understand that they are insane and dangerous.
The academics like yourself, are big wienies and never step on the toes
of another academic. Then you are so sedate in your fictitious world
where that public paycheck shows up with no doubt every week, you sit
around in your fantasies and imagine how many average people mightr
just have to die so the world may not suffer the imagined catastrophe
of AGW.
Fact: Full compliance with stated Kyoto goals would reduce CO2 increase
by far less than 1 part per million. Any thing less than the full 5%
reduction, such as the refusal of China to comply, significantly
reduces this amount of emisison reduction. If a professional scientist
like yourself believes that 5 parts in 10 million of CO2 in the
atmosphere will have any effect on climate, you should have your
accredation revoked.
Secondly. regardless of the fact that there may be indication of
warming, closest measurements indicate 1/2 deg., there is no
scientific demonstration of cause and effect from CO2 or other
'grenhouse' gases. This is despite the fact that supposedly highly
educated and intelligent 'scientists' like your self repeat such
things. This is pure foolishness. Any of the properties attributed to
CO2 could be demonstrated in the laboratory if they actually existed.
The theory of grenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere is pure fraud.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
steve....@nuclear.com
this morning -- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/13/154846/114
-- as it doesn't tend to support the claim that "enviros are SO quiet
when it comes to ... China"
"... China already uses U.S. inaction as an excuse for greatly
increasing its emissions, planning a new a coal plant every week for
decades. The U.S., in turn, will use this as further excuse for
inaction. In essence, the U.S. and China have a mutual suicide pact,
and look likely to take the rest of world along with them. ...
The author of the review, Gar Lipow, seems to qualify as one of the
"enviros" mentioned in the thread title.
I disagree with the reviewer's assessment of China's using USA inaction
as an excuse. China wants new power plants regardless of what USA
government does. In fact, the only thing that US government could
possibly do to significantly affect the # of coal plants built in China
is to make it cheaper to build other kinds of plants, either through
technology breakthroughs or direct subsidy.
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
kdt...@yahoo.com
Is that a threat, Lion Kuntz Santa Rosa, CA????
You must think you are AWFULLY impressive with your little computer and
your intimidation and threats for the sake of suppresing dissent of
your bogus AGW theory.
RRRRRRRRRnnnnnnndddndnnddndndnndndnndnndndnndndnnd.
Deatherage
Shadowland
"enviros are SO quiet when it comes to ... China"
Indeed they are....it's called "cowardice".
The Vicar
"Shadowland" <saint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168892405.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> "enviros are SO quiet when it comes to ... China"
>
> Indeed they are....it's called "cowardice".
WTF is an "enviro"?
>
Morton Davis
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:1168887252.7...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> The thread title prompts me to post excerpt from a book review I saw
> this morning -- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/13/154846/114
> -- as it doesn't tend to support the claim that "enviros are SO quiet
> when it comes to ... China"
>
> "... China already uses U.S. inaction as an excuse for greatly
> increasing its emissions, planning a new a coal plant every week for
> decades.
Credible CITE required.
Coffee in Madrid
"The Vicar" <whine...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kind of like a combination of words "virus" and "environmental". Its a
new "word game" invented by Bushkult fans, who know not what they know.
Bushkult fans are all committing suicide right now under the walls of
Baghdad.
Coffee in New Orleans
kdt...@yahoo.com
embezzlement), don't want to mention China because without China's
cooperation, and without destroying the US economy by 90% reduction of
emisions, they can only possible account for reducing emmisions in the
several parts per 100 millions. When people figure out these actual
numbers, they may understand what futility this is.
The only thing that will come out of restrictions is a bunch of money
extorted, economies demolished, people suffering and dying, BUT NO
ACTUAL REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS. They don't want people to know this.
It may infringe on the great profits they plan to make by screwing
everbodies life over for no valid scientific reason,
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
Coffee in New Orleans, Coffee in Phobiac hog heaven???
Hanson Sucked Death-Rag's Brown Turds
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The only thing that will come out of restrictions is a bunch of money
> extorted, economies demolished, people suffering and dying, BUT NO
> ACTUAL REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS.
Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...
> Deatherage
Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...
Jim E
"Shadowland" <saint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168892405.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Indeed they are....it's called "cowardice".
>
A well documented liberal trait.
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE
Sorry, knee-jerk reaction on my part as a result of a near-fascist
onslaught by global warmists who do not tolerate dissent. Stick around
here awhile and watch the global warming kooks and environuts expound.
They scream bloody murder about Exxon trying to protect its interests
but will say nothing about the vast contradiction that is the "fight"
against global warming.
Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones
"Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to
climate change...
Exxon Surrenders but Jim E keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon said
"Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to
climate change...
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create
Confusion
ExxonMobil Report
Read the Report
ExxonMobil Report (PDF)
Appendix C (PDF high resolution)
Appendix C (part 1)
Appendix C (part 2)
Appendix C (part 3)
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3-A new report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how
ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics,
as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the
scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the
issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16
million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations
that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists'
Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay
government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to
"Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil
company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has
* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific
evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance
of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change
contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest
for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal
policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of
individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors
that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate
change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance,
which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book
edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who
is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil.
Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate
change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is
affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.
Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not
changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13
scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper.
This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing
to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has
been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by
reputable climate scientists.
"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear
and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit,"
said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS
report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests,
ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent
groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about
global warming."
ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific
understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound
science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce
heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted
unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from
successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush
administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.
"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do
eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate
change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure
the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the
steps we take now and in the coming years."
The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last
century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though
solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions
while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our
national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate
change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful
action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.
"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation
campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and
Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior
on this issue is unacceptable and must change."
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE
steve....@nuclear.com wrote:
> The thread title prompts me to post excerpt from a book review I saw
> this morning -- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/13/154846/114
> -- as it doesn't tend to support the claim that "enviros are SO quiet
> when it comes to ... China"
>
> "... China already uses U.S. inaction as an excuse for greatly
> increasing its emissions, planning a new a coal plant every week for
> decades. The U.S., in turn, will use this as further excuse for
> inaction. In essence, the U.S. and China have a mutual suicide pact,
> and look likely to take the rest of world along with them. ...
Sigh, as usual, it's the Westerner's fault for the behaviour of the
totalitarians in the East. Tell us, has China ever really done
anything at the behest of the United States? Look up "trade deficit"
and floating currency.
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Secondly. regardless of the fact that there may be indication of
> warming, closest measurements indicate 1/2 deg., there is no
> scientific demonstration of cause and effect from CO2 or other
> 'grenhouse' gases. This is despite the fact that supposedly highly
> educated and intelligent 'scientists' like your self repeat such
> things. This is pure foolishness. Any of the properties attributed to
> CO2 could be demonstrated in the laboratory if they actually existed.
> The theory of grenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere is pure fraud.
>
> Deatherage
> CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
As I have posted before every freshman physics laboratory performs the
same experiments year after year. Every freshman who takes physics does
a lab that clearly demonstrates CO2 absorbs long wave ie infrared
radiation at wavelengths around 10 microns. 10 microns is the emission
wavelength of the earth.
The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of
an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and
the atmosphere.
The atmosphere emits radiation for the same reason the Sun does: each
has a finite temperature. So, just as one would
be warmer by sitting beside two fireplaces than one would have been if
one fireplace were extinguished, so, one is
warmer by receiving radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere than
one would be if there were no atmosphere. Curiously, the surface of the
Earth receives nearly twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it
does from the Sun. Even though the Sun is much hotter, it does not
cover nearly as much of the sky as does the atmosphere. A great deal
of radiation coming from the direction of the Sun does not add up to as
much energy as does the smaller portion of
radiation emitted by each portion of the atmosphere but now coming from
the whole sky. (It would take about 90,000 Suns to paper over the whole
sky).
So, it isn't even as if our atmosphere had only a minor influence on
the surface temperature; it has a profound one. In the absence of an
atmosphere the Earth would average about 30 Celsius degrees (about 50
Fahrenheit degrees) lower than it does at present. Life (as we now know
it) could not exist.
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
Bawana wrote:
>
> It nice to put a face to the poster.
>
> So far, I only know what you and Tturd Packer look like.
>
> Unlike the lardass from Emory, you seem normal.
>
> Of course, you must have extra toes, or something.
Wow not only can you post to the internet, you know how to look at a
web page. I guess that makes you a real "poweruser".
Bawana
Did you type that with your extra toes?
Only then could that lamer be considered original (or funny).
If you really want to give humor a try:
Start posting your weather predictions.
Bawana
Yo Professor Extra-Toes:
What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker
"Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to
climate change...
Bawana wrote:
> Yo Professor Extra-Toes:
>
> What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
The half of all global warming gases is CO2.
Exxon Surrenders but Bawana keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon said
Bawana
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker wrote:
>
> Bawana wrote:
>
> > Yo Professor Extra-Toes:
> >
> > What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
>
> The half of all global warming gases is CO2.
hey retard - nobody is THAT stupid
tart...@rome.com
rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Secondly. regardless of the fact that there may be indication of
> > warming, closest measurements indicate 1/2 deg., there is no
> > scientific demonstration of cause and effect from CO2 or other
> > 'grenhouse' gases. This is despite the fact that supposedly highly
> > educated and intelligent 'scientists' like your self repeat such
> > things. This is pure foolishness. Any of the properties attributed to
> > CO2 could be demonstrated in the laboratory if they actually existed.
> > The theory of grenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere is pure fraud.
> >
> > Deatherage
> > CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
>
> As I have posted before every freshman physics laboratory performs the
> same experiments year after year. Every freshman who takes physics does
> a lab that clearly demonstrates CO2 absorbs long wave ie infrared
> radiation at wavelengths around 10 microns. 10 microns is the emission
> wavelength of the earth.
>
> The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of
> an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and
> the atmosphere.
Where does the energy in the atmosphere come from?
Tartarus
kdt...@yahoo.com
Let me guess, you indoctrinate these students into false conclusions on
physical principles with the experiment where you encase the CO2 in
glass and irradiated it with very high energy visible light. If not
please refer your experiment. This one is fraud and a direct hoax, and
if it is the one to which you are refering, in the normal world that we
live in, you could be arrested for fraud.
Embezzelment can be a bitch. The fact being AGW is fraud.
If 1000Watts per meter are recieved in a solar collector at the equator
and one can see that the angle to the sun does not increase very much
in the topical zone. If one subtracts the energy for reflectance, this
puts the average energy for this zone in 8-10 hours of daytime at
around 500 600 W / sq m At any particular point the energy can still
be as high as 1000 W. The angle to the sun begins to increase
considerably about 40 deg of lattitude.It is not until you get to the
arctic zones that the incident radiation is below 200 W /sq m. At the
greater angle to the sun, much more of the incident radiation is
absorbed in the lower atmosphere. In near arctic regions such as
Alaska, about 950 W / sq m is recieved in a solar collector in the
summer months, almost equivelent to the equator.
Daytime temperatures are affected to an extent by the radiation
absorbed in the lower atmosphere. The temperature of the ground and the
rate that the ground loses it's heat through the atmosphere, determines
nightime temperatures.
By this analyses the daytime temperatures and the night time
temperatures and the overall average are not affected by the presence
of Grenhouse gases. If they were, please calculate the temperatures
that should be if these gases were not present?????
PROOF POSITIVE OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE POSTULATE THAT THE EARTH'S
TEMPERATURE IS WARMED 33C BY GRENHOUSE GASES
PROOF POSITIVE THAT THE PROPONENTS OF GRENHOUSE THEORY ARE GUILTY OF
DIRECT FRAUD AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND INTENT TO COMMIT EXTORTION BY THE
IMPOSITION OF THE "CAP AND TRADE" SYSTEM ON US INDUSTRY
hahahhahahhahhahahhah
hahahahahahahhahahhaha
Keep on preaching that genocidal philosophy, twits. Keep this in
mind,,,,,,you have the right to an attorney before answering any
questions. In the meantime spread your legs and put your hands on top
of your head where we can see them. hahahahahaha
Lloyd Parker
"Shadowland" <saint...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"enviros are SO quiet when it comes to ... China"
>
>Indeed they are....it's called "cowardice".
>
remarks?
Lloyd Parker
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>Coffee in Madrid wrote:
>> In article <eognvf$ipf$1...@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>,
>> "The Vicar" <whine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Shadowland" <saint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1168892405.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > > "enviros are SO quiet when it comes to ... China"
>> > >
>> > > Indeed they are....it's called "cowardice".
>> >
>> > WTF is an "enviro"?
>>
>> Kind of like a combination of words "virus" and "environmental". Its a
>> new "word game" invented by Bushkult fans, who know not what they know.
>>
>> Bushkult fans are all committing suicide right now under the walls of
>> Baghdad.
>>
>>
> Enviros (parasitic twits that use science to steal and commit
>embezzlement), don't want to mention China because without China's
We have little influence over China's policy, but as Americans, we like to
think we can influence America's.
Besides, China's per capita emission of CO2 is a fraction of the US's.
Lloyd Parker
Yo Moron -- what percentage of an AIDS patient's body is HIV?
kdt...@yahoo.com
rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Secondly. regardless of the fact that there may be indication of
> > warming, closest measurements indicate 1/2 deg., there is no
> > scientific demonstration of cause and effect from CO2 or other
> > 'grenhouse' gases. This is despite the fact that supposedly highly
> > educated and intelligent 'scientists' like your self repeat such
> > things. This is pure foolishness. Any of the properties attributed to
> > CO2 could be demonstrated in the laboratory if they actually existed.
> > The theory of grenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere is pure fraud.
> >
> > Deatherage
> > CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
l> As I have posted before every freshman physics laboratory performs
the
l> same experiments year after year. Every freshman who takes physics
does
l> a lab that clearly demonstrates CO2 absorbs long wave ie infrared
l> radiation at wavelengths around 10 microns. 10 microns is the
emission
l> wavelength of the earth.
l>
l> The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence
of
l> an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun
and
l> the atmosphere.
THE SURFACE OF THE MOON IS 250C IN DIRECT SUNLIGHT, DILDO FROM HELL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahahahahahaahhaah
>
> The atmosphere emits radiation for the same reason the Sun does: each
> has a finite temperature. So, just as one would
> be warmer by sitting beside two fireplaces than one would have been if
> one fireplace were extinguished, so, one is
> warmer by receiving radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere than
> one would be if there were no atmosphere. Curiously, the surface of the
> Earth receives nearly twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it
> does from the Sun. Even though the Sun is much hotter, it does not
> cover nearly as much of the sky as does the atmosphere. A great deal
> of radiation coming from the direction of the Sun does not add up to as
> much energy as does the smaller portion of
> radiation emitted by each portion of the atmosphere but now coming from
> the whole sky. (It would take about 90,000 Suns to paper over the whole sky).
Dude, you need to put that snowshovel down with which you are shoveling
the shit into a freaking mountain.
" Curiously, the surface of the Earth receives nearly twice as much
energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun.""
Maybe now and then you should pull your head out of your theoretical
ass and check with some actual science on this subject. A solar
collector recieves 1000Wm-2 at the equator at solar noon. This is in
the area of 1 sq meter. No need for averages,,, no need for calculation
of albedo,,,plain and simple...The lower atmosphere at very much angle
to the sun. absorbs almost all of the UV and infrared frequencies. This
leaves almost only the visible light. Before the calculation of albedo,
(or the energy which is reflected and not absorbed or entered into the
energy of the temperature),, this still leaves about 600 Wm-2 of energy
in only the visible light. The atmospheric air pressere is 1/2 at 6
kilometes altitude. The much denser lower atmosphere limits incoming
radiation. Only one percent of the solar constant is absorbed as UV in
the stratophere. 370 Wm-2 are absorbed by the atmosphere under ideal
conditions, almost all of this in the thermal frequencies
> So, it isn't even as if our atmosphere had only a minor influence on
> the surface temperature; it has a profound one. In the absence of an
> atmosphere the Earth would average about 30 Celsius degrees (about 50
> Fahrenheit degrees) lower than it does at present. Life (as we now know
> it) could not exist.
This is really really stupid, and a statement from a charlatan. The
surface of the moon goes to 250C in sunlight. The surface of the moon
is highly reflective to visible light. The 1370 Wm-2 of the solar
constatant, induces a temperature of 121C in a piece of steel in space.
1000 Wm-2 should induce a temperature of 90C. Whats that in Farenheit
about 180 deg???? It's only the effect of micro convection from
surfaces and the quick transfer of heat by convection from the surface
that keeps temperatures down. The sun's surface has a granulated
appearance. This is the convection at the chromophere. The mean
temperature is mostly determined by the temperature of the ocean and
the radiation energy it absorbs. The temperature of the atmosphere is
determined by this, not vice-versa.
YOUR GRENHOUSE THEORY HAS PERVERTED EVERY POINT IN IT'S PHYSICS TO
REACH IT'S FRAUDULENT END CONCLUSION
TIME FOR THIS CRIMINAL FRAUD BASED ON A HOUSE OF CARDS TO COME TUMBLING
DOWN
"" As I have posted before every freshman physics laboratory performs
the
same experiments year after year. Every freshman who takes physics
does
a lab that clearly demonstrates CO2 absorbs long wave ie infrared
radiation at wavelengths around 10 microns. 10 microns is the emission
wavelength of the earth""
You are such a liar. Maybe you believe your own lies.
If this were true, you could put two glass bulbs, one with CO2 at
normal room temperatures around 300K, and the one with the CO2 would
reach a higher final temperature.
10 microns is nowhere near a major "absorption band" of CO2. These are
at 2,7, 4.2 and 15 um or microns. There is no major absorption band
near 10 microns for CO2, although I know the academic theoretical
inventors may have worked one up. The actual grenhouse theory depends
on the absorption band at 15 microns to derive an accounting for
possible energy from CO2 absorption.
Bawana
I have no idea, lardass. Tell us about your personal experience.
After that, tell us why that has anything to do with the question:
What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
Make your case, Tturd Packer, or I'll tell yo' momma to rearrange your
star trek action figures.
Bawana
Sure you stand behind your stupidity, lardass...
Any kind of attention is more than you currently receive, Tturd Packer.
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker
you are.
Bawana
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker wrote:
> > > > Yo Professor Extra-Toes:
> > > >
> > > > What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
> > >
> > > The half of all global warming gases is CO2.
> >
> > hey retard - nobody is THAT stupid
>
> you are.
I can't be - I don't believe "half of all global warming gases is CO2".
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker
That's exactly why you ARE THAT STUPID.
hey retard - nobody is THAT stupid, except Bawana.
Jim E
"Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones" <Net_P...@h2-pv.us>
wrote in message
news:1168909460.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
They got to find funding somewhere.
If the libs will pay, and make them the current coming, who are they to
reject the free money.
It's always the scientists too inept to get a real job.
The ones forced to be teachers.
The losers of the craft.
Jim E
Saddam's Rope, Exxon's Neck
practitioner of bestiality.
Jim E wrote:
> They got to find funding somewhere.
> If the libs will pay, and make them the current coming, who are they to
> reject the free money.
> It's always the scientists too inept to get a real job.
> The ones forced to be teachers.
> The losers of the craft.
>
> Jim E
It sounds like English; it even looks like English, but I can't
understand a word you're blabbering. You should offer your posting
style to hospital operating theatres as a highly-effective alternative
to unconsciousness-inducing medications.
I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it really
works! Clearly, the full area of your ignorance is not yet mapped. We
are presently only exploring the fringes of that vast expanse. If you
knew what you're talking about, you'd be dangerous. You bring to mind a
quote from Josh Billing: "Doesn't know much, but leads the league in
nostril hair."
What possessed you to think that you were capable of being entertaining
or interesting to read? You are the kind of person who, when one first
meets you, one doesn't like you. But when one gets to know you better,
one hates you. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if
your brain cells weren't on the Endangered Species list; if your
weren't so fat that the Brooklyn Bridge would collapse if you ever
tried to go Bungee Jumping off of it, or if you weren't uglier than the
north-facing end of a south-bound mule. Who am I kidding? You would.
You are a shockingly primitive dreck and a catatonic, nostril-offending
mass of neuroses and complexes. You are a precociously babbling yokel
and a masturbatory, scruffy-looking inflictor of misery on all who
cross your path. You are a miserably debauched onanist and a perverted,
soul-destroying oppressive orgy of perversion. You are a lamentably
gruesome loafer and a debauched, feeble-minded excrement stain on a
Sumo Wrestler's underpants. You are a deucedly inept mauvais sujet and
a frightful, dandruff-eating blight upon society.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Hanson Sucked Death-Rag's Brown Turds wrote:
> Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
> said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
> to climate change...
But, saying that Boeing agreed to something,
is the same as saying US Steel agreed to
something. So do the neocons quacks
really have a point, or is it just
more IBM bullshit.
John
> rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>> Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
>>> rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
>>>> Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE wrote:
>>>>> PBS
>>>>>
>>>>> Wednesday, January 17, 9:00pm
>>>>>
>>>>> "Shifting Nature" looks at China's environment. Included: how
>>>>> industrialization and climate changes have led to unhealthy air,
>>>>> pollution in rivers and water shortages; a solution that would involve
>>>>> Three Gorges, the world's largest hydraulic project.
>>>> Rich why are hiding behind a bogus name
>>> I think the group name makes my position on global warmers clear.
>>> BTW, professor, how much of your career now depends on the study and
>>> support of the theory of global warming?
>>> http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RWPasken/index.html
>> Since you took the time to look up my website, did you take the time to
>> look at any of it? Probably not since you would not of tried to
>> intimidate me. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF RESEARCH IS INVOLVED WITH GLOBAL
>> WARMING.
>> I AM A METEOROLOGIST NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST.
>> I just look at data
>> and draw conclusions based on tested theory.
>
>
> BTW
>
> It nice to put a face to the poster.
>
> So far, I only know what you and Tturd Packer look like.
>
> Unlike the lardass from Emory, you seem normal.
>
> Of course, you must have extra toes, or something.
>
What zoo let you out fuckhead?
Bawana
John wrote:
> Bawana wrote:
> > rpa...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> >> I AM A METEOROLOGIST NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST.
> >> I just look at data
> >> and draw conclusions based on tested theory.
> >
> > Give us just ONE tested theory that you draw conclusions from.
> What zoo let you out fuckhead?
Hey retard!
Did you notice that professor extra toes couldn't come up with ONE
tested theory that he could draw conclusions from?
Did you notice that, retard?
john
press????
Bawana
john wrote:
> They expect the Marxists to let there be dissent, especially in foreign
> press????
Who's "they", retard?
Exxon's Dick Pumping Bawana's Mouth
> Doomsday grifters have run their scam a long time and they've never
> lacked for chumps to bamboozle.
You fudge-packing, stray dog-humping, armpit-licking, cunt-sucking,
boil-nibbling, shit-brained fucktard! You knuckleheaded,
gibbon-groping, shit-slurping, ass-munching, puss-nibbling, butt-headed
shithead! You peckerheaded, father-groping, shit-licking, shit-sucking,
zit-nibbling, shit-brained dickweasel! You dumbshited, baboon-groping,
armpit-slurping, tit-guzzling, hemorrhoid-chewing, butt-faced dumbfuck!
You shanky-assed, donkey-fucking, crotch-sniffing, toe jam-munching,
pimple-nibbling, cock-faced fucktard! You shanky-assed,
grandma-groping, gym sock-smelling, cunt-sucking, puss-chewing,
cock-headed bobblehead! You anal-invading, donkey-groping,
shit-slurping, rectal-guzzling, boil-popping, dick-brained dipshit! You
window licking, sister-raping, armpit-licking, tit-guzzling,
zit-popping, wank-brained sausage jockey!
Roedy Green
indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Fact: Full compliance with stated Kyoto goals would reduce CO2 increase
>by far less than 1 part per million. Any thing less than the full 5%
>reduction, such as the refusal of China to comply, significantly
>reduces this amount of emisison reduction. If a professional scientist
>like yourself believes that 5 parts in 10 million of CO2 in the
>atmosphere will have any effect on climate, you should have your
>accredation revoked.
The agreement is China comes on board AFTER the other countries. If
the USA stalls, China never comes on board.
"It might take another 30 Kyotos, over the next century to cut global
warming down to size."
~ Jerry Mahlman, director of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Princeton.
So Kyoto is just a drop in the bucket, but if don't even get started,
you will never get on with it. Twits like you wring your hands and the
difficulty of even doing a tiny step like Kyoto. It is like feeding a
baby. You have to coax them with tiny spoonfuls.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
Priorities: Prevent global climate destabilisation. End both wars. Prepare for oil shortages.
Vendicar Decarian
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> You are wrong. We start with no real opinion on this and presuming that
> the scientists that bring it forward have some validity with their
> science and are not complete liars. Then as it becomes clear that the
> proponents of AGW, have absolutely no actual science and ignore every
> piece of valid data that contradicts the end conclusion they have
Like your non-existant evidence that CO2 is transparent to IR, and that
tree rings cause rain.
I keep telling you to get your nose out of those roofing tar pots, but you
keep inhailing deeply...
Vendicar Decarian
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Enviros are parasitic twits that use science to steal and commit
> embezzlement.
Do you have any examples of this aledged embezzlement and theft KdQuack?
What are you blatering about? Fool?
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Enviros don't want to mention China because without China's
> cooperation, they can only possible account for reducing emmisions in the
> several parts per 100 millions.
There hasn't been any reductions in emission. In fact it isn't even
evident that there has been a reduction in emissions growth.
What are you blatering about? Fool?
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Enviros don't want to mention China because without destroying the US
> economy by > 90% reduction of emisions, When people figure out these
> actual
> numbers, they may understand what futility this is.
In other words, Kdthrge insists that a bullet be put into Uncle Sam's
skull.
He might be right that this kind of thing be necessary. Certainly it
wouild be beneficial.
But what he is too stupid to realize is that Uncle Sam is already bleeding
to death, and that we will continue to bleed him into the grouind as long as
there is blood left flowing.
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The only thing that will come out of restrictions is a bunch of money
> extorted, economies demolished, people suffering and dying, BUT NO
> ACTUAL REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS.
Ya, we have heard this all before from Conservative Chicken Littles when
the Montreal Protocol was signed.
They claimed that a billion people would die if CFC's were phased out, and
that it would bankrupt the world economy and cost over 100 trillion dollars
in costs.
Didn't happen.
They were lying.
So is Kdthrge.
Vendicar Decarian
>> Indeed they are....it's called "cowardice".
> "Jim E" <YD65...@SEA.edu> wrote
> A well documented liberal trait.
How many military deferrments did Cheney get? And exactly how long was
BUSH AWOL from the National Guard so that his cocaine abuse wouldn't be
discovered?
Ahahahahah... Conservative bravery.
Vendicar Decarian
"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote
in
> Sigh, as usual, it's the Westerner's fault for the behaviour of the
> totalitarians in the East. Tell us, has China ever really done
> anything at the behest of the United States? Look up "trade deficit"
> and floating currency.
Look up AmeriKKKan bankruptcy and Failed Global Power.
Then do a google search on Misirable Failure and this link
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
Magically appears.
Vendicar Decarian
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
What percentage of your blood is cyanide?
Vendicar Decarian
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2?
What percentage of your blood is cyanide?
Vendicar Decarian
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Let me guess, you indoctrinate these students into false conclusions on
> physical principles with the experiment where you encase the CO2 in
> glass and irradiated it with very high energy visible light.
When I do it, I put in oxygen first and then partly evacuate the chamber.
Then I put in air and do the same. Then I put in CO2.
The CO2 absorbs the IR. The oxygen and the air do not.
And neither does the glass, as any child with a magnifying glass can tell
you.
Stupid.. Stupid.. Kdthrge..
Vendicar Decarian
Vendicar Decarian
"Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote
> So Kyoto is just a drop in the bucket, but if don't even get started,
> you will never get on with it. Twits like you wring your hands and the
> difficulty of even doing a tiny step like Kyoto. It is like feeding a
> baby. You have to coax them with tiny spoonfuls.
They argue that a 30 step journey is impossible because the first step
doesn't reach the final goal.
Off with their heads.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When I do it, I put in oxygen first and then partly evacuate the chamber.
>Then I put in air and do the same. Then I put in CO2.
Why don't you try that with water vapor? Oh, but then you would have
data which disproves your religion -- and that would be heresy...
> The CO2 absorbs the IR. The oxygen and the air do not.
And, as usual, Scott Nudds is wrong (or lying).
http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia
"These pseudo-linelists are given for foreign-collision induced
absorption (FCIA) and self-collision induced absorption (SCIA). They
contain pseudolines for O2 and N2. In the mid-infrared they cover the
fundamental O2 band around 1550 cm-1, the fundamental N2 band around
2330 cm-1, and the first overtone band of N2 around 4630 cm-1. In
near-infrared pseudo-lines are given for the O2 bands around 7900,
9400 cm-1, and 13250 cm-1. Each linelist consist of 5909 pseudolines
with a spacing of 1 cm-1."
Gosh, there are all sorts of IR absorption lines resulting from O2 and
N2...
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:28:53 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
> <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When I do it, I put in oxygen first and then partly evacuate the
>> chamber.
>>Then I put in air and do the same. Then I put in CO2.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Why don't you try that with water vapor? Oh, but then you would have
> data which disproves your religion -- and that would be heresy...
Sorry you Fucking Ignorang Shit Licker, that wouldn't disprove anything.
Water vapour absorbs Infared Radiation, and is even a better absorber than
CO2.
The effect of additional CO2 is to produce a small warming which increaes
the water content of the atmosphere, which produces a larger warming.
It's the principle primary feedback you Fucking Ignorant Loser.
>> The CO2 absorbs the IR. The oxygen and the air do not.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> And, as usual, Scott Nudds is wrong (or lying).
Let's make it clear for the Dung Eating Moron that calls itself "Retief".
The absorption of IR by Oxygen and Nitrogen is essentially zero as anyone
who stands near a fire can tell you. CO2 however is much different.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-399/p236.jpg
Note that O2 nore N2 are apparent in this plot of the infared region of the
spectra.
Educate yourself you Fucking Ignorant Moron.
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:28:53 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>> <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When I do it, I put in oxygen first and then partly evacuate the
>>> chamber.
>>>Then I put in air and do the same. Then I put in CO2.
>
>> Why don't you try that with water vapor? Oh, but then you would have
>> data which disproves your religion -- and that would be heresy...
>
> Sorry you Fucking Ignorang Shit Licker, that wouldn't disprove anything.
Sure it will, it will demonstrate that CO2 has very minimal effect
when in competition with water. Much like this:
http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
Dr. Heinz Hug notes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to 714 ppm,
results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2 resulting from
the wings of 15 um band.
> Water vapour absorbs Infared Radiation, and is even a better absorber than
>CO2.
That is correct.
> The effect of additional CO2 is to produce a small warming which increaes
>the water content of the atmosphere, which produces a larger warming.
However, those transistions are already saturated. But when you
increase the solar flux:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif
Why, then you have a positive feedback from water alone...
> It's the principle primary feedback you Fucking Ignorant Loser.
Prove it.
>>> The CO2 absorbs the IR. The oxygen and the air do not.
>
>> And, as usual, Scott Nudds is wrong (or lying).
>
> Let's make it clear for the Dung Eating Moron that calls itself "Retief".
>The absorption of IR by Oxygen and Nitrogen is essentially zero as anyone
>who stands near a fire can tell you. CO2 however is much different.
>
>http://history.nasa.gov/SP-399/p236.jpg
Gosh, Nudds thinks that hurling insults will prevent him from looking
like a moron, when the reader learns this:
http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
the weakly interacting species (WIS) involving water molecules
such as H2O-N2, H2O-O2, O2-O2 or N2-N2, may also play a
significant role as radiation absorbers in the Earth's atmosphere"
http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia
FCIA and SCIA PSEUDO-LINELISTS FOR COLLISION-INDUCED ABSORPTION
G. C. Toon and A. Kleinboehl
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
INTRODUCTION
This file gives an introduction to the latest version (April 20, 2006)
of the pseudo-linelists for collision induced absorption. These
pseudo-linelists are given for foreign-collision induced absorption
(FCIA) and self-collision induced absorption (SCIA). They contain
pseudolines for O2 and N2. In the mid-infrared they cover the
fundamental O2 band around 1550 cm-1, the fundamental N2 band around
2330 cm-1, and the first overtone band of N2 around 4630 cm-1. In
near-infrared pseudo-lines are given for the O2 bands around 7900,
9400 cm-1, and 13250 cm-1. Each linelist consist of 5909 pseudolines
with a spacing of 1 cm-1.
[...]
The N2 fundamental band is based on the measruements and the empirical
model given in Tab. 1 by Lafferty et al. (1996). They give their
empirical model for N2-N2 collisions, which could be directly
converted to HITRAN units for SCIA. N2-O2 collisions were calculated
from the N2-N2 collisions using their temperature dependent conversion
factor, which parameterizes a linear temperature dependence based on
Menoux et al. (1993). For this, an exponential function has been
fitted to the product of (T/T_hitran) and the N2-O2 conversion factor,
the accuracy of which is 0.3% between 190-295 K. The new linelist has
been extrapolated to zero line strengths at 2*FWHM from the maximum
absorption towards lower wavenumbers and 2.5*FWHM towards higher
wavenumbers. This covers the range from 2030-2705 cm-1, giving a total
of 676 pseudo-lines.
>Note that O2 nore N2 are apparent in this plot of the infared region of the
>spectra.
Oh, now THAT is precious... We can also see from Scott's "proof" that
we need not worry about atmospheric methane levels, either (since it
does not appear on his graphic)...
>Educate yourself you Fucking Ignorant Moron.
Time for some more Scott Nudds education, though I doubt he is capable
of learning:
http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
the weakly interacting species (WIS) involving water molecules
such as H2O-N2, H2O-O2, O2-O2 or N2-N2, may also play a
significant role as radiation absorbers in the Earth's atmosphere"
Although the involved collision complexes are believed to be
short-lived, the large atmospheric concentration of the parent
molecules is likely to make them very abundant and optically
active."
http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~abrown/research/resother.html
The understanding of CIA is important for the study of radiative
transfer in the Earth's atmosphere."
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
Hmm, looks like there hasn't been any substantive change in solar output
sine 1960, at a time when global temperatures have greatly increased.
From Retief's own reference - The referring page that contained the graphic.
"It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar
cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over
the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen
over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
past three decades."
Retief seems incapable of reading or understanding his own references,
this is now the 6-7th that he's posted over the last week that actually
disproves Retief's own childishly ignorant thesis that Global Warming is
fake.
Ahahahahaha... Stupid... Ignorant... Moron... Retief...
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Dr. Heinz Hug notes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to 714 ppm,
> results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2 resulting from
> the wings of 15 um band.
Dr. Heinz Hug doesn't even realize that CO2 enhanced warming is greatly
amplified by the addition of water vapour to the atmosphere.
It is however interesting that Retief has to dredge so low to find any
hint of support that he has to quote from a 10 year old Unpublished Russian
paper written in German in which the author is oblivious to water vapour
enhancement.
Ahahahahahahahahahahah......
Stupid... Stupid... Retief....
>> The effect of additional CO2 is to produce a small warming which
>> increaes
>>the water content of the atmosphere, which produces a larger warming.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> However, those transistions are already saturated.
Meaningless tripe from Retief.
First: The more CO2 you add, the shorter the mean free path the photons
take to escape. The shorter the mean free path, the better the insulation.
Second: Water doesn't scatter IR in the same "saturated" (ahahahah) ban as
CO2.
Ignorant... Ignorant... Retief...
> But when you increase the solar flux:
Solar output is lower now than since the mid 70's yet temperatures are
significantly higher.
Is it your contention that a 2% rise in the solar output over a 11 year
cycle, is less significnat than the measured yet statistically insignificant
.006% rise over the last 22 years, and the (ahahahah) <DECLINE> of .025% in
solar output over the last 11 years?
Stupid... Stuipid.. Retief...
Again from Retief's own reference - The referring page that contained the
graphic.
"It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar
cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over
the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen
over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
past three decades."
Vendicar Decarian
>>Note that O2 nore N2 are apparent in this plot of the infared region of
>>the
>>spectra.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Oh, now THAT is precious... We can also see from Scott's "proof" that
> we need not worry about atmospheric methane levels, either (since it
> does not appear on his graphic)...
O2 and N2 are not methane you moron. Methane does absorb strongly in the
IR region. O2 and N2 do not.
Educate yourself you Fucking Ignorant Moron.
> Time for some more Scott Nudds education, though I doubt he is capable
> of learning:
>
> http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
Ahahahaha... Yet another reference - what is this the 10 time today Retief,
to a 10 year old, unpublished German paper whos author is apparently
oblivious to the fact that CO2 enhanced warming is magnified by the warmings
addition of water vapour to the atmosphere.
Stupid... Stupid... Retief....
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> the weakly interacting species (WIS) involving water molecules
> such as H2O-N2, H2O-O2, O2-O2 or N2-N2, may also play a
> significant role as radiation absorbers in the Earth's atmosphere"
May? Ahahahahahahaaha...
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~abrown/research/resother.html
Looks like there has been no signiifcant change in solar output since 1960
Retief, yet the global temperature excursion has mostly happened from that
year until today. And in fact solar output has descreased over the last
decade while temperatures have continued to climb.
Stupid... Stupid... Retief....
From your own reference.....
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>>>Note that O2 nore N2 are apparent in this plot of the infared region of
>>>the
>>>spectra.
>
>> Oh, now THAT is precious... We can also see from Scott's "proof" that
>> we need not worry about atmospheric methane levels, either (since it
>> does not appear on his graphic)...
>
> O2 and N2 are not methane you moron. Methane does absorb strongly in the
>IR region. O2 and N2 do not.
Nudds posted the following link to "prove" that O2 and N2 are
incapable of absorption of IR photons, asserting that those shown
molecules were the greenhouse gases:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-399/p236.jpg
Thus, according to Nudds' very own "proof", methane is not a
greenhouse gas. This sort of erroneous claim is typical of Nudds.
> Educate yourself you Fucking Ignorant Moron.
This statement from Nudds, who claims that methane is not a greenhouse
gas (as it does not appear in his graphics of greenhouse gases, which
he presented as "proof" that O2 and N2 do not absorb IR photons).
Laughable!...
>> Time for some more Scott Nudds education, though I doubt he is capable
>> of learning:
>>
>> http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html
>
>Ahahahaha... Yet another reference - what is this the 10 time today Retief,
Yes, unlike Nudds, real scientists traffic in references and
citations. Conversely, Nudds chooses to traffic in unsupported
assertions and outright lies.
>> the weakly interacting species (WIS) involving water molecules
>> such as H2O-N2, H2O-O2, O2-O2 or N2-N2, may also play a
>> significant role as radiation absorbers in the Earth's atmosphere"
>
> May? Ahahahahahahaaha...
The reader will recall that Scott Nudds made the following false
claim: "The CO2 absorbs the IR. The oxygen and the air do not."
These links disprove Nudds' false claims.
>> http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~abrown/research/resother.html
>
> Looks like there has been no signiifcant change in solar output since 1960
>Retief, yet the global temperature excursion has mostly happened from that
The link cited says nothing at all about that, rather is says:
"The latter is generally called collision-induced absorption (CIA) or
supermolecular absorption. The understanding of CIA is important for
the study of radiative transfer in the Earth's atmosphere."
"The CIA has been determined for O2 and N2 for N2-N2, O2-O2, O2-N2,
and N2-O2 pairs where in each instance the first molecule listed in
assumed to make the fundamental transition."
Nudds persists in denying this fact, despite it being repeatedly
pointed out to him...
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
>
> Hmm, looks like there hasn't been any substantive change in solar output
>sine 1960, at a time when global temperatures have greatly increased.
That page says nothing of the sort. What is does say is that
increasing CO2 has insignificant effect, when in competion with water.
However, the reader can confirm that falsehood of Nudds' claim that
the solar output hasn't changed since 1960, for himself:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif
>From Retief's own reference - The referring page that contained the graphic.
>"It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
>irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar
>cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
>by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over
>the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen
>over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
>warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
>although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
>probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
>past three decades."
Indeed. That is what is called a "conclusion", Nudds. In this case,
as with many other pro-AGW researchers, those conclusions are not
supported by the reported data or calculations.
In fact, from Shindell's paper:
"Results from a global climate model including an interactive
parameterization of stratospheric chemistry show how upper
stratospheric ozone changes may amplify observed, 11-year solar cycle
irradiance changes to affect climate."
So, prove your claims Nudds. Prove that your climate model is
correct. Prove that this increase in solar flux is insufficient to be
the source of any observed warming. Prove that the ocean does not
result in a long term (multi-decade) integration of incoming flux (and
thus causes a multi-decade delay in warming). Prove that this
increasing solar flux does not result in increased atmospheric water
(and thus a solar-water feedback loop).
>> Dr. Heinz Hug notes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to 714 ppm,
>> results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2 resulting from
>> the wings of 15 um band.
>
> Dr. Heinz Hug doesn't even realize that CO2 enhanced warming is greatly
>amplified by the addition of water vapour to the atmosphere.
It is well known that CO2 competes with water vapor, and thus the
effect of additional CO2 is very limited (indeed, insignificant).
It is telling that Nudds is unaware of this fact.
> It is however interesting that Retief has to dredge so low to find any
>hint of support that he has to quote from a 10 year old Unpublished Russian
>paper written in German in which the author is oblivious to water vapour
>enhancement.
And thus Nudds admits that he cannot refute the data presented by Dr.
Hug.
The paper in question specifically addresses the behavior of CO2 in
competition with water vapor. Nudds didn't understand that, and thus
makes his ubiquitous false claims.
>>> The effect of additional CO2 is to produce a small warming which
>>> increaes
>>>the water content of the atmosphere, which produces a larger warming.
>
>> However, those transistions are already saturated.
>
> Meaningless tripe from Retief.
>
> First: The more CO2 you add, the shorter the mean free path the photons
>take to escape. The shorter the mean free path, the better the insulation.
Prove your claim, Nudds. Similarly, prove that this same effect does
not occur with increased water vapor.
> Second: Water doesn't scatter IR in the same "saturated" (ahahahah) ban as
>CO2.
>
> Ignorant... Ignorant... Retief...
This statement from Nudds, who can neither articulate clearly, nor
understands spectroscopy.
The reader will note the overlapping CO2 and H2O bands in this
graphic:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
>> But when you increase the solar flux:
>
> Solar output is lower now than since the mid 70's yet temperatures are
>significantly higher.
Nudds persists in his false and simplistic claims.
> Is it your contention that a 2% rise in the solar output over a 11 year
>cycle, is less significnat than the measured yet statistically insignificant
>.006% rise over the last 22 years, and the (ahahahah) <DECLINE> of .025% in
>solar output over the last 11 years?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif
So Nudds, what is the integration/delay time for this solar output
increase?
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/docs/arsooosc06/chapter1.pdf
"An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response
caused by the oceans is 10-100 years."
NOAA says it's between 10 and 100 years... The reader should consider
what that fact means to Nudds' claims... (Nudds clearly implies that
changes should be instantaneous)
>Again from Retief's own reference - The referring page that contained the
>graphic.
>"It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
>irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar
>cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
>by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over
>the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen
>over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
>warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
>although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
>probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
>past three decades."
From Shindell's paper:
"Results from a global climate model including an interactive
parameterization of stratospheric chemistry show how upper
stratospheric ozone changes may amplify observed, 11-year solar cycle
irradiance changes to affect climate."
Retief
Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Nudds posted the following link to "prove" that O2 and N2 are
> incapable of absorption of IR photons, asserting that those shown
> molecules were the greenhouse gases:
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/SP-399/p236.jpg
No O2 or N2 on that plot.
Come on Retief. You can show a plot where they do absorb significantly
can't you?
Nope. Apparently not.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Thus, according to Nudds' very own "proof", methane is not a
> greenhouse gas.
Stupid Retief. Not only is Methane a greenhouse gas, but so is Nitrogen
Oxide and Co2.
Ahahahahahah Stupid.... Pathetic... Retief.....
Educate yourself you Fucking Ignorant Moron.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> This statement from Nudds, who claims that methane is not a greenhouse
> gas
I have never made such a claim. You fucking Pathetic Liar.
Ex-CIA chief says U.S. must act on climate
Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:07 AM ET
By Paul Taylor
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States must act to cap its emissions of
greenhouse gases and join the fight against climate change or risk losing
global leadership, a former CIA director said in a report released on
Monday.
"The United States must adopt a carbon emission control policy," John
Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1995-96, said in a report
to the Trilateral Commission, a grouping of business and opinion leaders
from Europe, the United States and Asia.
"If the United States or any other OECD country that is a large producer of
greenhouse gas emissions is to retain a leadership role in other areas, it
cannot just opt out of the global climate change policy process," he wrote.
Deutch, an energy specialist who is now a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, also proposed an expanded use of nuclear power,
international cooperation to develop clean coal technology and a sharing of
the costs of emissions control between rich countries and large emerging
nations.
He advocated an additional tax of about $1 per gallon on gasoline, diesel
and other petroleum products in the United States, coupled with a tightening
of fuel economy standards for U.S. car manufacturers, to encourage fuel
efficiency and dampen demand, while recognizing that would be politically
difficult.
CAP AND TRADE
He suggested Washington use the same "cap and trade" system of limiting
carbon dioxide emissions and issuing emissions permits to industry that can
be traded, which the European Union currently uses.
His report to the council, created in 1973 to build a policy consensus among
capitalist democracies on three continents, was the latest in a series of
international studies highlighting the need for radical policy changes to
combat global warming.
Deutch also listed so-called geotechnical measures under consideration to
counterbalance climate change, including adding aerosols to the
stratosphere, placing balloons or mirrors in the stratosphere and even "high
altitude nuclear explosions to induce a nuclear 'spring'".
These ideas were so risky and hard to demonstrate technically that they
highlighted the need to redouble efforts to mitigate human-induced climate
change.
The report said the major industrialized countries must began a process of
transition away from a petroleum-based economy to reduce their dependence on
oil and gas imports for political as well as environmental reasons.
It also called for China and India to be admitted to the International
Energy Agency to improve cooperation among major oil and gas importers and
help avoid tensions over supplies.
While Deutch placed great expectations on carbon capture and sequestration
technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations, notably in
China, a parallel report to the Trilateral Commission by French energy
executive Anne Lauvergeon cast doubt on that solution.
Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, which builds nuclear power stations,
said the capture and storage of carbon emitted through the burning of fossil
fuels was too often presented as a miracle solution.
"This technology will ... not play a significant role in the limitation of
carbon emissions for half a century," she wrote.
Lloyd
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:04:42 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>
> >>http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
>
> > Hmm, looks like there hasn't been any substantive change in solar output
> >sine 1960, at a time when global temperatures have greatly increased.
>
> That page says nothing of the sort. What is does say is that
> increasing CO2 has insignificant effect, when in competion with water.
>
> However, the reader can confirm that falsehood of Nudds' claim that
> the solar output hasn't changed since 1960, for himself:
>
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif
>
> >From Retief's own reference - The referring page that contained the graphic.
> >"It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
> >irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar
> >cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
> >by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over
> >the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen
> >over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
> >warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
> >although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
> >probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
> >past three decades."
>
> Indeed. That is what is called a "conclusion", Nudds. In this case,
> as with many other pro-AGW researchers, those conclusions are not
> supported by the reported data or calculations.
>
Yeah, you're SO much more qualified to draw scientific conclusions.
What's your scientific background again? (I won't hold my breath for
an answer.)
> In fact, from Shindell's paper:
>
> "Results from a global climate model including an interactive
> parameterization of stratospheric chemistry show how upper
> stratospheric ozone changes may amplify observed, 11-year solar cycle
> irradiance changes to affect climate."
>
> So, prove your claims Nudds. Prove that your climate model is
> correct. Prove that this increase in solar flux is insufficient to be
> the source of any observed warming. Prove that the ocean does not
> result in a long term (multi-decade) integration of incoming flux (and
> thus causes a multi-decade delay in warming). Prove that this
> increasing solar flux does not result in increased atmospheric water
> (and thus a solar-water feedback loop).
>
> >> Dr. Heinz Hug notes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to 714 ppm,
> >> results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2 resulting from
> >> the wings of 15 um band.
>
> > Dr. Heinz Hug doesn't even realize that CO2 enhanced warming is greatly
> >amplified by the addition of water vapour to the atmosphere.
>
> It is well known that CO2 competes with water vapor, and thus the
> effect of additional CO2 is very limited (indeed, insignificant).
>
I hope you're getting paid by the lie like James is.
> It is telling that Nudds is unaware of this fact.
>
> > It is however interesting that Retief has to dredge so low to find any
> >hint of support that he has to quote from a 10 year old Unpublished Russian
> >paper written in German in which the author is oblivious to water vapour
> >enhancement.
>
> And thus Nudds admits that he cannot refute the data presented by Dr.
> Hug.
>
> The paper in question specifically addresses the behavior of CO2 in
> competition with water vapor. Nudds didn't understand that, and thus
> makes his ubiquitous false claims.
>
The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, NAS, AAAS, AGU, EPA, etc., all say you're
wrong. Is Retief man enough to admit it? (Again, I won't hold my
breath.)
>
> "An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response
> caused by the oceans is 10-100 years."
>
Find me a scientific paper that says the current warming is due to
solar increase. Go ahead. (Again, I won't hold my breath.) There's
absolutely no evidence for this, and you're not qualified to draw that
conclusion in any event.
> NOAA says it's between 10 and 100 years... The reader should consider
> what that fact means to Nudds' claims... (Nudds clearly implies that
> changes should be instantaneous)
>
> >Again from Retief's own reference - The referring page that contained the
> >graphic.
> >"It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
> >irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar
> >cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
> >by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over
> >the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen
> >over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
> >warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
> >although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
> >probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
> >past three decades."
>
> From Shindell's paper:
>
> "Results from a global climate model including an interactive
> parameterization of stratospheric chemistry show how upper
> stratospheric ozone changes may amplify observed, 11-year solar cycle
> irradiance changes to affect climate."
>
> Retief
Gee, an 11-year cycle. I bet a 5th grader could tell you the 100+
years we've been warming is longer than 11 years.
Face it, Retief, you're not smarter than a 5th grader.
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
> Gosh, there are all sorts of IR absorption lines resulting from O2 and
> N2...
>
> Retief
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
Bill Ward
Cheerleader.
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Vendicar Decarian
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, looks like there hasn't been any substantive change in solar output
>>sine 1960, at a time when global temperatures have greatly increased.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> That page says nothing of the sort.
You are right. This one does...
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
by Staff Writers
Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 13, 2006
Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a
small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results
and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States,
Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the
September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the
National Science Foundation.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.
Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since
the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100
years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global
warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Natural internal variability of Earth's climate system may also have
played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third
possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that
relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have
changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The
sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface,
while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface
layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both
the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae
dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at
indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae
affect the Sun's brightness. Data collected from radiometers on
U. S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent
brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when
spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar
cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed
appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the
mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase
in brightness over the period.
To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of
sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere
and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of
high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic
rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the
activity.
The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern
Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of
long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes
in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the
sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even
though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these
phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period,
according to the authors.
Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar
brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with
sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that
these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
"There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar
brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says
Wigley.
Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic
rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the
authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because
physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National
Center for Atmospheric Research under primary sponsorship by the National
Science Foundation. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> What is does say is that increasing CO2 has insignificant effect, when in
> competion with
> water.
Ahahahahahaha..... CO2 doesn't compete with water. It works cooperatively
with water, and in fact water is the primary feedback mechanism that
amplifies the small warming effect of CO2.
Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate... Retief.
Educate yourself you pathetic Loser.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> However, the reader can confirm that falsehood of Nudds' claim that
> the solar output hasn't changed since 1960, for himself:
>
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif
Gosh Retief.. Ahahahahahah... Your own reference seems to disagree with
you.
Ahahahahahahahahah... You pathetic, ignorant, Loser.
The plot shows that from 1960 on the average output from the sun hasn't
changed very much at all. Averaging 1371.5 watts/m**2 with maybe a change
of .2 watts/m**2 over the last 40 years or about .05 watts/m**2 per decade,
which is absolutely insignificant and totally dwarfed by the radiative
forcing of CO2.
Over the last 100 years the increase in solar output has by the plot you
provided increased by .5 watts/m**2. Again .05 watts/m**2 per decade.
From your own reference...
"It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
irradience-changes, shich are roughly two to three times larger than solar
cyle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
by solar vriability is well correlated with the observed global warming over
the first half of the 20th century, but <NOT> with the more rapid warming
seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
past three decades."
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Indeed. That is what is called a "conclusion", Nudds. In this case,
> as with many other pro-AGW researchers, those conclusions are not
> supported by the reported data or calculations.
Ya, it's a conclusion that is in contradiction to your stated position.
Ahahahahaha.. You pathetic Loser.
Your explanation. The researchers conclusions in the reference YOU
provided, are wrong.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.... You Dung Eating AmeriKKKan Moron.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> "Results from a global climate model including an interactive
> parameterization of stratospheric chemistry show how upper
> stratospheric ozone changes may amplify observed, 11-year solar cycle
> irradiance changes to affect climate."
One day you migh grow up enough to understand those big words there Retief.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> So, prove your claims Nudds. Prove that your climate model is
> correct. Prove that this increase in solar flux is insufficient to be
> the source of any observed warming. Prove that the ocean does not
> result in a long term (multi-decade) integration of incoming flux (and
> thus causes a multi-decade delay in warming). Prove that this
> increasing solar flux does not result in increased atmospheric water
> (and thus a solar-water feedback loop).
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
by Staff Writers
Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 13, 2006
Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a
small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results
and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States,
Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the
September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the
National Science Foundation.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.
Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since
the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100
years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global
warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Natural internal variability of Earth's climate system may also have
played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third
possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that
relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have
changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The
sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface,
while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface
layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both
the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae
dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at
indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae
affect the Sun's brightness. Data collected from radiometers on
U. S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent
brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when
spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar
cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed
appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the
mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase
in brightness over the period.
To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of
sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere
and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of
high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic
rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the
activity.
The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern
Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of
long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes
in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the
sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even
though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these
phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period,
according to the authors.
Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar
brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with
sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that
these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
"There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar
brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says
Wigley.
Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic
rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the
authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because
physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National
Center for Atmospheric Research under primary sponsorship by the National
Science Foundation. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Vendicar Decarian
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> Face it, Retief, you're not smarter than a 5th grader.
A sad but very true fact.
Paaaaaaaaaaaaaathetic Loser, Retief....
Vendicar Decarian
"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote
> Cheerleader.
Ignoramous....
newsletterSource:Purdue University
Date:February 27, 2007
New Evidence Of Link Between Carbon Dioxide Emissions And Climate Change
In Boreal Ecosystems
New research aimed at understanding the link between
carbon dioxide emissions and climate change in boreal systems has found
clear links between both Spring and Fall temperature changes and carbon
uptake/loss. Dr Kevin Robert Gurney, assistant professor in the Earth &
Atmospheric Science/Agronomy at Purdue University and Associate Director
of the Purdue Climate Change Research Center, presented these results at
the "Is a Warmer Arctic Adding Carbon Dioxide to the Atmosphere" session
of American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San
Francisco, CA on December 17th.
The research examined the variations in carbon flux from boreal
ecosystems, uncovered by the "inverse" method, in relation to measurements
of temperature, precipitation and climate indices. The study shows that
Boreal N America removes carbon from the Earth's atmosphere during years
in which the region experiences warm Spring temperatures and rainfall.
Boreal Asia, however, exhibits an opposing response - years with above
normal Fall temperatures and rainfall result in net carbon emissions. "A
warming Canada may mean Canadian forests will act as a sink to atmospheric
CO2," said Gurney, "while boreal Asia could lose ecosystem carbon to the
atmosphere as the regions warms."
The results are directly applicable to climate change studies which
attempt to link the land and ocean carbon cycles to future warming. Some
studies have shown an additional temperature increase (above that derived
from industrial greenhouse gases) due primarily to carbon emissions from
warmed global soils. The research presented by Gurney suggests that this
may occur in Asia but not in North America. "This should help us perform
better projections
The results for Boreal North America are further linked to El Nino events.
"The greater uptake in Springtime Boreal North American in warm, wet years
appears to be related to the El Nino/Southern Oscillation," said Gurney.
"The teleconnection is remarkable, you can see the tropical pacific
temperature patterns associated with El Nino travel north and impact
boreal North America, inducing greater uptake".
Temperature and Precipitation are not the only drivers of ecosystem carbon
exchange, noted Gurney, but approximately one-half of the variations in
Spring and Fall carbon exchange were explained by variations in
Temperature and Precipitation. "Human activity such as harvest or fire can
also have a large impact on these systems and we are turning to exploring
those next".
###
Dr. Kevin Robert Gurney will be attending the AAAS Meeting from December
17th (noon) to Dec 18th (2 pm). He can be reached at (765) 427-8680;
kgu...@purdue.edu
Retief
>> Indeed. That is what is called a "conclusion", Nudds. In this case,
>> as with many other pro-AGW researchers, those conclusions are not
>> supported by the reported data or calculations.
>
>Yeah, you're SO much more qualified to draw scientific conclusions.
It's straightforward enough to recognize when the presented data does
not support the stated conclusion.
>What's your scientific background again? (I won't hold my breath for
>an answer.)
So Parker, we've been waiting for about a year for you to post your
scientific publication list. Surely you have some scientific
publications!!! Oh, of course you don't, as you aren't a scientist.
>> It is well known that CO2 competes with water vapor, and thus the
>> effect of additional CO2 is very limited (indeed, insignificant).
>
>I hope you're getting paid by the lie like James is.
Gosh, NASA knows this, but Parker doesn't:
http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/science/greenhouse.cfm
"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Not only are its
infrared absorption features widespread and strong, but it also
displays a significant continuum absorption."
>> The paper in question specifically addresses the behavior of CO2 in
>> competition with water vapor. Nudds didn't understand that, and thus
>> makes his ubiquitous false claims.
>
>The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, NAS, AAAS, AGU, EPA, etc., all say you're
>wrong.
No they don't. In fact, they are often completely silent on the
issue.
> Is Retief man enough to admit it? (Again, I won't hold my breath.)
Is Lloyd Parker man enough to post his scientific publications? Of
course he won't, as he has NONE...
>> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif
>>
>> So Nudds, what is the integration/delay time for this solar output
>> increase?
>>
>> http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universalhttp://www.oco.noaa.gov/docs/arsooosc06/chapter1.pdf
>>
>> "An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response
>> caused by the oceans is 10-100 years."
>
>Find me a scientific paper that says the current warming is due to
>solar increase. Go ahead. (Again, I won't hold my breath.) There's
>absolutely no evidence for this, and you're not qualified to draw that
>conclusion in any event.
Show me that you are qualified, Parker. Provide a list of your more
relevant scientific publications! Come on! Surely you have some! But
no, you merely pretend to be a scientist -- you do no science, and
have no scientific publications.
Retief
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nudds posted the following link to "prove" that O2 and N2 are
> > incapable of absorption of IR photons, asserting that those shown
> > molecules were the greenhouse gases:
> >
> > http://history.nasa.gov/SP-399/p236.jpg
>
> No O2 or N2 on that plot.
Nor is there any methane, Nudds... So, in Scott Nudds world, the lack
of methane on the graph, means that methane is not a greenhouse gas.
> Come on Retief. You can show a plot where they do absorb significantly
> can't you?
I don't have to prove any sort of "significance". You claimed that
they could not absorb IR (at all). To disprove your claim, I need
only demonstrate that your claim is false (as was done).
An understanding of CIA (Collision Induced Absorption) is required if
you want to understand atmospheric dynamics.
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > Thus, according to Nudds' very own "proof", methane is not a
> > greenhouse gas.
>
> Stupid Retief. Not only is Methane a greenhouse gas, but so is Nitrogen
> Oxide and Co2.
So you admit that you deliberately posted an incomplete graphic, in
order to LIE about what is, and is not, a greenhouse gas.
> Ahahahahahah Stupid.... Pathetic... Retief.....
>
> Educate yourself you Fucking Ignorant Moron.
And this insult comes from the individual who claims that the image
below shows all greenhouse gases (and asserts that any gases not shown
on the image are not greenhouse gases).
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-399/p236.jpg
The reader will note that methane is not present.
> > This statement from Nudds, who claims that methane is not a greenhouse
> > gas
>
> I have never made such a claim. You fucking Pathetic Liar.
You presented this image, and made the assertion that gases not shown
were not greenhouse gases:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-399/p236.jpg
You do recall that this image was your "proof" that O2 and N2 do not
absorb IR, don't you? Unfortunately, it also doesn't show methane, so
one can only conclude that either you were lying, or that you believe
that any gas not listed is not a greenhouse gas.
Of course, your claim regarding O2 and N2 was also shown to be false.
> Ex-CIA chief says U.S. must act on climate
And Scott Nudds continues with a non sequitur...
Retief
Hang all Exxon Directors
Hang all Exxon Directors
> Show me that you are qualified, Parker. Provide a list of your more
> relevant scientific publications! Come on! Surely you have some! But
> no, you merely pretend to be a scientist -- you do no science, and
> have no scientific publications.
>
> Retief
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> not support the stated conclusion.
You mean like those 5 references you just posted in another thread each of
which contradics your stated position and contradicts your claim for the
reference?
Ahahahahahahahahahah.........
You know.. Let me refresh your memory..
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote>
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
>
> [...] Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output
> of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled
> out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
> evaluate meaningfully at present.
Ahahahaha... Retief you Pathetic, Lying, Loser. Lets quote the enitre
article synopsis shall we... I've highlighted the appropriate section that
contradicts your stated denialist position..
Ahahahahahahah You Loser.
-Start Quote-
Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by
changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the
11-year sunspot cycle.
---
The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have
contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30
years.
---
In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output
variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity
change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is
unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the
seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's
output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out.
The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully
at present.
-End Quote-
Ahahahahahaha... You Pathetic... Pathetic... Loser...
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote>
> "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
> http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
Ahahahahh Retief. The third reference you post to support your denialist
assertions and the third that contradicts your position. You Pathetic...
Pathetic... Loser.
From the conclusions section of the above reference - you provide -
Ahahahahaahhh
"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
all
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for
more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
high."
Ahahahahahahahaha..... You Fucking Stupid AmeriKKKan Loser.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Gosh Parker, don't you read scientific literature? From last month:
>
> http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(olbm4x555tz1gi55ojqhw055)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,19;journal,5,139;linkingpublicationresults,1:102023,1
From the Royal Society ay? Here is a portion of their Global Warming Pages.
Again contradicting your stated position Retief.
Ahahahahahah... You Pathetic, Ignorant, Loser....
Facts and fictions about climate change
It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the
scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an exaggeration.
Some articles have claimed that scientists are ignoring uncertainties in our
understanding of the climate and the factors that affect it. Some have
questioned the motives of the scientists who have presented the most
authoritative assessments of the science of climate change, claiming that
they have a vested interest in playing up the potential effects that climate
change is likely to have.
This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold
typeface) put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change
and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. It has been
prepared by a group led by Sir David Wallace FRS, Treasurer of the Royal
Society, and Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This document has been
endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on
scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work
of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United
States National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
Good reading Retief. Educate yourself, you Pathetic, Ignorant, Loser.
GOP Adultery Party in '08
wrote:
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It's straightforward enough to recognize when the presented data does
>> not support the stated conclusion.
>
> You mean like those 5 references you just posted in another thread each of
>which contradics your stated position and contradicts your claim for the
>reference?
Really? My stated position is that you and your AGW crowd have not
proven your claim. Those cited papers all admit that they have not
disproven that solar changes could be responsible.
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
>>
>> [...] Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output
>> of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled
>> out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
>> evaluate meaningfully at present.
>
>Ahahahaha... Retief you Pathetic, Lying, Loser. Lets quote the enitre
>article synopsis shall we... I've highlighted the appropriate section that
>contradicts your stated denialist position..
Once again Scott Nudds misrepresents the truth. How typical. Scott
does this because the science does not prove his claims.
>-Start Quote-
>Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by
>changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the
>11-year sunspot cycle.
>---
>The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have
>contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30
>years.
Aren't you just the most dishonest little troll, Scott? Gosh, I find
it amusing that you limit the analysis to "since 1978".
Especially since the solar output has increased by about 2 W/m^ since
1910:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
But if you didn't limit your temporal range, you might get caught in
your lies.
>In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output
>variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity
>change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is
>unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the
Unlikely? Scott Nudds asserts that this has been disproven!
The reader should note that while the increased solar flux is an
experimental fact, the claims that solar changes are "insufficient"
are based upon incomplete computer models, which notoriously
under-represent solar inputs. Some of these authors have been honest
enough to inform the reader that they _excluded_ all possible feedback
mechanisms that might result from increased solar flux.
>The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully
>at present.
Wow, this statement sure supports Scott Nudds assertion that the sun
_cannot_ be the cause. I wonder what Scott think the authors meant,
when they said "The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
evaluate meaningfully at present"?
I suspect that Scott thinks that means "we've disproven that solar
changes could be the cause..."
>> "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
>> http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
>
>Ahahahahh Retief. The third reference you post to support your denialist
>assertions and the third that contradicts your position. You Pathetic...
>Pathetic... Loser.
>
>From the conclusions section of the above reference - you provide -
>Ahahahahaahhh
>
>"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
>all
>the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for
>more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
>of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
>high."
50% is pretty damn high, especially when your analysis _excludes_
solar feedback mechanisms (e.g. increase temp => more atmospheric
water & increase temp/sunlight => changes in biosphere)
We discover that the authors of this paper apparently limited their
analyses to:
"Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
can influence the troposphere: (1) changes in the energy input
into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."
That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
And additionally:
The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
(1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
1970).
That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
>> Gosh Parker, don't you read scientific literature? From last month:
>>
>> http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(olbm4x555tz1gi55ojqhw055)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,19;journal,5,139;linkingpublicationresults,1:102023,1
>
>From the Royal Society ay? Here is a portion of their Global Warming Pages.
>Again contradicting your stated position Retief.
Gosh Nudds, are you still lying? Parker claimed that:
"Read some scientific liteature. The cosmic ray theory is as dead as
phlogiston."
Yet we find that the paper above was published. It seems the the
editor and publisher disagree with Parker.
>Ahahahahahah... You Pathetic, Ignorant, Loser....
>
>Facts and fictions about climate change
And, as usual, Scott Nudds posts material with does not refute that
the paper was published (and thus, the editors of the journal disagree
with Parker's false claim that "cosmic ray theory is as dead")
Retief
Mass Killer COALition
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> not support the stated conclusion.
You mean like those 5 references you just posted in another thread each of
which contradics your stated position and contradicts your claim for the
reference?
Ahahahahahahahahahah.........
You know.. Let me refresh your memory..
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote>
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
>
> [...] Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output
> of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled
> out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
> evaluate meaningfully at present.
Ahahahaha... Retief you Pathetic, Lying, Loser. Lets quote the enitre
article synopsis shall we... I've highlighted the appropriate section that
contradicts your stated denialist position..
Ahahahahahahah You Loser.
-Start Quote-
Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by
changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the
11-year sunspot cycle.
---
The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have
contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30
years.
---
In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output
variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity
change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is
unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the
seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's
output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out.
The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully
at present.
-End Quote-
Ahahahahahaha... You Pathetic... Pathetic... Loser...
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote>
> "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
> http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
Ahahahahh Retief. The third reference you post to support your denialist
assertions and the third that contradicts your position. You Pathetic...
Pathetic... Loser.
From the conclusions section of the above reference - you provide -
Ahahahahaahhh
"We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused
all
the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for
more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any
of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too
high."
Ahahahahahahahaha..... You Fucking Stupid AmeriKKKan Loser.
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Gosh Parker, don't you read scientific literature? From last month:
>
> http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(olbm4x555tz1gi55ojqhw055)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,19;journal,5,139;linkingpublicationresults,1:102023,1
From the Royal Society ay? Here is a portion of their Global Warming Pages.
Again contradicting your stated position Retief.
Ahahahahahah... You Pathetic, Ignorant, Loser....
Facts and fictions about climate change
It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Really? My stated position is that you and your AGW crowd have not
> proven your claim.
And once again I remind you - now for the dozen dozenth time that science
never deals in proof outside of mathematics.
You have been told this literally hundreds of times by now and yet you
still demand proof.
Apparently you are brain damaged and are incapable of learning from your
past stream of errors.
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society -
Englands
foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 4.
-----------------------
The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions of greenhouse
gases from
human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction of the
atmosphere
that even if it doubled it would make little difference to the climate.
Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing
than
increases in greenhouse gases.
---
About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth's atmosphere
eventually reaches the surface where it is absorbed. Much of the solar
energy is
absorbed by the Earth's surface and then released as infra-red radiation,
some of
which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide
and
methane. The greenhouse gases act like a blanket over the surface of the
Earth,
keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees warmer than it otherwise would be,
which
is a phenomenon known as 'the greenhouse effect'.
Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
enhance the
greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming. It has been long
established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red radiation. The
IPCC
2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is "the dominant
human-influenced
greenhouse gas", and is responsible for more than half the warming due to
changes
in atmospheric concentrations.
Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice, it is
known
that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several thousands
of
years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between 1750 and 2000,
during
which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration rose by about 31% to
368
parts per million. The IPCC report noted that the current concentration of
carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has not been exceeded during the past 420,000
years and
that "the rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least
during
the past 20,000 years".
It has been claimed that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide
is actually a consequence of climate change, rather than a cause. The IPCC
report
pointed out that chemical analyses of the carbon dioxide show that the
increase in
the atmosphere, and an
accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are primarily due to the
burning
of fossil
fuels and deforestation.
Although some carbon dioxide taken up and released by oceans or land, it
stressed
that the average rate of increase in concentrations in the atmosphere since
1980
has been about 0.4% per year and that this is due to emissions. It stated
"Most of
the emissions during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning, the
rest
(10 to 30%) is predominantly due to land-use change, especially
deforestation".
A number of other factors are known to influence climate and cause change,
particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the energy from the sun and
particles released into the
atmosphere from both natural sources and human activities. Particles in the
atmosphere reduce the amount of energy from the sun that reaches the Earth's
surface, and therefore cause a cooling effect..
The IPCC has studied evidence of changes in these various factors and their
likely
influence on the global average temperature. It found that the variations
over the
20th century can only be understood by taking all factors, both natural and
human,
into account.
Land use changes such as the spread or shrinkage of forest areas can also
contribute to changes in temperature. The loss of forests can exert a
cooling
effect by increasing the
reflectivity of the land surface, which means lower amounts of solar
radiation are
absorbed. The IPCC 2001 report noted that the overall effect of land use
changes
since pre-industrial times has been to produce cause cooling, and that this
has
mainly been due to the replacement at high latitudes of snow-covered forests
by
open, snow-covered areas. The report noted that the level of understanding
of the
overall effect of land use
changes was lower than for other factors affecting global temperatures.
The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early
part of
the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a
decrease
in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot explain
the
warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC concluded that
there
is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the
last 50
years is attributable to human activities". The report pointed out that
natural
factors on their own would have produced an overall drop in global average
temperatures.
A recent study by Solanki and others, published in the journal Nature, found
that
the level of solar activity during the past 70 years has been "exceptional"
when
considered over the period of the last 11,400 years. However, they concluded
that
"although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
may
indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during
the
twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have
been
the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
Invasion of the Crackpots
wrote:
Invasion of the Crackpots
Baldin Lee Pramer
> Those cited papers all admit that they have not
> disproven that solar changes could be responsible.
Read this.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
Baldin Lee Pramer
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
Retief
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Really? My stated position is that you and your AGW crowd have not
>> proven your claim.
>
> And once again I remind you - now for the dozen dozenth time that science
>never deals in proof outside of mathematics.
In your case, "science" traffics only in lies...such as the ones you
persist in posting.
> You have been told this literally hundreds of times by now and yet you
>still demand proof.
That seems to be the only thing that causes you to even approach
producing what might be contrued as "evidence". It's really too bad
that you lack the honesty to support your claims.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
Retief
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> persist in posting.
Lies like this one?
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> persist in posting.
Lies like this one?
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
9 December 2006
For more information:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.
These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement
(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> In your case, "science" traffics only in lies...such as the ones you
> persist in posting.
Lies like this one?
Ex-CIA chief says U.S. must act on climate
Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:07 AM ET
By Paul Taylor
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States must act to cap its emissions of
greenhouse gases and join the fight against climate change or risk losing
global leadership, a former CIA director said in a report released on
Monday.
"The United States must adopt a carbon emission control policy," John
Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1995-96, said in a report
to the Trilateral Commission, a grouping of business and opinion leaders
from Europe, the United States and Asia.
"If the United States or any other OECD country that is a large producer of
greenhouse gas emissions is to retain a leadership role in other areas, it
cannot just opt out of the global climate change policy process," he wrote.
Deutch, an energy specialist who is now a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, also proposed an expanded use of nuclear power,
international cooperation to develop clean coal technology and a sharing of
the costs of emissions control between rich countries and large emerging
nations.
He advocated an additional tax of about $1 per gallon on gasoline, diesel
and other petroleum products in the United States, coupled with a tightening
of fuel economy standards for U.S. car manufacturers, to encourage fuel
efficiency and dampen demand, while recognizing that would be politically
difficult.
CAP AND TRADE
He suggested Washington use the same "cap and trade" system of limiting
carbon dioxide emissions and issuing emissions permits to industry that can
be traded, which the European Union currently uses.
His report to the council, created in 1973 to build a policy consensus among
capitalist democracies on three continents, was the latest in a series of
international studies highlighting the need for radical policy changes to
combat global warming.
Deutch also listed so-called geotechnical measures under consideration to
counterbalance climate change, including adding aerosols to the
stratosphere, placing balloons or mirrors in the stratosphere and even "high
altitude nuclear explosions to induce a nuclear 'spring'".
These ideas were so risky and hard to demonstrate technically that they
highlighted the need to redouble efforts to mitigate human-induced climate
change.
The report said the major industrialized countries must began a process of
transition away from a petroleum-based economy to reduce their dependence on
oil and gas imports for political as well as environmental reasons.
It also called for China and India to be admitted to the International
Energy Agency to improve cooperation among major oil and gas importers and
help avoid tensions over supplies.
While Deutch placed great expectations on carbon capture and sequestration
technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations, notably in
China, a parallel report to the Trilateral Commission by French energy
executive Anne Lauvergeon cast doubt on that solution.
Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, which builds nuclear power stations,
said the capture and storage of carbon emitted through the burning of fossil
fuels was too often presented as a miracle solution.
"This technology will ... not play a significant role in the limitation of
carbon emissions for half a century," she wrote.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> In your case, "science" traffics only in lies...such as the ones you
> persist in posting.
Lies like this one?
Winter warmest on record worldwide
----------------------------------
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID - AP Science Writer
Thu Mar 15, 5:38 PM ET
WASHINGTON - This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government
said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate.
The
report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so
severe it will continue for centuries.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land
and
ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit
above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.
The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have
increased
at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times
larger
since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.
Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse
gases
which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other
processes.
These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat
like
a greenhouse.
Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic
warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in
January -
the warmest January ever - but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.
The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water
temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the
Southern
Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above
average
and the fourth warmest.
The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars
notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is
December,
January and February.
For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average.
The
season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of
the
eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in
February,
which was the third coldest on record.
For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to
Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures
occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.
For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from
the
record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> In your case, "science" traffics only in lies...such as the ones you
> persist in posting.
Lies like this one?
Tundra Disappearing At Rapid RateDate - March 7, 2007
-------------------------------------
University of Alberta
The boundary, or treeline, between forest and tundra ecosystems is a
prominent landscape feature in both Arctic and mountain environments. As
global temperatures continue to increase, the treeline is expected to
advance but the new research shows that this shift will not always occur
gradually but can surge ahead.
"The conventional thinking on treeline dynamics has been that advances are
very slow because conditions are so harsh at these high latitudes and
altitudes," said Dr. Ryan Danby, from the Department of Biological
Sciences. "But what our data indicates is that there was an upslope surge
of trees in response to warmer temperatures. It's like it waited until
conditions were just right and then it decided to get up and run, not just
walk."
Danby and Dr. David Hik, also from the Faculty of Science, reconstructed
changes in the density and altitude of treeline forests in southwestern
Yukon over the past 300 years. Using tree rings, they were able to date
the year of establishment and death of spruce trees and reconstruct
changes in treeline vegetation. The study is published in the "Journal of
Ecology."
They found that a rapid change in response to climate warming during the
early mid 20th century was observed at all locations. Treeline advanced
considerably--as much as 85 metres elevation--on warm, south-facing slopes
and tree density increased significantly--as much as 65 per cent--on
cooler, north-facing slopes.
"The mechanism of change appears to be associated with occasional years of
extraordinarily high seed production--triggered by hot, dry
summers--followed by successive years of warm temperatures favourable for
seedling growth and survival," said Danby.
Widespread changes to treelines could have significant impacts, says
Danby. As tundra habitats are lost and fragmented, species and habitats
are forced to move upwards as well. "The problem is that in mountainous
areas you can only go so high so they get forced into smaller and smaller
areas," said Danby.
These changes are of particular importance in these northern regions where
First Nation people still rely heavily on the land, says Danby. Tundra
species like caribou and sheep populations, which are important parts of
that lifestyle, have declined across southwestern Yukon. As treeline
advance, the reflectance of the land surface declines because coniferous
trees absorb more sunlight than the tundra. This light energy is then
re-emitted to the atmosphere as heat. This sets up a "positive feedback,"
the same process that is associated with the rapidly decaying Arctic ice
cap.
"These results are very relevant to the current debate surrounding climate
change because they provide real evidence that vegetation change will be
quite considerable in response to future warming, potentially transforming
tundra landscapes into open spruce woodlands," said Danby, who will also
be participating in an International Polar Year project that will be
examining treeline dynamics across the circumpolar north.
Dr. Hik is also executive director of the Canadian International Polar
Year secretariat at the University of Alberta.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University
of Alberta.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> In your case, "science" traffics only in lies...such as the ones you
> persist in posting.
Lies like this one?
newsletterSource:Purdue University
Date:February 27, 2007
New Evidence Of Link Between Carbon Dioxide Emissions And Climate Change
In Boreal Ecosystems
Science Daily - New research aimed at understanding the link between
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> In your case, "science" traffics only in lies...such as the ones you
> persist in posting.
You mean lies like this one?
Meteorologists say sure humans cause climate change By Julia Hayley
Wed Mar 21, 1:11 PM ET
MADRID (Reuters) - Some of the world's leading meteorologists said on
Wednesday
they had no doubt that humans were responsible for global warming.
Rising temperatures, caused by a build up of carbon dioxide in the earth's
atmosphere, are widely expected to bring worsening floods, droughts and
hurricanes. Melting ice caps could inundate densely populated parts of the
planet if warming continues unchecked.
Most scientists agree emissions from coal, oil and gas are causing climate
change, while a few argue there is no link.
Asked if natural warming cycles, as the earth has seen in the past, could be
behind climate change, the director general of the Spanish National
Meteorological Institute was adamant they were not.
"No, because the time scale is different. This phenomenon is happening much
more
quickly," Francisco Cadarso told Reuters on the sidelines of an
international
meteorological conference in Madrid.
He also dismissed as over simple other theories some scientists say
undermine
the idea humans are to blame, such as changes in solar activity, or the
theory
that carbon dioxide increases are lagging behind temperature rises.
"This is too complex a phenomenon to use one single scientific argument to
knock
it down," he said.
Other experts at the meeting of theWorld Meteorological Organization, a
United Nations agency, also said they were sure humans were causing
climate change.
"Scientifically it is clear," the head of Brazil's Meteorological Service
Antonio Divino Mouro told a news conference.
"We've been measuring carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations for many years ...
and
it's proven that these levels are rising and the explanation is that fossil
fuels are getting into the atmosphere."
CO2 is not transparent to infra red light, but absorbs it and causes global
warming, he said.
"There is no doubt man has done this," said Paulo Manso, head of Costa
Rica's
meteorological services.
"We are talking about 9 scientists against every 1," he said referring to
last
month's United Nations climate panel report, which concluded it is 90
percent
certain that human activity is behind global warming.
Divino Mouro and Manso are WMO executive board members.
Vendicar Decarian
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> In your case, "science" traffics only in lies...such as the ones you
> persist in posting.
You mean lies like this one?
Impact of climate change on crops worse than previously thought
The impact of climate change on global crop production is likely to
be worse than previously predicted, scientists said in a 2005 Royal
Society Discussion Meeting.
The two-day international meeting entitled "Food Crops in a Changing
Climate" broughttogether world-class scientists in the fields of
meteorology, climate science and agriculture, to discuss the impacts
of a changing climate on the productivity of staple food crops,
grown throughout the world.
Importantly, it considered how best to forecast these impacts using
observations and modelling techniques.The meeting focussed largely
on tropical countries where most of the world's food is grown and
where people are most vulnerable to climate change.
Results were presented from a series of large-scale field
experiments on crops such as maize, rice, soyabean and wheat, that
show how increasing temperatures, drought and ground-level ozone
concentrations (as predicted for the coming century*), will result
in substantial reduction in crop yields, outweighing the beneficial
fertilisation effects currently predicted from rising levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Professor Steve Long from Illinois University said: "Growing crops
much closer to real conditions has shown that increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have roughly half the
beneficial effects that were previously hoped for in the event of
climate change. In addition, ground-level ozone, which is also
predicted to rise but has not been extensively studied before, has
been shown to result in a loss of photosynthesis and 20% yield
loss."
He continued: "Both these results show that we need to seriously
re-examine our predictions for future global food production as they
are likely to be far lower than previously estimated."
Additionally, studies by scientists from the UK and Denmark show
that just a few days of hot temperatures can severely reduce the
yield of major food crops such as wheat, soyabean, rice and
groundnuts, if they coincide with the flowering of these crops.
These results suggest that there are particular thresholds above
which crops become very vulnerable to climate change.
On a more positive note, the meeting highlighted new developments in
forecasting techniques, the basis of which can act as early warning
systems of famine for vulnerable countries. For example, a team from
the NCAS Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling and the Department
of Agriculture at the University of Reading will demonstrate a new
forecasting system that incorporates a state-of-the-art climate
prediction model with a model that simulates crop growth under
varying environmental conditions.They will show how this can be
used to predict the yield of annual crops in countries such as
India, for the next 50 -100 years, under a changing climate.Such
information can be used by policy makers to aid future planning for
climate and crop responses, and for assessing future vulnerabilities
across the globe.
* As predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change for
2050.
Exxon Tillerman's Hanging
wrote:
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hmm, looks like there hasn't been any substantive change in solar output
> >>sine 1960, at a time when global temperatures have greatly increased.
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> > That page says nothing of the sort.
>
> You are right. This one does...
>
> Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
>
> CLIMATE SCIENCE
> Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
>
> by Staff Writers
> Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 13, 2006
>
> Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a
> small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results
> and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States,
> Switzerland, and Germany.
>
> The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the
> September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the
> National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the
> National Science Foundation.
>
> "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
> human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
> brightness," says Wigley.
>
> Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since
> the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100
> years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global
> warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
> Natural internal variability of Earth's climate system may also have
> played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third
> possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
>
> The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that
> relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have
> changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
>
> Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
> surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The
> sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface,
> while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface
> layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both
> the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae
> dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
>
> The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at
> indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae
> affect the Sun's brightness. Data collected from radiometers on
> U. S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent
> brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when
> spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar
> cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed
> appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the
> mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase
> in brightness over the period.
>
> To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of
> sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere
> and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of
> high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic
> rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the
> activity.
>
> The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern
> Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of
> long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes
> in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the
> sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even
> though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these
> phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period,
> according to the authors.
>
> Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar
> brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with
> sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that
> these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
>
> "There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar
> brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says
> Wigley.
>
> Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic
> rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the
> authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because
> physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
> The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National
> Center for Atmospheric Research under primary sponsorship by the National
> Science Foundation. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
> expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> > What is does say is that increasing CO2 has insignificant effect, when in
> > competion with
> > water.
>
> Ahahahahahaha..... CO2 doesn't compete with water. It works cooperatively
> with water, and in fact water is the primary feedback mechanism that
> amplifies the small warming effect of CO2.
>
> Stupid... Scientifically Illiterate... Retief.
>
> Educate yourself you pathetic Loser.
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> > However, the reader can confirm that falsehood of Nudds' claim that
> > the solar output hasn't changed since 1960, for himself:
>
> >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/fig2.gif
>
> Gosh Retief.. Ahahahahahah... Your own reference seems to disagree with
> you.
>
> Ahahahahahahahahah... You pathetic, ignorant, Loser.
>
> The plot shows that from 1960 on the average output from the sun hasn't
> changed very much at all. Averaging 1371.5 watts/m**2 with maybe a change
> of .2 watts/m**2 over the last 40 years or about .05 watts/m**2 per decade,
> which is absolutely insignificant and totally dwarfed by the radiative
> forcing of CO2.
>
> Over the last 100 years the increase in solar output has by the plot you
> provided increased by .5 watts/m**2. Again .05 watts/m**2 per decade.
>
> From your own reference...
>
> "It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar
> irradience-changes, shich are roughly two to three times larger than solar
> cyle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced
> by solar vriability is well correlated with the observed global warming over
> the first half of the 20th century, but <NOT> with the more rapid warming
> seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled
> warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that
> although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was
> probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the
> past three decades."
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> > Indeed. That is what is called a "conclusion", Nudds. In this case,
> > as with many other pro-AGW researchers, those conclusions are not
> > supported by the reported data or calculations.
>
> Ahahahahaha.. You pathetic Loser.
>
> Your explanation. The researchers conclusions in the reference YOU
> provided, are wrong.
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahaha.... You Dung Eating AmeriKKKan Moron.
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> > "Results from a global climate model including an interactive
> > parameterization of stratospheric chemistry show how upper
> > stratospheric ozone changes may amplify observed, 11-year solar cycle
> > irradiance changes to affect climate."
>
> One day you migh grow up enough to understand those big words there Retief.
>
> "Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>
> > So, prove your claims Nudds. Prove that your climate model is
> > correct. Prove that this increase in solar flux is insufficient to be
> > the source of any observed warming. Prove that the ocean does not
> > result in a long term (multi-decade) integration of incoming flux (and
> > thus causes a multi-decade delay in warming). Prove that this
> > increasing solar flux does not result in increased atmospheric water
> > (and thus a solar-water feedback loop).
>
> Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
>
> CLIMATE SCIENCE
> Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
>
> by Staff Writers
> Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 13, 2006
>
> Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a
> small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results
> and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States,
> Switzerland, and Germany.
>
> The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the
> September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the
> National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the
> National Science Foundation.
>
> "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
> human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
> brightness," says Wigley.
>
> Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since
> the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100
> years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global
> warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
> Natural internal variability of Earth's climate system may also have
> played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third
> possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
>
> The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that
> relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have
> changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
>
> Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
> surface covered by dark sunspots and by ...
>
> read more ยป
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Retief
<Baldin...@msn.com> wrote:
I have a better idea, why don't you go read the actual Solanki paper,
where you will discover that the authors of this paper apparently
limited their analyses to:
"Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
can influence the troposphere: (1) changes in the energy input
into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."
That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
And additionally:
The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
(1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
1970).
That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
Retief