And if human forcing has no impact at all?
And if cows could jump over the moon?
And if pigs could fly?
And if your brain wasn't the size of a walnut?
Of course, we live in the real world, so.......
If you start off with a blatant falsehood, the rest of your post is sure to be pure drivel. And it is.There is not much question that the earth is warming, we are, and have been coming out of an ice age.
Hansen's statement is not "questionable" at all. It is based on scientific measurements and accurately reflects the reality of the Earth's energy balance. Thunderstorm generated gamma rays do not significantly affect this energy balance. The Earth is still taking in more solar energy than it is emitting back to space which means that the Earth is getting hotter, a fact that is confirmed by instrumental measurements and is called 'global warming'.Hanson's quote "We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,"
This part is questionable, we know for the wavelengths measured, but new research
shows that thunderstorms emit gamma rays, I do not think they were looking there!
Repeating the braindead myths of your denier cult does not make them any less ridiculously wrong. The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 have been known and studied for several centuries and they are not in doubt.The whole Co2 model is on thin ice, lets look at the statement.
"Higher temperatures today are largely sustained by increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
These gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by Earth and release that energy into the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape to space.
As their atmospheric concentration has increased, the amount of energy "trapped" by these gases has led to higher temperatures."
The mechanism to allow for the feedback of Co2 has not been proven.
A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere intercepts some infrared energy traveling outward and absorbs that energy. The molecule re-emits an infrared photon and also passes some energy to neighboring gas molecules through increased molecular vibration. The atmosphere is warmed and about half of the infrared photons go back towards the Earth, also increasing the heat content. This has been scientifically verified.Co2 does absorb optical energy(poorly but it does), so what does it do with the energy?
An excited atomic state is very unstable and can only sustain itself for milliseconds, it then spontaneously decays and emits a photon.
The photon is emitted in a RANDOM direction, this means the probability of it pointing to the sky is greater than pointing elsewhere.
All atoms work the same, absorb, and re-emit.
Humans have, through widespread deforestation and the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels, managed to raise the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% (so far) over the pre-industrial levels. That is the "human involvement" right there and it is not in doubt. The heat-trapping, greenhouse gas effects of increased CO2 are well established scientific facts that have indeed been "proven" to be scientifically accurate.The real issue is the Human involvement, and is it related? My whole point is the link to Co2 and the feedback related have not been proven.
Your "whole point" seems to be that you're a clueless and very ignorant bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign
Look who's talking. You cite the climategate fraudsters.It only seems that way to denier cultists who have been bamboozled by the fossil fuel industry propaganda and misinformation.
Until actual empirical evidence is ever produced of human culpability for current warming then it really is just a theory, and its one increasingly at odds with both current observation and the history of very recent paleoclimatic natural precedents.
There's been a substantial amount of evidence suggest GCC's validity, but, as with anything, faux science funded by big business will come and try to counter it.
The devil is in the details, they have looked for energy balance where they think it will occur. The idea that each gamma photon would take the place of 8,000,000 IR photons shouldHansen's statement is not "questionable" at all. It is based on scientific measurements and accurately reflects the reality of the Earth's energy balance. Thunderstorm generated gamma rays do not significantly affect this energy balance. The Earth is still taking in more solar energy than it is emitting back to space which means that the Earth is getting hotter, a fact that is confirmed by instrumental measurements and is called 'global warming'.
make someone ask what is that supertanker doing on the freeway. FYI Co2 10.6 micron is about .12 eV and Gamma ranges between 100 KeV and 10 MeV.
The earth is getting warmer,(something you questioned above.) The question is, is the warming related to Co2 or some other human activity, or is this warming part of a natural cycle.
Because we do not know what the normal cycle is, it becomes difficult to establish abnormal.
Actually the quantum properties of Co2 have only been understood for about one century, and well understood for maybe 50 years (Patel 1964).. The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 have been known and studied for several centuries and they are not in doubt.
The mechanisms which would allow Co2 to have a positive feedback rather than a negative feedback, are not established.
Co2 is not a good optical absorber, the best path to excite Co2 is vibrational(yes Physical contact) with nitrogen.
This is the part of the theory that has not been tested, the transfer of the energy to a molecule to be named later.CO2 molecule in the atmosphere intercepts some infrared energy traveling outward and absorbs that energy. The molecule re-emits an infrared photon and also passes some energy to neighboring gas molecules through increased molecular vibration. The atmosphere is warmed and about half of the infrared photons go back towards the Earth, also increasing the heat content. This has been verified scientifically.
If it has been verified scientifically, we should know this molecule's name.
Humans have burned a lot of hydrocarbons, and to our shame destroyed large amounts of forest, and Co2 levels are up.Humans have, through widespread deforestation and the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels, managed to raise the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% (so far) over the pre-industrial levels. That is the "human involvement" right there and it is not in doubt. The heat-trapping, greenhouse gas effects of increased CO2 are well established scientific facts that have indeed been "proven" to be scientifically accurate.
The fundamental idea that these human events are tied to the current warming, is what has not been proven.
Your "whole point" seems to be that you're a clueless and very ignorant bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.
You might not want to hear this but the plain fact is that no human influence whatsoever has ever been empirically (important word) discerned from the noise of natural background variability. Why ? Because we do not know the climate sensitivity of CO2 amongst the mass of other major variables like clouds and water vapour interactions that we can still only guess at. Only arbitrarily assigned exaggerated values inputted into subjective modelling of what amounts to 97% + of the entire greenhouse gas envelope can make it all seem so scarey. Ultimately though its just a series of guesses that can be made to get whatever result its political paymasters want.
Your denier cult myths are ludicrous and based only on the ignorance and stupidity of you deluded denier cultists.
In reality the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so overwhelming that every scientific society, National Academy of Science and all other major scientific organizations in the world specifically support the validity of AGW.
And the satellite data agrees near-perfectly with the surface data.
And if cows could jump over the moon?
And if pigs could fly?
And if your brain wasn't the size of a walnut?
Of course, we live in the real world, so.......
And if cows could jump over the moon?
And if pigs could fly?
And if your brain wasn't the size of a walnut?
Of course, we live in the real world, so.......
If you start off with a blatant falsehood, the rest of your post is sure to be pure drivel. And it is.
The Earth came out of the last period of glaciation about 10,000 years ago. We are not "still coming out" of it. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period called the Holocene.
Last glacial period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1] During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 22,000 years ago.
Holocene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Holocene is a geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (around 12,000 14C years ago) and continues to the present. It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1 and based on that past evidence, can be considered an interglacial in the current ice age.
Hansen's statement is not "questionable" at all. It is based on scientific measurements and accurately reflects the reality of the Earth's energy balance. Thunderstorm generated gamma rays do not significantly affect this energy balance. The Earth is still taking in more solar energy than it is emitting back to space which means that the Earth is getting hotter, a fact that is confirmed by instrumental measurements and is called 'global warming'.
Repeating the braindead myths of your denier cult does not make them any less ridiculously wrong. The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 have been known and studied for several centuries and they are not in doubt.
A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere intercepts some infrared energy traveling outward and absorbs that energy. The molecule re-emits an infrared photon and also passes some energy to neighboring gas molecules through increased molecular vibration. The atmosphere is warmed and about half of the infrared photons go back towards the Earth, also increasing the heat content. This has been scientifically verified.
Humans have, through widespread deforestation and the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels, managed to raise the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% (so far) over the pre-industrial levels. That is the "human involvement" right there and it is not in doubt. The heat-trapping, greenhouse gas effects of increased CO2 are well established scientific facts that have indeed been "proven" to be scientifically accurate.
Your "whole point" seems to be that you're a clueless and very ignorant bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.
Well if that last post doesn't end this debate on the existence of global warming, then the argument will be perpetual. Even if there's a possibility of the non-existence of anthropogenic contributions to global warming, the old saying "Better safe than sorry" comes to mind.
And if human forcing has no impact at all?
Then clearly we don't exist: it is all a dream.
Then clearly we don't exist: it is all a dream.
I think where a lot of environmentalists have really lost the plot is expecting 7 Billion of us to have very little impact which is of course quite impossible however many compromises we make to our quality of life . Until they again start to view humanity as a part of the biosphere rather than some extraneous blight that has been defecated upon it they are going to find themselves increasingly marginalised in decades to come. I rather suspect we may even get an anti green backlash as thier increasingly rabid anti human agenda becomes ever clearer with the fullness of time.
I shouldn't worry: we have no future, and you are just a dead man posting. Pity, but there it is: ignorance is far from bliss.
I shouldn't worry: we have no future, and you are just a dead man posting. Pity, but there it is: ignorance is far from bliss.
The US was in a bad way environmentally several decades ago. China seems to have arrived at that point or close to it recently. If they are not there yet, they will be soon.
The US air and water is cleaner today than it has been probably since the Civil War.
Changes not only can be made, but are being made.
Some of the more recent responses are just a tad outside of the sane category.
They will become fewer as you come to accept reality.
Another golden nugget.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?