Scientific Forums


Pages: (19) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Another Stupid Global Warming Thread, here we go again
adoucette
Posted: Feb 27 2008, 03:44 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


QUOTE (Zarkov)
have fun in the cold ultra-dry atmosphere


Except January 2008 had the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover for the period of 1966-2008, just slightly larger than the previous largest anomaly of January, 1985.

Snow requires MOISTURE in the atmosphere.

Zarkov is WRONG AGAIN

Of course, who is surprised by this?

laugh.gif

Arthur





--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
Zarkov
Posted: Feb 27 2008, 07:36 PM


Observer- Galactic Central
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1399
Joined: 20-July 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -186


QUOTE
Northern Hemisphere snow cover



oh yes snow did fall didn't it ohmy.gif

but that was only because of the massive ice-melt happening up there

and when the Ice Clouds fell to earth, everything went white
biggrin.gif

Don't worry there is a lot of drying and dying to go
Did U want a take-away?


--------------------
http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/

All bets are off
Ignore List:- Everyone
Top
adoucette
Posted: Feb 27 2008, 08:20 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


More Zarkov made up bull.

The melting at the Northern pole occurs during its SUMMER.

There currently is over 13 MILLION sq kilometers of NH polar ice.

Thats over 10 MILLION more than the low point this summer.

So, the point Zarkov, if you actually cared about the FACTS, is the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover for the period of 1966-2008 also occurred while over 10 MILLION sq kilometers of polar sea ice formed.

Arthur



--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
Zarkov
Posted: Feb 27 2008, 10:51 PM


Observer- Galactic Central
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1399
Joined: 20-July 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -186


only God knows what your problem is

I just write you off


--------------------
http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/

All bets are off
Ignore List:- Everyone
Top
adoucette
Posted: Feb 27 2008, 11:13 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


QUOTE (Zarkov @ Feb 27 2008, 05:51 PM)
only God knows what your problem is

I just write you off

Oh No,

Please don't throw me into the briar patch.

laugh.gif

Arthur


--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
Corvidae
Posted: Mar 7 2008, 07:13 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 313
Joined: 7-May 07

Positive Feedback: 80%
Feedback Score: 9


Top
Nasif Nahle
Posted: Mar 7 2008, 11:25 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 7-March 08

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: -4


QUOTE (barakn @ Jan 1 2008, 05:07 PM)
I haven't closely analyzed the entire piece, but I see the usual dirty trick in part 9, where it is claimed that "Under the same conditions, water vapor transfers 160 times more heat than carbon dioxide." That number might be approximately true, but what the author conveniently fails to mention is that water vapor can turn into water droplets. They want you to swallow their fact while ignoring the existence of clouds. Water in the atmosphere is a lot more complicated than carbon dioxide because it can exist all three phases, not just one, and thus can be a greenhouse gas or a solar shield.

Please, as a scientist, I don't want you to swallow anything. It's my obligation to tell you that in the topic No. 9 there is not trick because I'm referring only to water vapor, that is, the water in gaseous phase found in the atmosphere in a normal day (around 3%). Sorry, but your argument is a well known misleading practice from AGWists, not from scientists.
Top
paul h
Posted: Mar 9 2008, 03:55 PM


Alive and well @ Sapo's Joint
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1591
Joined: 12-September 07

Positive Feedback: 94.59%
Feedback Score: 79


QUOTE (Nasif Nahle @ Mar 7 2008, 06:25 PM)
Please, as a scientist, I don't want you to swallow anything. It's my obligation to tell you that in the topic No. 9 there is not trick because I'm referring only to water vapor, that is, the water in gaseous phase found in the atmosphere in a normal day (around 3%). Sorry, but your argument is a well known misleading practice from AGWists, not from scientists.

Nasif Nahle,
Thank you for taking the time to post in my "Stupid Global Warming Thread"
I know you are replying to barakn for his remarks about your statements but, as he has not answered yet let me ask you reply to his questioning with regard to the water vapor condensing into droplets. Both of your points seem viable.


--------------------
left for greener pastures
Send PM ·
Top
BigDumbWeirdo
Posted: Mar 10 2008, 03:53 PM


AςςħΩLΣ
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1968
Joined: 6-October 07

Positive Feedback: 78.38%
Feedback Score: 151


In the Interest of Accuracy:
In one of these global warming threads, a few months back I briefly argued that global warming was predominantly caused by natural processes, with human influences not a major factor. I argued from this position based on information I had been shown in the form of an IPCC report on global warming, ostensibly dated 2001. I have since then discovered that the report I read had been falsified with regards to the date: It was a report initially published in 1990. Since then, the IPCC has issued at least two subsequent reports (1995 and 2001) which took the opposite stance: that human influence is a major contributing factor in global warming. Because of this, I want to change my position, and say to anyone who argued with me (I forget who, exactly) that you were right.
All of this just goes to show how thoroughly one must check their sources, and that even reputable sources cited by disreputable folks cannot be trusted at face value.
Not that it matters too much, but I'd rather post this now than have someone dredge up my part argument to use as ammunition against me in some debate, without having saved for myself the ability to demonstrate that I can and do correct my own errors.


--------------------
Suck my dіck, PissOrg fυcking forums!

Proud recipient of negative feedback from: Samantha Hildreth, DavidD, on2thiests, einstienear, PJParent001, Dibedy, StevenA, ubavontuba, inQZtive, •SHEOL•, ArchAngel, Mr. Robin Parsons... Quick, get on the list before it's too late!
Top
Nasif Nahle
Posted: Mar 10 2008, 06:08 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 7-March 08

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: -4


QUOTE (paul h @ Mar 9 2008, 03:55 PM)
Nasif Nahle,
Thank you for taking the time to post in my "Stupid Global Warming Thread"
I know you are replying to barakn for his remarks about your statements but, as he has not answered yet let me ask you reply to his questioning with regard to the water vapor condensing into droplets. Both of your points seem viable.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your interest. biggrin.gif

When we talk about the solar energy incoming or leaving the Earth, we take into account the condensed water vapor in clouds (stem, droplets, etc.), which have an effect on albedo. We know that the main absorbers of shortwave infrared radiation are water vapor and ozone. The remainder components of the atmosphere are transparent to the shortwave IR, i.e. carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. The ozone in the troposphere has a very low concentration, so the water vapor (gaseous phase, not droplets) is the main absorber of IR. The mean of the concentration of water vapor (again, the gaseous phase of water) in the troposphere is 3%, although it can be higher (up to 7%) or lower (1%).

The absorptivity-emissivity of water vapor is higher than the emissivity of carbon dioxide. While the a-e of water vapor at 1 atm-m is 0.75, the a-e of carbon dioxide is sensibly low (0.00092, or 0.001 rounding off the cipher). Besides, the density of the water vapor in the atmosphere is 0.026 Kg/m^3, while the density of carbon dioxide is 0.000155 Kg/m^3.

By applying the laws of heat transfer obtained by observation and experimentation, the carbon dioxide cannot absorb more heat than the water vapor in the atmosphere. If we consider the specific heat of water vapor and compare it with the specific heat of carbon dioxide we find that the carbon dioxide cannot transform the absorbed heat into latent heat because the CO2 loses the absorbed heat almost immediately after it has gained it, while the water vapor keeps the absorbed heat like latent heat for long periods of time. The heat absorbed and stored like latent heat will be transferred when the water vapor condenses to form droplets, snow flakes, etc. in the upper troposphere.

The effects of clouds on the warming of the medium and lower troposphere are well known because of their reflectivity, but this phenomenon has nothing to do with heat stored, which is the theme managed in my article. The storage of heat is based in the specific heat, the total emittancy, the absorptivity and the emissivity, and the laws of heat transfer of the materials.

Another thing is if we talk on climate, where the water in its three phases is an important, although not the unique, driver.

I have to tell you that the referred article was peer reviewed by scientists and engineers, and the errors, which resided on units and mathematical issues, were corrected.
Top
Grumpy
Posted: Mar 10 2008, 06:08 PM


Curmudgeon of Lucidity
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 4329
Joined: 25-August 05

Positive Feedback: 75.44%
Feedback Score: 141


BigDumbWeirdo

That is real big of you,em...er Weirdo??? But that is how the scientific method works.

Grumpy cool.gif


--------------------
Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity. Kaeroll

Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

“Admittedly, people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.” Richard Dawkins.

"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it's end." Clarence Darrow

"Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism." Richard Dawkins
Top
paul h
Posted: Mar 10 2008, 08:49 PM


Alive and well @ Sapo's Joint
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1591
Joined: 12-September 07

Positive Feedback: 94.59%
Feedback Score: 79


Nasif Nahle,
I thank you for the reply. I have went back and re-read your article and the posts of this thread that have led up to this point very carefully. I remember the 1970's with all of the talk of the up and coming ice age and now 30+ years later the tide has shifted to a warming trend. I must say that as a very concerned layman, with much to loose (taxes, et al) this time around it is nice to find your work. I have taken three statements you made and pasted them below. I would love to know if you will not only comment on them but please give your summary of the current state and the future of the co2 based GW "theory" Given that the average global temp (I think) has not gone up for ~ 6 or 8 years and the ~1 deg. (f) gain of the last 100 years was given up this year alone.


Quote:
To cause a variation in the tropospheric temperature of 0.52 °C (average global temperature anomaly in 1998; UAH) required 1627.6 ppmv of CO2, a density of atmospheric CO2 which has never been recorded or documented anywhere in the last 420,000 years. (Petit et al. 1999)

The total change in the tropospheric temperature of 0.75 °C was given for the duration of one minute of one year (1998) (UAH); however, CO2 increased the tropospheric temperature by only 0.01 °C. We know now that 1934 was the warmest year of the last century. Where did the other 0.74 °C come from? Answer: it came from the Sun and from the remnants of supernovas.


We could fail if we think that the change of temperature was caused by the CO2 when the reality is that the Sun was what heated up the soil. The carbon dioxide only interfered the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but the carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Do never forget two important things: the first is that the carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun.

Nahle, Nasif. Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases. Biology Cabinet. 27 April 2007. Obtained on _03_(month) _10_(day), _2008_(year); from http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html



--------------------
left for greener pastures
Send PM ·
Top
Zarkov
Posted: Mar 10 2008, 09:38 PM


Observer- Galactic Central
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1399
Joined: 20-July 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -186


Face it guys
y'all know nothing about what is happening in the world's climate

Your "predictions" are useless, they change from day to day... depending on what you read.... so your logic is paltry, you have no idea what is happening, and the bogus science sprouted to "explain" unfolding observations is just leading y'all down the garden.....

You have been following "reports" by idiots (or worse, rouges) and you have failed to see through them, so you thrash around..... signifying nothing.

Wait until next year, then you can refine your ideas.... LOL, so much for understanding !


What is happening is ultra serious... Big Oil is laughing at y'all...

andsoamI

LOL


--------------------
http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/

All bets are off
Ignore List:- Everyone
Top
TheDoc
Posted: Mar 10 2008, 09:42 PM


Not from Mars
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 6-March 08

Positive Feedback: 55.56%
Feedback Score: 128


QUOTE (Zarkov)
y'all know nothing about what is happening in the world's climate


Look in a mirror.

QUOTE
your logic is paltry, you have no idea what is happening,


Look in a mirror.

QUOTE
You have been following "reports" by idiots (or worse, rouges) and you have failed to see through them, so you thrash around..... signifying nothing.


Look in a mirror.

QUOTE
LOL


Yes, we are laughing at you laugh.gif


--------------------
Member of Forum Mafia
Send PM ·
Top
barakn
Posted: Mar 11 2008, 08:09 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 632
Joined: 20-December 07

Positive Feedback: 85.29%
Feedback Score: 42


In part 1 of Nahle, Nasif. Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases. Biology Cabinet. 27 April 2007. Obtained on March 10, 2008; from http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html, Nahle says this:
QUOTE
Convection:

Δq/ A = k (σ) (T1^4-T2^4*K^4)

Where Δq is heat variation, A is the area in square meters, k is the convective heat transfer of a given substance, σ is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4), and T1^4-T2^4*K^4 is the difference between the higher absolute temperature to the fourth power and the lower absolute temperature to the forth power.

Notice that this formula as stated is dimensionally incorrect -- the *K^4 does not belong where it appears or we would be trying to subtract a temperature to the 8th power from a temperature to the 4th power. Also note that it is actually the Stefan-Boltzmann Law with corrupted constants and therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with convection. The true formula for free convection is q = k A dT as seen here: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convecti...sfer-d_430.html

Nahle says
QUOTE
Thermal Conductivity of CO2 (k) = 0.016572
and that
QUOTE
k CO2 = 0.016572 W/m^2*K
Notice that this number does have units that would appear to be a convective heat transfer coefficient (thermal conductivity has units of W/mK and emissivity is unitless). The value of k for air is usually somewhere between 10 and 100 W/m^2*K so the value seems quite a bit too low. When Nahle uses k in the formula for "convection" it appears without units:

QUOTE
Δq = k A (σ) (T1^4-T2^4*K^4)

Δq = 0.016572 (1 m^2) (5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (53946055.485 K^4) = 0.05 W


If we remember to include the units (ignoring the extra *K^4 in the original formula just as Nahle seems to have ignored it) then:

Δq = 0.016572 W/m^2*K (1 m^2) (5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (53946055.485 K^4) = 0.05 W^2/m^2

This gives us the wrong units for Δq.

The Principles of Thermal Sciences and Their Application to Engineering by John Clifford Jones states that 0.016572 W/m*K is the thermal conductivity of CO2 at 300 K, so Nahle wasn't right when he included units or when he left them out. He took a thermal conductivity, switched the units to those of a convective heat transfer coefficient, then stripped out the units entirely so as to mimic an emissivity. Nahle's paper is nothing but useless mental masturbation, and the claim that it was vetted by "engineers and scientists" is dubious. Given the severity of the errors in only the first two sections, it would be a waste of my time to continue critiquing it. Nasif Nahle should stick to biology.


--------------------
bark'n mad
Top

Topic Options Pages: (19) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use