Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich ...

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like

    NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich ...

    Those altuistic warmers would never do anything to fake data it is just those deniers that are being paid...wait, what, oh?

    [QUOTE]
    NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich Himself

    [LEFT][COLOR=#000000]By William Lajeunesse
    Published June 22, 2011 | FoxNews.com
    [IMG]http://tags.bluekai.com/site/668[/IMG]

    The [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/space/nasa.htm#r_src=ramp"]NASA[/URL] scientist who once claimed the [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/george-bush.htm#r_src=ramp"]Bush administration[/URL] tried to "silence" his global warming claims is [B]now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.[/B]
    In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/space/goddard-institute-for-space-studies.htm#r_src=ramp"]Goddard Institute for Space Studies[/URL].
    "Hansen's office appears to be somewhat of a rogue operation. It's clearly a taxpayer-funded global warming advocacy organization," said Chris Horner, a co-founder of The American Tradition Institute, which filed the lawsuit. "The real issue here is, has Hansen been asking NASA in writing, in advance, for permission for these outside activities? We have reason to believe that has not been occurring."
    The lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.
    Gifts, speaking fees, prizes and consulting compensation include:
    -- A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his "profound contribution to humanity." Hansen's cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen's publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was "an amount in excess of $5,000."
    -- The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.
    -- The Sophie Prize for his "political activism," worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to "inspire people working towards a sustainable future."
    -- Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.
    -- A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.
    -- $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/george-soros.htm#r_src=ramp"]George Soros[/URL] Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take "direct" support from Soros but accepted "pro bono legal advice."
    Hansen did not respond to Fox News' request for comment.
    Federal rules prohibit government employees from receiving certain types of income outside their job. Employees are required to file Form 17-60 in writing before any outside activity. And annually, they're required to submit Form SF 278, after receiving outside compensation.
    The American Tradition Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act request for those two documents for Hansen. The lawsuit claims NASA has "repeatedly and unlawfully refused to produced the requested materials."
    "Should the taxpayer know what's going on? Should, as FOIA intends, NASA disclose documents to shed light on its operations and its compliance within the law? We say yes. The law says yes. NASA says no," Horner said.
    Mark Hess, chief of communications for the Goddard Space Center, sent Fox News NASA's response to Horner's FOIA request. It said in many cases the documents Horner requested did not exist. Horner claims they should, if Hansen was complying with the law.


    Read more: [URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/nasa-scientist-accused-using-celeb-status-among-environmental-groups-to-enrich/#ixzz1Q6DG735G[/URL][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    proving 1 man is unethical (or that 1 group faked data) is not the same as debunking the entire theory.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4051917]proving 1 man is unethical (or that 1 group faked data) is not the same as debunking the entire theory.[/QUOTE]

    The theory relied on the hockey stick graph. (debunked as total garbage)
    The theory relied on "masaged data" that was lost. (unethical)
    The "scientists" admited malfeasence in email (unethical)
    Now a NASA scientist is a toady for the cause at the cost of 1.2 Mil (unethical)
    Al Gore's propaganda has been torn to sheds as garbage and even clasified as false propoganda but the UK Educational Office (debunked and unethical)
    Al Gore stands to profit more than anyone if his policies are enacted. (unethical)
    Al Gore spews more carbon than most of us (unethical)

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    a new study released said that the ocean's levels are rising at the fastest rate in 2100 years.

    [url]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/sea-level-rise-linked-climate-change/1[/url]

    we get it, it's not a fun topic to deal with. Nit picking at personal BS doesn't change the underlying facts of the situation.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4051964]a new study released said that the ocean's levels are rising at the fastest rate in 2100 years.

    [URL]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/sea-level-rise-linked-climate-change/1[/URL]

    we get it, it's not a fun topic to deal with. Nit picking at personal BS doesn't change the underlying facts of the situation.[/QUOTE]

    OK it is rising in the Atlantic. what can be done about it? How do we know it will work? What will the costs be for the solution? What alternatives are there? What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the impact to ocean levels if the other scientists that are predicting a cooling due to reduced solar activity?

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4051964]a new study released said that the ocean's levels are rising at the fastest rate in 2100 years.

    [URL]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/sea-level-rise-linked-climate-change/1[/URL]

    we get it, it's not a fun topic to deal with. Nit picking at personal BS doesn't change the underlying facts of the situation.[/QUOTE]

    Also it isn't PERSONAL BS when politicians are promoting things that will do nothing for the climate but takes money from us and gives it to them.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4051966]OK it is rising in the Atlantic. what can be done about it? How do we know it will work? What will the costs be for the solution? What alternatives are there? What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the impact to ocean levels if the other scientists that are predicting a cooling due to reduced solar activity?[/QUOTE]

    these are tough questions to answer. admitting it's happening is a start.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4051969]these are tough questions to answer. admitting it's happening is a start.[/QUOTE]

    No it isn't. The start is using science to determine why it is happening and if it is a long term trend.

    We even have to question the validity of global temperature. Should local changes also be considered? How about changes across our solar system?
    Should we be looking at Air temperature? At what level of the atmosphere?
    Water tempterature? At what level of the oceans?
    Glacier growth/decline? What glacier and where? Total size, just area, just thickness, per glacier, regionally, globally?

    Should we publish false pictures of "stranded polar bears" and lie to everyone about what month it happened in or that it isn't totally common to get them to accept the concept... oops lost track there.

    How do we measure? By satelite? Then we can only have a relative record since the 70s. Land based temperature is misleading over time due to poor equipment, urban creep changing local environment such as paving and new buildings changing the area.

    Are the changes enacted globally by some global government such as the UN or are we only making changes in the US?

    What is the expected change? How often do we measure to see if the solution is working? How soon will we see an effect from the solution?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4051964]a new study released said that the ocean's levels are rising at the fastest rate in 2100 years.

    [url]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/sea-level-rise-linked-climate-change/1[/url]

    we get it, it's not a fun topic to deal with. Nit picking at personal BS doesn't change the underlying facts of the situation.[/QUOTE]

    Climate change and global warming are two different things. It's painfully obvious every single time we discuss this that you don't understand this relatively simple concept.

    By the way, :rolleyes:
    [url]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/[/url]

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    from Casablanca

    Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
    Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
    [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
    Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.

    Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!


    :rolleyes:

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4051983]

    Should we publish false pictures of "stranded polar bears" and lie to everyone about what month it happened in or that it isn't totally common to get them to accept the concept... oops lost track there.
    [/QUOTE]

    the arctic didn't freeze solid in the last 2 years... russia and Canada/USA are fighting over who has the rights to the oil/mineral rights at the bottom of what used to be permanently iced over polar caps.

    my point is you can ask all these endless questions but the world won't stop doing what it's doing and world leaders KNOW this is happening. It's not even a real debate anymore.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well I always get my science from "World Leader". They are the best scientists ever!

    [B]Area Of Thick Arctic Ice Has Doubled In The Last Two Years[/B]

    Posted on [URL="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/area-of-thick-arctic-ice-has-doubled-in-the-last-two-years/"][COLOR=#743399]December 31, 2010[/COLOR][/URL] by [URL="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/"]stevengoddard[/URL]
    [URL="http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pips12_30_2010vs2008.gif"][IMG]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pips12_30_2010vs2008.gif?w=500&h=500[/IMG][/URL]
    US Navy PIPS data shows that the area of ice greater than 2.5 metres thick – has doubled since the same date in 2008.
    [URL]http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/current.gif[/URL]
    [URL="http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2008/pips2_thick.2008122900.gif"][COLOR=#743399]http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/[/COLOR][/URL]

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4052021]the arctic didn't freeze solid in the last 2 years... russia and Canada/USA are fighting over who has the rights to the oil/mineral rights at the bottom of what used to be permanently iced over polar caps.

    my point is you can ask all these endless questions but the world won't stop doing what it's doing and world leaders KNOW this is happening. It's not even a real debate anymore.[/QUOTE]

    It's really a waste of time trying to argue these points. To me, the evidence is frankly overwhelming that we are facing a serious problem due to emissions. Reduced sunspot activity will account for about a half a degree farenheit reduction in global temperatures. Greenhouse gases will account for about a 6 degree increase. This is not about Al Gore's hyperbole, but about what scientists are actually observing. Many nations see it and are working to respond to it. In the U.S., corporations who are unwilling to own responsiblity for their emissions are paying heavy capital to "think tanks" and front groups to attack the data at every turn, or attack individuals as a means to discredit the overall community. Same as big tobacco did a few years ago. Don't think that this is just a federal issue. States and cities will be just as active in pursuing offenders. As they should.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    I posted the whole article in a previous thread but haven't heard anyone refute the science in this? I know it is long but if you actually read it rather than blindly believe and can point out anything, SCIENTIFICALLY, that is wrong I would be very interested to read it.



    [QUOTE]
    [LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Next, let's take a look CO2 from an Atmospheric Physicist's view - straightforward physics that we hope most of you will be able to follow:[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]What we commonly call "light" is actually electromagnetic radiation, physically no different from radio waves, except of different frequencies and wavelengths. The part we can see is called the visible spectrum. Beyond what we can see in the higher frequencies ( and shorter wavelengths, since they are reciprocal functions ) lies the ultraviolet spectrum. UV light is very penetrating, which is why one could get sunburned on an overcast day. Beyond even that are X-rays, which can penetrate much deeper. On the opposite end of the visible spectrum lies infra-red... which you can't see, but you can easily feel, as anyone who has warmed his hands near a hot stove can testify. It is the infrared portion we commonly refer to as "heat" radiation. And beyond that are the radio and television wavelengths we all know and love.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]The sun is very "bright", and its frequency spectrum is generally too short to produce much infrared coming down through the atmosphere. Radiation from the sun penetrates the atmosphere, strikes the earth, and some of it is absorbed and some is reflected. The different bandwidths (colors) of reflected light depend on the material struck, so something green-colored is reflecting the green portion of the visible spectrum and absorbing the rest. This heats up the earth, and that's the first part of the story.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]All heated bodies emit radiation in the infrared range. This is called "black body" radiation, because a perfectly black body reflects no visible light but still emits radiation in a specified band of wavelengths. Infrared radiation is of a much longer wavelength, and can be much easier absorbed by certain components in the atmosphere, causing them to also "heat up". The warm air around us is being kept warm partially from black body radiation coming from the earth itself. Another method of warming is by conduction - air coming in contact with the heated soil, rocks, trees, buildings, etc. and being directly warmed by that contact. This may be a bigger factor than we think, but we're not going to attempt to try to determine just how much that might be. We'd have to know the total surface area of every object - down to the smallest blade of grass - there is on our planet. We also need to remind ourselves that there is actually no physical quantity known as "cold". There is only "heat" and "lack of heat".[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Next, lets talk about a scientific process called Atomic Absorption Spectrometry. It is a method by which we can measure precisely which wavelengths of radiation a particular gas is capable of absorbing.[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [CENTER][FONT=Verdana][IMG]http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/absorption-spectrometer.jpg[/IMG][/FONT][/CENTER]
    [LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]In our highly simplified drawing above, a radiation source is beamed through a glass container containing a gas sample. As the radiation passes through, a portion of it is absorbed at particular narrow bandwidths (often more than one ) so the end result are some "missing" sections of the whole spectrum coming from the source, which show up as dark lines. They're missing because they were absorbed by the sample in the chamber. They are called absorption lines, or absorption spectra, and when analyzed by a knowledgeable person, can tell one what the gas or gas mixture is in the sample chamber based on a catalog of known spectra. It's a wonderful tool for analyzing unknown gas samples.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Let's look at a real result, below - the absorption spectrum for pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a black body spectrum as the source. This is part of the so-called "greenhouse effect"[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [CENTER][FONT=Verdana][IMG]http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/CO2%20Absorption%20Spectrum.jpg[/IMG][/FONT][/CENTER]
    [LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in [U]only three narrow bands of frequencies[/U], which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [CENTER][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Note: In our original draft, we talked a bit about relative spacing geometry, to give the reader a feel for the distance between molecules in the atmosphere. We talked in (very crude) terms about tacking bottle caps up on a barn wall, and gave some spacing examples in 2 dimensions for a rough feel of the subject. One of our readers, Peter J. Morgan - a consulting engineer from New Zealand - undertook to re-write our simple ( and not technically accurate ) description for his 15 year old son. He was kind enough to send it to us, and we liked it so much we threw out our South Park estimate and substituted his work instead. Thanks, Peter! [/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [CENTER][IMG]http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/tetra-molecule.jpg[/IMG]
    [I][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]For equidistant packing, a tetrahedron arrangement is required[/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/CENTER]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as [B][URL="http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm"][COLOR=#663300]Dr. Heinz Hug[/COLOR][/URL][/B] who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that [U]all[/U] of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture.[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [CENTER][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][B]Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
    two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.[/B][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][B]And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit.[/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    [LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a "gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best comments we've read on this subject:
    [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [CENTER][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."[/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
    [LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]
    We can safely ballpark water vapor as being responsible for more than 95% of all the greenhouse effect, with oxygen and nitrogen playing no role and carbon dioxide being relatively insignificant... particularly the even smaller human-produced part.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][B]Side note[/B]: Both Oxygen and Nitrogen don't like to live alone. They prefer to find another and stick together into a diatomic ( 2 atom ) molecule. Thus the molecular weight of atmospheric oxygen or nitrogen is approximately twice that of one of them alone. We say "approximately", because it takes energy to bind them together, and mass and energy are equivalent stuff, as our good friend Dr. Einstein explained with his famous equation E=MC2.[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
    [/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4052037]It's really a waste of time trying to argue these points. To me, the evidence is frankly overwhelming that we are facing a serious problem due to emissions. Reduced sunspot activity will account for about a half a degree farenheit reduction in global temperatures. Greenhouse gases will account for about a 6 degree increase. This is not about Al Gore's hyperbole, but about what scientists are actually observing. Many nations see it and are working to respond to it. In the U.S., corporations who are unwilling to own responsiblity for their emissions are paying heavy capital to "think tanks" and front groups to attack the data at every turn, or attack individuals as a means to discredit the overall community. Same as big tobacco did a few years ago. Don't think that this is just a federal issue. States and cities will be just as active in pursuing offenders. As they should.[/QUOTE]

    -0.5 degrees and 6 degrees over what time period?

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4052035]Well I always get my science from "World Leader". They are the best scientists ever!

    [B]Area Of Thick Arctic Ice Has Doubled In The Last Two Years[/B]

    Posted on [URL="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/area-of-thick-arctic-ice-has-doubled-in-the-last-two-years/"][COLOR=#743399]December 31, 2010[/COLOR][/URL] by [URL="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/"]stevengoddard[/URL]
    [URL="http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pips12_30_2010vs2008.gif"][IMG]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pips12_30_2010vs2008.gif?w=500&h=500[/IMG][/URL]
    US Navy PIPS data shows that the area of ice greater than 2.5 metres thick – has doubled since the same date in 2008.
    [URL]http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/current.gif[/URL]
    [URL="http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2008/pips2_thick.2008122900.gif"][COLOR=#743399]http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/[/COLOR][/URL][/QUOTE]


    Take a look at the National Snow and Ice data. They've been tracking this for years... the above actually is part of the volatility of the data, but does not change the overall trend, which is a loss of 2.5% per year since 1979.

    [URL]http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/[/URL]

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4052056]Take a look at the National Snow and Ice data. They've been tracking this for years... the above actually is part of the volatility of the data, but does not change the overall trend, which is a loss of 2.5% per year since 1979.

    [URL]http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Back to my questions above. You are stating decreases in ice extent (-2.5%), mine shows thickness (+50%). People like to show calving glaciers as proof of global warming but calving is the result of an advancing glacier.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    Perhaps the most significant factor to consider is the following report (excerpted) from the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) American consul at Norway, George Ifft:
    [QUOTE]
    The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen [an island 12 degrees south of the North Pole – ed.] and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

    Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. There were few [white fish and] seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast. With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast. Shoals of smelt were also met with.
    [/QUOTE]


    Ifft’s report appeared in NOAA’s [I]Monthly Weather Review[/I] of November 1922.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4052050]I posted the whole article in a previous thread but haven't heard anyone refute the science in this? I know it is long but if you actually read it rather than blindly believe and can point out anything, SCIENTIFICALLY, that is wrong I would be very interested to read it.[/QUOTE]

    That theory was debunked many decades ago because it contained a fatal flaw as noted below (the whole historical discussion is interesting at this site, by the way):


    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm[/SIZE][/FONT]

    [COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.[URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_24_"][COLOR=blue](24)[/COLOR][/URL] As Hulburt and Callendar had claimed, the most important CO[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman] absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman], that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. [B]And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate. [/B][/FONT][/COLOR]


    [COLOR=#006600][FONT=Times New Roman]<=[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm#L_0286"][COLOR=blue]External input[/COLOR][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR]
    [COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman] must change the balance of radiation.[URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_25_"][COLOR=blue](25)[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT][/COLOR]


    [COLOR=#006600][FONT=Times New Roman]<=>[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#L_0165"][COLOR=blue]Radiation math[/COLOR][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR]
    [COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer down through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere (he too did it out of sheer curiosity, as a diversion from his regular work making calculations for weapon engineers). He nailed down the likelihood that adding more CO[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman] would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the current (1950s) rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."[URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_26_"][COLOR=blue](26)[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT][/COLOR]

    [COLOR=#006600][FONT=Times New Roman]<=[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#L_0609"][COLOR=blue]Radiation math[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT][/COLOR]




    [COLOR=#006600][FONT=Times New Roman]=>[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/public.htm#L_0383"][COLOR=blue]Public opinion[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]The computation, like Callendar's, paid no attention to possible changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to convince scientists. "It is almost certain," one authority scolded, "that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions."[URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_27_"][COLOR=blue](27)[/COLOR][/URL] [B]Yet Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. [/B]He warned that climate change could be "a serious problem to future generations" — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman] might solve the mystery of the ice ages. "If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise," he wrote, then it would be "firmly established" that CO[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]2[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman] could cause climate change.[URL="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_28_"][COLOR=blue](28)[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-23-2011 at 01:08 PM.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4052056]Take a look at the National Snow and Ice data. They've been tracking this for years... the above actually is part of the volatility of the data, but does not change the overall trend, which is a loss of 2.5% per year since 1979.

    [URL]http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/[/URL][/QUOTE]

    What does the loss of sea ice have to do with anything? It's the land ice that matters and the data on land ice in central parts of Antarctica are increasing.

    You're getting into a very complex issue that's highly debatable and hugely complex. They don't even know if the computer models are accurate.

    As long as you brought it up as glaciers move off the land in Antarctica into the sea, sea levels will rise regardless of whether it melts into water or stays as ice.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us