So why do we historically see the temperature fall off DURING the peak of CO2 if said feedback loop exists?
And yet there’s no warming due to that CO2, so the premise is faulty.
Wow! Your fundamental ignorance of how matter works is monumental. Whether using the Bohr model of the atom or the accurate Feynman model QED (for which Feynman won the Nobel prize), the key knowledge is that every element displays different energy spectra caused by electrons moving into higher or lower energy states. As they move to different orbitals, they either absorb or release photons at different frequencies. This is one way in which astrophysicists determine at a distance, of course, what atoms and molecules exist out there. It's called spectral analysis -- because they look for the different and unique spectral patterns of each atom.
Since this is an Apple site, I invite you to buy The Elements app from the iTunes store. For each atom, the app displays the different spectral patterns for each element. The app also displays how the orbitals are filled for each element. The app deserves an F for failure to address the Periodic Table itself from which you can read at a glance the general orbital patterns, the energy levels, the sizes of atoms, binding energies between elements when forming molecules, etc.
So why do we historically see the temperature fall off DURING the peak of CO2 if said feedback loop exists?
And yet there’s no warming due to that CO2, so the premise is faulty.
Wow! Your fundamental ignorance of how matter works is monumental. Whether using the Bohr model of the atom or the accurate Feynman model QED (for which Feynman won the Nobel prize), the key knowledge is that every element displays different energy spectra caused by electrons moving into higher or lower energy states. As they move to different orbitals, they either absorb or release photons at different frequencies. This is one way in which astrophysicists determine at a distance, of course, what atoms and molecules exist out there. It's called spectral analysis -- because they look for the different and unique spectral patterns of each atom.
Since this is an Apple site, I invite you to buy The Elements app from the iTunes store. For each atom, the app displays the different spectral patterns for each element. The app also displays how the orbitals are filled for each element. The app deserves an F for failure to address the Periodic Table itself from which you can read at a glance the general orbital patterns, the energy levels, the sizes of atoms, binding energies between elements when forming molecules, etc.
I agree with your sentiments but, just for the record, thermal IR does not excite electrons; it's absorption is due to excitation of interatomic bond vibrations and some molecular rotational modes.
I have all the ammunition I need at the links provided, it is not just an unsubstantiated attack as you did. Gore and now Cook are performing scare monger tactics. Gore would not even debate climate change reasons with Heartland, Gore has too much to loose!
Now Cook is making these statements for his and Apple's self interest just to lay the foundation for favorable conditions for an Apple-designed car.
On a side note, the Tesla Model S did terribly at Nurburgring, so no electric only cars for me! They are not fully baked, well except for that continuous torque, but batteries don't cut it for performance at the ring, and handling is lackluster.
Lol. You're funny. Ad hominem? From a guy who says things things like "Gore THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN"?
In any event, Gore is not a serious climate change scholar, not by a long shot. He dissembles, exaggerates, sometimes even crosses the boundaries of scientific truth. If he's your standard of comparison for the Heartland Institute, you're in some pretty sad company indeed.....
I agree with your sentiments but, just for the record, thermal IR does not excite electrons; it's absorption is due to excitation of interatomic bond vibrations and some molecular rotational modes.
These carbon emissions get trapped and damage the ozone layer, thus contributing to climate change. You can spin your conspiracy theories if you like, but the environment is an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of whether you believe scientific consensus or not. Even if there is no such thing as climate change the smog is a huge, pressing issue in the Ls Angekes area. If you can travel out there, go on a run, feel the wheezing, them come back to me we can talk about your consiracy theory.
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
These carbon emissions get trapped and damage the ozone layer, thus contributing to climate change. You can spin your conspiracy theories if you like, but the environment is an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of whether you believe scientific consensus or not. Even if there is no such thing as climate change the smog is a huge, pressing issue in the Ls Angekes area. If you can travel out there, go on a run, feel the wheezing, them come back to me we can talk about your consiracy theory.
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
Logically correct but, if you look at the history of science, it is much more likely to be true than entirely untrue, which is what you are asserting on this subject.
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
I know what you're trying to say, and that you think that it sounds intelligent, but it's actually not. Basically you're suggesting that for science to take place there has to be disagreement. There's something called a peer review process in research that ensures standards are being followed and that the conclusions drawn from the research are valid and reliable. The consensus is that the conclusions drawn from the research are reliable and valid. There are no concerns with the way the research was conducted, with the conclusions, and definitely not that we should start considering the opposite conclusion that of been drawn.
it is much more likely to be true than entirely untrue
I somehow doubt that, given the sheer number of past beliefs. Here’re some newbies but goodies.
which is what you are asserting on this subject.
No, I’m just saying it’s a logical fallacy to claim it’s true because of the support.
So you really think that the bulk of, or at least a significantly large amount of widely supported scientific work in the past has been completely wrong? As in concluding the opposite of what is actually happening? It's easy to pull individual, well-known examples of where somewhat accepted hypotheses were found to be incorrect, but hard to find almost anything on this scale in recent history.
As I've said many times, I don't disagree, from a purely logical perspective, that consensus does not guarantee anything - I'm simply arguing that consensus among experts in the field makes it more likely. On the other side of the argument, what do you have to support the counter-claims? Other than conspiracy theories, lobbyists for the energy industry and a desire for this to be wrong because it is inconvenient. The argument that it is obviously false does not stand up well to scrutiny when every attempt to expand on that argument simply demonstrates ignorance of the science.
The climate is always changing and it is not changing more rapidly now than it did before man came along.
In the 1970s, people who sought control and power scared everyone over global cooling and the next ice age. I remember being taught about it in school.
Then all of a sudden... Oops.
It stopped cooling.
Then more people seeking power and control (including some of the same ones that warned about cooling) began warning us about global warming. Thankfully just enough people were skeptical that it took too long for anything to be taxed or controlled. Why? Because it stopped warming.
That's when they had a brilliant idea and changed the name to climate change.
But the power hungry are getting desperate because even more people are seeing through the lies.
Historical data and records, and studies and reports are easier than ever to find on the internet. which shows that the past was worse than the present.
So what have we seen lately? The Earth is greening, including Africa and the Sahara. Crop yields are up. No trend in the number or severity of floods or droughts. Atlantic hurricanes at record lows. Number of violent tornado numbers down since the 1970s. Past few years have had tornado numbers well below normal.
NASA reports that Antarctica is gaining ice and has been for some time. Danish Meteorological Institute reports that the Arctic is gaining sea ice at record rates and that the amount of multi year ice is increasing. Plus Greenland is gaining ice.
The satellite based temperature record shows no increase in the warming anoamly for 18 years and 9 months.
They said it would take 15 years of no warming to prove their theories wrong.
Well it has been over 15 years and they still won't admit they are wrong. Instead they have made up over 60 excuses for the lack of warming instead of admitting that their computer models are junk.
But we cover the earth with expensive, inefficient, unreliable solar panels and wind turbines, eating up land like there was no tomorrow and making energy too expensive for the poor to afford it.
Countries raise their standards of living through the use of affordable and available energy. The pwoer hungry seeking control wish to keep people poor, ill and hungry.
Aaaand, just a few days ago researchers revealed that acidity (possibly caused by CO2) does not ruin coral reefs (while the claim was that it its effect would be a absolutely detrimental) aaaand climate change in the past might be as rapid or even more rapid than the current 'change' (while the claim was that the rate of change was unprecedented).
It might also be nice to know that current satellite measurements show a significant discrepancy with the accumulated temperature measurements on earth (it is lower) and that has to be explained first, before any conclusions can be drawn.
The best course of action would be to throw away the unreliable earth records - especially when you consider the error margin in relation to the 'measured' temperature difference of .6 degres Celsius in 100 years (wow, that's a stable system!) - and measure, via satellites, the earth for 100 years or so.
Another big problem - for the climate political police movement (ipcc) - is that the natural change in climate (temperature) is unknown and as such makes any climate change conclusion, literally, baseless.
There are no concerns with the way the research was conducted...
What, about this specific topic? You’d better believe there are.
Valid examples but, again, the use of individual cases to draw a generalized conclusion - which you know, having pointed out many times to others, is a logical fallacy. The journals in the first link are of the new breed of mass publication - they are not reputable, top-tier journals of the kind that have published much of the climate research. The second story is about a real journal that got scammed, but that is very rare.
As to concerns about this research - there clearly are, but only by those claiming that the research is falsified. I've seen no credible scientific dispute of this work. Do you have citations for such?
So you really think that the bulk of, or at least a significantly large amount of widely supported scientific work in the past has been completely wrong?
Of course it has. If we want to discuss just the things that have had consensus that have been wrong, we’d be here for hours.
As in concluding the opposite of what is actually happening?
Thing about science is that there are more than just opposites.
...hard to find almost anything on this scale in recent history.
1950? 1930 (for the latter)? Those aren’t recent?
I'm simply arguing that consensus among experts in the field makes it more likely.
And you’re right, to an extent. We have to be able to trust ourselves–humanity–as well as what the world around us exhibits.
On the other side of the argument, what do you have to support the counter-claims?
I’ve presented a portion of it, at least, which is fairly strong.
Other than conspiracy theories, lobbyists for the energy industry and a desire for this to be wrong because it is inconvenient.
A theory of conspiracy, sure, due to the nature of the manipulation; no energy industry lobbyists; and absolutely nothing that would suggest the last point.
The argument that it is obviously false does not stand up well to scrutiny when every attempt to expand on that argument simply demonstrates ignorance of the science.
And yet when we get to the fundamental point–As there is no warming even with an increase in CO2, the mechanism claimed to be the source of warming must not not exist, but not be a cause–the discussion just peters out.
Originally Posted by latifbp
I'll put my trust in NASA rather than you, thank you very much.
The runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because because the 15 nanometer band, the main source of absorption, saturates and the addition of CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.
Originally Posted by muppetry
Valid examples but, again, the use of individual cases to draw a generalized conclusion...
The very CONCEPT of peer review does not require rerunning of tests. I take serious issue with it. What is science if not reproducible?! It’s the equivalent of “SUB 4 SUB” on YouTube, where people subscribe (in BOTH senses of the word) to each other’s posts for the sole purpose of increasing subscribership (and therefore the illusion of popularity and the fallacy of quality therefrom). When many of the primary source claims of AGW have their studies rerun and shown to either not show what was claimed or even show the opposite, I get a little disillusioned with the Holy Book of “peer review” that its proponents tend to scream from the hilltops.
As to concerns about this research - there clearly are, but only by those claiming that the research is falsified.
What other concern would there be? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I've seen no credible scientific dispute of this work. Do you have citations for such?
Aaaand, just a few days ago researchers revealed that acidity (possibly caused by CO2) does not ruin coral reefs (while the claim was that it its effect would be a absolutely detrimental) aaaand climate change in the past might be as rapid or even more rapid than the current 'change' (while the claim was that the rate of change was unprecedented).
You are referring to the Scripps Institute, National Academy paper on the coral response to dissolved CO2 presumably. It looks like a nice study. It has no bearing on the effect of CO2 on climate, however. Not sure what your other reference might be, as you didn't provide a citation.
Remember that the only significant heat loss mechanism from a planet is thermal infrared radiation. There is, obviously, no conduction, convection or any other transport mechanism available.
An atmosphere only affects the rate of radiative loss if it absorbs the thermal radiation emitted from the surface. Nitrogen and oxygen do not - carbon dioxide and water vapor, together with other trace gases such as methane, do. So, if the earth's atmosphere were only nitrogen and oxygen then correct - it would have little effect on thermal equilibrium and the earth would not be colder than with no atmosphere at all, although it would be around 30 °C colder than with our actual atmosphere.
The 30 °C difference is caused by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that do absorb some of the thermal IR radiation. Quite a big difference being caused by less than 1% of the atmospheric constituents, which is why relatively small changes in those gas concentrations makes a big difference.
You forgot to mention that water vapor has an absorption band that almost completely overlaps that of CO2.
So almost everywhere CO2 doesn't contribute to heat trapping (only at the poles where the air is dry CO2 has a (very small) absorption band.
Comments
So you have no argument whatsoever, then.
So why do we historically see the temperature fall off DURING the peak of CO2 if said feedback loop exists?
And yet there’s no warming due to that CO2, so the premise is faulty.
Wow! Your fundamental ignorance of how matter works is monumental. Whether using the Bohr model of the atom or the accurate Feynman model QED (for which Feynman won the Nobel prize), the key knowledge is that every element displays different energy spectra caused by electrons moving into higher or lower energy states. As they move to different orbitals, they either absorb or release photons at different frequencies. This is one way in which astrophysicists determine at a distance, of course, what atoms and molecules exist out there. It's called spectral analysis -- because they look for the different and unique spectral patterns of each atom.
Since this is an Apple site, I invite you to buy The Elements app from the iTunes store. For each atom, the app displays the different spectral patterns for each element. The app also displays how the orbitals are filled for each element. The app deserves an F for failure to address the Periodic Table itself from which you can read at a glance the general orbital patterns, the energy levels, the sizes of atoms, binding energies between elements when forming molecules, etc.
I agree with your sentiments but, just for the record, thermal IR does not excite electrons; it's absorption is due to excitation of interatomic bond vibrations and some molecular rotational modes.
Now Cook is making these statements for his and Apple's self interest just to lay the foundation for favorable conditions for an Apple-designed car.
On a side note, the Tesla Model S did terribly at Nurburgring, so no electric only cars for me! They are not fully baked, well except for that continuous torque, but batteries don't cut it for performance at the ring, and handling is lackluster.
You're right, of course.
And yet you’ve posted nothing that I didn’t already know, nor anything that disproves what I said.
I’ve had The Elements since the iPad’s launch day, by the way. Great little app.
These carbon emissions get trapped and damage the ozone layer, thus contributing to climate change. You can spin your conspiracy theories if you like, but the environment is an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of whether you believe scientific consensus or not. Even if there is no such thing as climate change the smog is a huge, pressing issue in the Ls Angekes area. If you can travel out there, go on a run, feel the wheezing, them come back to me we can talk about your consiracy theory.
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
These carbon emissions get trapped and damage the ozone layer, thus contributing to climate change. You can spin your conspiracy theories if you like, but the environment is an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of whether you believe scientific consensus or not. Even if there is no such thing as climate change the smog is a huge, pressing issue in the Ls Angekes area. If you can travel out there, go on a run, feel the wheezing, them come back to me we can talk about your consiracy theory.
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Why is that an oxymoron?
Love that term "scientific consensus". You do realize that's on oxymoron, right?
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
Logically correct but, if you look at the history of science, it is much more likely to be true than entirely untrue, which is what you are asserting on this subject.
it is much more likely to be true than entirely untrue
I somehow doubt that, given the sheer number of past beliefs. Here’re some newbies but goodies.
No, I’m just saying it’s a logical fallacy to claim it’s true because of the support.
Yeah, about that...
What, about this specific topic? You’d better believe there are.
it is much more likely to be true than entirely untrue
I somehow doubt that, given the sheer number of past beliefs. Here’re some newbies but goodies.
No, I’m just saying it’s a logical fallacy to claim it’s true because of the support.
So you really think that the bulk of, or at least a significantly large amount of widely supported scientific work in the past has been completely wrong? As in concluding the opposite of what is actually happening? It's easy to pull individual, well-known examples of where somewhat accepted hypotheses were found to be incorrect, but hard to find almost anything on this scale in recent history.
As I've said many times, I don't disagree, from a purely logical perspective, that consensus does not guarantee anything - I'm simply arguing that consensus among experts in the field makes it more likely. On the other side of the argument, what do you have to support the counter-claims? Other than conspiracy theories, lobbyists for the energy industry and a desire for this to be wrong because it is inconvenient. The argument that it is obviously false does not stand up well to scrutiny when every attempt to expand on that argument simply demonstrates ignorance of the science.
I'll put my trust in NASA rather than you, thank you very much.
Aaaand, just a few days ago researchers revealed that acidity (possibly caused by CO2) does not ruin coral reefs (while the claim was that it its effect would be a absolutely detrimental) aaaand climate change in the past might be as rapid or even more rapid than the current 'change' (while the claim was that the rate of change was unprecedented).
It might also be nice to know that current satellite measurements show a significant discrepancy with the accumulated temperature measurements on earth (it is lower) and that has to be explained first, before any conclusions can be drawn.
The best course of action would be to throw away the unreliable earth records - especially when you consider the error margin in relation to the 'measured' temperature difference of .6 degres Celsius in 100 years (wow, that's a stable system!) - and measure, via satellites, the earth for 100 years or so.
Another big problem - for the climate political police movement (ipcc) - is that the natural change in climate (temperature) is unknown and as such makes any climate change conclusion, literally, baseless.
Edit: corrected some numbers.
Yeah, about that...
What, about this specific topic? You’d better believe there are.
Valid examples but, again, the use of individual cases to draw a generalized conclusion - which you know, having pointed out many times to others, is a logical fallacy. The journals in the first link are of the new breed of mass publication - they are not reputable, top-tier journals of the kind that have published much of the climate research. The second story is about a real journal that got scammed, but that is very rare.
As to concerns about this research - there clearly are, but only by those claiming that the research is falsified. I've seen no credible scientific dispute of this work. Do you have citations for such?
So you really think that the bulk of, or at least a significantly large amount of widely supported scientific work in the past has been completely wrong?
Of course it has. If we want to discuss just the things that have had consensus that have been wrong, we’d be here for hours.
Thing about science is that there are more than just opposites.
1950? 1930 (for the latter)? Those aren’t recent?
And you’re right, to an extent. We have to be able to trust ourselves–humanity–as well as what the world around us exhibits.
I’ve presented a portion of it, at least, which is fairly strong.
A theory of conspiracy, sure, due to the nature of the manipulation; no energy industry lobbyists; and absolutely nothing that would suggest the last point.
And yet when we get to the fundamental point–As there is no warming even with an increase in CO2, the mechanism claimed to be the source of warming must not not exist, but not be a cause–the discussion just peters out.
Here’s what NASA has to say on the subject.
The very CONCEPT of peer review does not require rerunning of tests. I take serious issue with it. What is science if not reproducible?! It’s the equivalent of “SUB 4 SUB” on YouTube, where people subscribe (in BOTH senses of the word) to each other’s posts for the sole purpose of increasing subscribership (and therefore the illusion of popularity and the fallacy of quality therefrom). When many of the primary source claims of AGW have their studies rerun and shown to either not show what was claimed or even show the opposite, I get a little disillusioned with the Holy Book of “peer review” that its proponents tend to scream from the hilltops.
As to concerns about this research - there clearly are, but only by those claiming that the research is falsified.
What other concern would there be?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Wait, which topic specifically?
You are referring to the Scripps Institute, National Academy paper on the coral response to dissolved CO2 presumably. It looks like a nice study. It has no bearing on the effect of CO2 on climate, however. Not sure what your other reference might be, as you didn't provide a citation.
You forgot to mention that water vapor has an absorption band that almost completely overlaps that of CO2.
So almost everywhere CO2 doesn't contribute to heat trapping (only at the poles where the air is dry CO2 has a (very small) absorption band.