Global warming.

[smokingman]

So how are you doing with those physics lectures? I could certainly use the help.

A nice one on event horizons. And something on the red shift. Just as warm-up, of course. Then maybe one on thermodynamics, which will give you a chance to explain why atmospheric CO2 can't possibly reflect radiant heat back to the planet causing heat buildup. From there we can move on to M Theory mathematics. Along the way perhaps something about 123.5 GeV and the nature of the field effect of the particle(s) they think they found there.

I can't speak for level.eleven, but I can hardly wait.

I would be glad to help.Did you have an actual question?
My knowledge of quantum mechanics is probably dated a few years.String theory was difficult for me,but I have a fairly good grasp of the subject.If you want to talk about the Higgs i suggest you contact Mark Bissel at 41227676111 extension 72783,I am positive he can answer most any question you have.

As far as peer reviewed papers,I have yet to see anyone post a link to one for me to read.Here is a published paper on how little impact humans have in global warming.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

How about this.I will keep an open mind.You post me a peer reviewed study(not from the IPCC)showing anamorphic global warming is the reason for our rise in temperature.
I will read it with an open mind.Now is your chance.Convert me to a believer.

Yup, best to remove the leading body for assessment of climate change out of your requirements.... You know, the people who specifically demonstrated exactly what you are asking for....

Contrary to your claims, the current models account for climate change very closely. When you remove man introduced CO2, none of the current models are anywhere near recently recorded data points....

All while those skeptical of man altering the environment criticize without countering with any models demonstrating what is happening in our world.

 

[printcraft]

I'll just leave this here.....

Antarctica Was Once Home To Rainforest, Say Scientists

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I'll just leave this here.....

Antarctica Was Once Home To Rainforest, Say Scientists

You do realize that climates cyclically changing in the past does not equate to man not having an effect on climate change, correct?

The climate cyclically changing in the past is already accounted for....

 

[printcraft]

You do realize that climates cyclically changing in the past does not equate to man not having an effect on climate change, correct?

The climate cyclically changing in the past is already accounted for....

A warmer planet is good for life.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

A warmer planet is good for life.

It will actually probably be awesome for most of ours....

... as long as none of us move to any coastal regions.... Indiana is going to be sweet...

 

[printcraft]

It will actually probably be awesome for most of ours....

... as long as none of us move to any coastal regions.... Indiana is going to be sweet...

Don't get me started on the stupidity of building a city below sea level..... next to the freaking ocean.

 

[smokingman]

Yup, best to remove the leading body for assessment of climate change out of your requirements.... You know, the people who specifically demonstrated exactly what you are asking for....

Contrary to your claims, the current models account for climate change very closely. When you remove man introduced CO2, none of the current models are anywhere near recently recorded data points....

All while those skeptical of man altering the environment criticize without countering with any models demonstrating what is happening in our world.

What about all those hundreds of climate scientist who actively publish papers?Surely there is someone out there besides the IPCC who has had a paper published supporting man made global warming...right? Show me one such paper.It is all I ask.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Don't get me started on the stupidity of building a city below sea level..... next to the freaking ocean.

Just bear in mind, those people will be moving here in the future....

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

What about all those hundreds of climate scientist who actively publish papers?Surely there is someone out there besides the IPCC who has had a paper published supporting man made global warming...right? Show me one such paper.It is all I ask.

Modern Global Climate Change

1. Thomas R. Karl
2. Kevin E. Trenberth

I will be happy to look at a model accounting for the current climate without the presence of human introduced CO2 whenever someone creates it.

 

[Bummer]

I would be glad to help.Did you have an actual question?
My knowledge of quantum mechanics is probably dated a few years.String theory was difficult for me,but I have a fairly good grasp of the subject.If you want to talk about the Higgs i suggest you contact Mark Bissel at 41227676111 extension 72783,I am positive he can answer most any question you have.

No problem. You can duck the questions if you'd like. I had no expectation that anything of value would be forthcoming.

 

[newguy]

i apologize for my rude language earlier but anytime i hear someone try to prove global warming my tourettes kicks in. ill try to watch what i say in the future.

 

[printcraft]

 

[printcraft]

 

[fireblade]

i think global warming is from a natural event with pole movement

starts at 5:00 in video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHXNKGCdqVk#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jdYJN76rycc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UaKqhRTqSlg

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

And yet another...

Human impact and climate changes—synchronous events and a
causal link?
Bj.orn E. Berglund

 

[Liberty1911]

No problem. You can duck the questions if you'd like. I had no expectation that anything of value would be forthcoming.

LOL coming from the guy who ducked my questions.

 

[level.eleven]

i apologize for my rude language earlier but anytime i hear someone try to prove global warming my tourettes kicks in. ill try to watch what i say in the future.

It is proven.

See a doctor. Better yet, read a book.

 

[printcraft]

It is proven.

See a doctor. Better yet, read a book.

I'm with you....... tourettes is real.

Just ask James Yeager.

 

[smokingman]

Modern Global Climate Change

1. Thomas R. Karl
2. Kevin E. Trenberth

I will be happy to look at a model accounting for the current climate without the presence of human introduced CO2 whenever someone creates it.

From the Thomas R. Karl paper.
"On multidecadal time scales, tropospheric amplification of surface
warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but it occurs in only one
observational data set. Other observations show weak, or even negative, amplification.
These results suggest either that different physical mechanisms control
amplification processes on monthly and decadal time scales, and models fail to capture such behavior.
In both models and observations,the tropical surface warms over this period.Simulated surface warming is amplified in the tropical troposphere, corresponding to a decrease in lapse rate (2, 3, 9). In contrast,
a number of radiosonde and satellite data sets suggest that the tropical troposphere has warmed less than the surface, or even cooled,which would correspond to an increase in lapse rate.

Alternately, there may be a real disparity between modeled and observed lapse-rate changes over the satellite era (9–11, 21). This disparity would point toward the existence of fundamental deficiencies in current climate
models (and/or in the forcings used in model experiments), thus diminishing our confidence in model predictions of climate change.

Look at the graphs on page 1552.He is using them as an example of how wrong the models are.With only the figures in A even remotely close to the actual measured data,because it included Volcanic activity.

When scaling ratios are calculated for multidecadal linear trends, both radiosonde data sets are clear outliers. HadAT2 and RATPAC Rb(z) values never exceed 0.82, indicating damping of the surface warming trend in the
free atmosphere (Fig. 3B). None of the 49 model realizations demonstrates such behavior. The shapes of the radiosonde-based scaling ratio profiles also differ from model and theoretical results, with peak values at generally lower atmospheric levels.

Look at the HUGE difference between the models(8 different models)and the actual observed temperature changes on page 1554.
The real conundrum in Fig. 4 is the complex behavior of the observations. On monthly timescales, the amplification behavior of models and observations is consistent. On decadal timescales, however, only the RSSbased T2LT and TFu trends have scaling factors that are in reasonable accord with model results.

No where in that study does he even mention humans as a cause for global warming.That paper is more a study of why all the models are wrong than anything.I will read the next one.