Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 23
Send Topic Print
What's the Real truth? (Read 29195 times)
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #120 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 7:09pm
 
stryder wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 6:53pm:
Quote:
CRAP!

There's plenty of evidence, it's just that you don't want to look at it!

By Perceptions Now



Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy. ...



Kevin Costner. JFK,  Grin Grin Grin


but to be fair, Costener is an idiot with the IQ of the daisy.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
stryder
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4545
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #121 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 7:12pm
 
Quote:
but to be fair, Costener is an idiot with the IQ of the daisy.
By Longweekend

The way you think of him as a person is one thing, BUT THE WAY HE DELIVERED THE LINE AS AN ACTOR IN THAT MOVIE WAS ANOTHER.  Grin

And I think it kinda hit the spot with me and made me wanna relate the line to what I think of the science pushing man made climate change.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #122 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 7:54pm
 
stryder wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 6:53pm:
Quote:
CRAP!

There's plenty of evidence, it's just that you don't want to look at it!

By Perceptions Now



Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy. ...



Kevin Costner. JFK,  Grin Grin Grin


You can think that, if you want. but science has taken us a long way, since the Stone Age & The Dark Ages.

You can also say there is a massive conspiracy and all the scientists & Politicians, are in on it? And, we whilst we will never know, you could be right?

But the vast body of information, evidence, physical substantiation & anecdotal confirmations, would appear to confirm what the scientists are saying is the case!  

Btw, I don't know that Kevin Costner is amy great actor, but I doubt he realyy cares, at this point, he has done well, for himself.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #123 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:04pm
 
stryder wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 6:41pm:
Hello Perceptions I seek some real truth ? if you dont believe a Carbon tax will fix this Climate changing by mankind through us, YOU THINK THERE IS A BETTER SOLUTION IF YOU BELIEVE IN THIS CLIMATE CHANGING HOAX AS I SEE IT ??


Stryder,
Either you've had one too many reds or I have, you may like to try that again or an explanation, I'm not following you?

That said, let me give it a shot.

No, I don't believe the Carbon Tax will fix Climate Change, but I don't think it was really meant to, it was meant to address government revenue raising!

No, I don't think Climate Change is a hoax!

Yes, I think Climate Change is real & it urgently needs addressing!

Yes, I think there is  an approach which MAY have some chance, but we will also need some luck.

Will we be successful in warding off the worst of Climate Change?

For many reasons, I suspect the final answer will be No, but we are not without a chance and we should take that chance and run with, as hard as we can!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #124 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:18pm
 
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 12:18pm:
What Would We Need for Persistent 5% Growth?


Last week, I argued that Governor Tim Pawlenty’s aspiration for 5% economic growth over a full decade is implausible since the United States has achieved such steady growth only once since World War II.

Over at Economics One, Stanford economics professor John Taylor offers a more positive take, defending the goal and offering a recipe for achieving it: 1% from population growth, 1% from employment growing faster than the population, and 2.7% from productivity growth.

Add it all up and you get 4.7% growth, a bit short of Pawlenty’s target but close enough for government work.

That sounds great, and I hope it happens, regardless of who is president.

Taylor’s scenario thus assumes that everything breaks right for the U.S. economy for a full decade, with remarkable job growth and remarkable productivity growth in the economy as a whole. Not impossible but, unfortunately, not likely either.

Link -
http://seekingalpha.com/article/274944-what-would-we-need-for-persistent-5-growt...
=============================================

The fact is that Economic Growth is the product of a number of issues, including the following major factors -
1) Population Growth, which means an increasing Employment pool, as well as an increasing level of Demand.
2) Abundant & Cheap Energy, which enables & drives increased levels of Productivity, by providing an increasing capacity to produce all types of Products & Services and does so, at lower Prices.
3) Innovation, in Technology & Planning, which delivers more abundant goods and does so, at a cheaper per capita Price.

That said, there are also a few other factors that need to be kept in mind -
1) Exponential growth of anything, over time, is impossible, according to the laws of nature, as we are now finding out in terms of sustainable Population levels and Energy Production, particularly of the Fossil Fuel variety.
2) Debt levels, particularly Real Debt levels, which include massive unfunded Liabilities, such as Baby Boomer Pensions & Health Care Costs are already past the point of no return in many countries, including the USA, much of Europe & Japan.

So, I've explained a little background, to tell you that 2 of those 3 major Economic Growth factors have been slowing for some time and are now set to go into reverse, over the next 20 years.

The US & Global Population/Employment pool, will first level, as 80 million Amercians & some 2 Billion Baby Boomers Globally, first retire, then start dying enmass, in the largest human population dieoff in history.
This will put a severe crimp in the Employment pool and a massive hole in the Demand for Products & Services, over the next 20 years, plus.

In addition, US & Global Energy supplies, starting with Oil are coming under increasing strains, as Demand from a still increasing Population (at least for a while yet) has started to outstrip Energy supplies and that gap will widen.

Oil Production has already effectively Peaked and if it were not for the Global GFC, which was aided & abetted by Demographics issues & rising Energy Prices, then the increasing gap between Oil Demand & Production would have been even more evident and the Oil & other Energy Prices would already be much higher!

So, as I've already said, I've explained all that, to tell you this -
There is no way that the US Economy is going to grow at 5% over the next 10 years or 20-30 years!

In fact, it is highly likely that the levels of government stimulus & bailouts will stop, because the Debt levels are becoming so enormous and as that happens it will become apparent that those enormous & increasing levels of Debt, were the main reason that "official" GDP figures remained apparently positive.

Although, if the stimulus & bailouts were detracted, then GDP over the last 3 years or so, would still have been negative, which means that the USA & many other countries have actually been in a Recession (at least) for a lot longer than commonly thought!

That said, not only is 5% growth not going to happen, neither will there be any real growth, at all, for quite some time.

Continued stimulus/bailouts will only mask a real negative GDP and the ensuing Debt increases will only exacerbate an already terrible Debt problem!

A cessation of stimulus/bailouts &/or the introduction of AUS-terity programs, will also exacerbate what will be a terrible situation in respect of the existing Demographic & Energy Decline issues!

In short, we have a "catch 22", we're damned if we do & damned if we don't".

So, good luck & watch the Debt!


I must admit, I am still surprised that the Human Psyche can carry on endlessly about something where the worst effects are still someway in the future, like Climate Change.

However, we can not bring ourselves to discuss dire issues that are on the doorstep, NOW, like the Baby Boomer Bust, the Energy Bust & the Global Debt Bust!

Weird?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
stryder
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4545
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #125 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:36pm
 
Quote:
Either you've had one too many reds or I have, you may like to try that again or an explanation, I'm not following you?

That said, let me give it a shot.

No, I don't believe the Carbon Tax will fix Climate Change, but I don't think it was really meant to, it was meant to address government revenue raising!



Yes it is a Hoax for me, I find many uncertainies in the science and a Government that is willing to use it TO FALSELY PROMOTE REFORM WHEN IT REALLY IS JUST A CLEVER EXCUSE TO EXPAND ITS TAXING AND SPENDING POWERS LIKE YOU SAID.


But dont you at all believe in pricing and taxing carbon as a discentive for carbon based energies, to speed up the evolution from fossilized fuels that emits CO2 to these wonderful fancy clean emitting energies like Solar, wind etc ????
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #126 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:39pm
 
Speaking science to climate policy


...
Sound the alarm. It’s a scientist’s job to alert the public to the threats of climate change

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: CSIRO’s James Risbey explains why it’s not “alarmist” to describe the threat of climate change to the public and how the climate system will respond to half measures.

With many issues to be considered in setting a climate policy one can end up wondering what the role of climate science is in all this.

After all, climate science doesn’t tell us what to do. It doesn’t tell us whether to have a carbon price or where it should be set. Those decisions ultimately involve a range of normative and deliberative issues which are beyond the scope of climatology.

Climatology can tell us, however, what is likely to happen if we don’t act, or if we don’t act with sufficient speed to keep total emissions within specific carbon allocations.

There is no single threshold above which climate change is dangerous and below which it is safe. There is a spectrum of impacts. But some of the largest impacts are effectively irreversible and the thresholds for them are very near.

In particular, the melting and breakdown of polar ice sheets seems to be in the vicinity of a couple of degrees warming. This expectation is based on current high rates of mass loss from the ice sheets compared to relative stability through the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) and on past ice sheet response in periods such as the Pliocene (a few million years ago) when the Earth was a couple of degrees warmer than preindustrial times (and sea level up to 25m higher).

We have already had about 0.8°C warming globally, with another third of a degree locked in by the inertia of the climate system.

That leaves, somewhat optimistically, perhaps a degree or so of wiggle room.

Translating that into carbon emissions, if we wish to keep the total warming below about 2°C (with 50% chance), then we have a total global carbon emission allocation of between about 800 and 1000Gt carbon.

We have already emitted about 550Gt, leaving perhaps another 250–450Gt. Current global emissions are about 10Gt per year, growing at roughly 3% per year.

That leaves a few decades at present rates before having committed to 2°C warming and crossing the expected thresholds for ice sheet disintegration.

Surely this estimate is vastly uncertain?

Everything has some uncertainty, but the uncertainty in this case lies mostly in the timing, not in the essential result. Ice sheets are sensitive to warming somewhere in this vicinity of temperature change and the climate system will yield 2°C warming somewhere in the vicinity of 800–1000Gt of carbon emissions.

We’re only a few decades away from a major tipping point, plus or minus only about a decade. The rate at which the ice sheets would melt is fairly uncertain, but not the result that says we are very close to a tipping point committing to such melt and breakdown.

The longer stringent emissions reductions are delayed, the more drastic they must be to stay within the 250–450Gt budget. With more than a small delay, the reductions needed are faster than can be achieved in turning over the stock of emitting infrastructure.

Is it irresponsible or “alarmist” of climatologists to point this out? The science brief for policy is not to prescribe policies, but to point out the implications of pursuing or not pursuing particular courses of action.

Pointing out that we are close to one of the largest tipping points imaginable in the climate system is well within the remit of science. It’s not alarmist to describe the threat accurately; it’s alarming if the political and social culture can’t absorb this.

Link -
http://theconversation.edu.au/speaking-science-to-climate-policy-1548
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #127 - Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:54pm
 
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 6:44pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 2:26pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 2:13pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 1:09pm:
PN, why do you consistently try to convince people that humans are causing things that have existed naturally since long before the first hominid ancestor evolved????

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is real, and has been around for as long as life has existed on Earth (in fact it's the reason life DOES exist on Earth.)

The same thing applies to climate change....it's been happening for billions of years...

Humans didn't 'cause' the climate to change nor did we cause the Greenhouse Effect....

You might as well say gravity is caused by the obesity epidemic among children....


It's good to see you agree, Gizmo, that "the Greenhouse Effect is real".

So, in the spirit of co-operation, I will agree that "Climate Change has been around for Billions of years, long before humans arrived".

I will also agree that, "humans did not cause/originate Climate Change, nor the Greenhouse Effect".

However, humans have impacted the Environment of this planet, of that there is no doubt, the only arguement is how much & what are the likely effects on current & future generations of Humans & other species?

What these and the majority of scientists are saying, is that the human impact on this planets delicate Environment, is just sufficient enough (over time) to tip the natural balance away from what would have happened, but for our impact.

In doing so, our nudge has been like many humans, who eat & drink many things, which are ok in moderation, but many of us consume too much of these things that are normally ok and the end result is many of us become obese or acquire other diseases, such as Diabetes.

The end result is the quality of many peoples lives is not what it should be and many will die a premature death! And that's not even counting gravity?

So, what I'm doing is giving people the facts, so they can make up their minds, whether they want to continue business as usual and lose the quality of their life & of future generations AND die prematurely OR do they want to take proper mitigation measures, to try to stop what will happen to Humans, if the Climate Changes in the directions that we are nudging it to?

In other words Climate Change has some similarities to Obesity, in that it takes a long time to build up and while that is happening few recognise what is happening.
Then, one day, we wake up a realise we are fat and take action OR we don't realise & we don't wake up, we just die?

Is that what you want, for us & our children?       


And yet obesity, like climate change, can have many causes.....not all of them due to human action....

There is still no empirical proof that the current changes in climate are anything other than natural, or that man made Co2 is involved
...


Give it a break!

At any given point in time, we are the sum product of our heredity and our environment.


CRAP!

There's plenty of evidence, it's just that you don't want to look at it!



Really PN??? Ok so exactly where and when was it DIRECTLY observed and noted by a scientist that reducing atmospheric Co2 levels slows down changes to the world climate???

Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #128 - Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:12pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:54pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 6:44pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 2:26pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 2:13pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 1:09pm:
PN, why do you consistently try to convince people that humans are causing things that have existed naturally since long before the first hominid ancestor evolved????

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is real, and has been around for as long as life has existed on Earth (in fact it's the reason life DOES exist on Earth.)

The same thing applies to climate change....it's been happening for billions of years...

Humans didn't 'cause' the climate to change nor did we cause the Greenhouse Effect....

You might as well say gravity is caused by the obesity epidemic among children....


It's good to see you agree, Gizmo, that "the Greenhouse Effect is real".

So, in the spirit of co-operation, I will agree that "Climate Change has been around for Billions of years, long before humans arrived".

I will also agree that, "humans did not cause/originate Climate Change, nor the Greenhouse Effect".

However, humans have impacted the Environment of this planet, of that there is no doubt, the only arguement is how much & what are the likely effects on current & future generations of Humans & other species?

What these and the majority of scientists are saying, is that the human impact on this planets delicate Environment, is just sufficient enough (over time) to tip the natural balance away from what would have happened, but for our impact.

In doing so, our nudge has been like many humans, who eat & drink many things, which are ok in moderation, but many of us consume too much of these things that are normally ok and the end result is many of us become obese or acquire other diseases, such as Diabetes.

The end result is the quality of many peoples lives is not what it should be and many will die a premature death! And that's not even counting gravity?

So, what I'm doing is giving people the facts, so they can make up their minds, whether they want to continue business as usual and lose the quality of their life & of future generations AND die prematurely OR do they want to take proper mitigation measures, to try to stop what will happen to Humans, if the Climate Changes in the directions that we are nudging it to?

In other words Climate Change has some similarities to Obesity, in that it takes a long time to build up and while that is happening few recognise what is happening.
Then, one day, we wake up a realise we are fat and take action OR we don't realise & we don't wake up, we just die?

Is that what you want, for us & our children?       


And yet obesity, like climate change, can have many causes.....not all of them due to human action....

There is still no empirical proof that the current changes in climate are anything other than natural, or that man made Co2 is involved
...


Give it a break!

At any given point in time, we are the sum product of our heredity and our environment.


CRAP!

There's plenty of evidence, it's just that you don't want to look at it!



Really PN??? Ok so exactly where and when was it DIRECTLY observed and noted by a scientist that reducing atmospheric Co2 levels slows down changes to the world climate???



As I already said, there's plenty of evidence, you just don't want to look at it!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #129 - Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:16pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:54pm:
Really PN??? Ok so exactly where and when was it DIRECTLY observed and noted by a scientist that reducing atmospheric Co2 levels slows down changes to the world climate???



This is why we call you deniers.

Quote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Back to top
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 11:23am:
So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&
 
IP Logged
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #130 - Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:18pm
 
stryder wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:36pm:
Yes it is a Hoax for me, I find many uncertainies in the science


Sure you do! Roll Eyes

Even if you HAD looked at the science, you quite obviously too stupid to understand it so it wouldn't make any difference. You're more than happy with the word of schlock jock and News Ltd trollumnists.
Back to top
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 11:23am:
So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&
 
IP Logged
 
astro_surf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #131 - Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:19pm
 
chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 1:09pm:
And surely it would have been more constructive had those intrepid record keepers have taken into account the blizzard conditions in Northern Europe thoughout the last decade rather than leaving them out of the calculations which makes up the 'average' temperatures.


You're a liar.
Back to top
 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 11:23am:
So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #132 - Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:30pm
 
Greenspan Tells Charlie Rose Default by Greece ‘Almost Certain’


June 16 (Bloomberg) -- Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, said a default by Greece is “almost certain” and could help drive the U.S. economy into recession.

“The problem you have is that it’s extremely unlikely the political system will work” in a way that solves Greece’s crisis, Greenspan, 85, said in an interview today with Charlie Rose in New York. “The chances of Greece not defaulting are very small.”

The chances of Greece defaulting are “so high that you almost have to say there’s no way out,” said Greenspan, who ran the central bank from 1987 to 2006. That may leave some U.S. banks “up against the wall.”

Greece’s debt crisis has the potential to push the U.S. into another recession, Greenspan said. Without the Greek issue, “the probability is quite low” of a U.S. recession, he said.

“There’s no momentum in the system that suggests to me that we are about to go into a double-dip,” Greenspan said.

U.S. Debt Limit
U.S. lawmakers are wrangling over spending cuts and budget reforms as they seek an agreement to increase the $14.3 trillion debt limit before Aug. 2, the date on which the Treasury Department said it will have exhausted its borrowing authority.

The U.S. debt issue is becoming “horrendously dangerous,” said Greenspan, who added he doubts lawmakers have another year or two to solve it.

Greenspan, appointed Fed chairman by Republican President Ronald Reagan, was once described as “the greatest central banker who ever lived” by economist Alan Blinder, the central bank’s former vice chairman.

He has since been blamed for contributing to the U.S. financial crisis by keeping interest rates low for too long and failing to regulate the mortgage market, according to critics including Allan Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, and members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4yglSoar1pQ&pos=2
==========================
Greensapn gives us more of the usual -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

Talk about double speak, that's what Greensapn does, but not as well as he used to!

The Real truth is that Greece is very likely to default.

However, with or without a Greek default, the US is likely to re-enter an "official Recession".

In fact, if the US Bailouts & Stimulus programs were detracted from their GDP, as it should be, then the US would never have exited their Recession.

Finally, greenspan is nearly there, in respect of the U.S. debt issue, but instead of becoming “horrendously dangerous,” he should have said, it is already “horrendously dangerous”!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #133 - Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:33pm
 
astro_surf wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:16pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 16th, 2011 at 9:54pm:
Really PN??? Ok so exactly where and when was it DIRECTLY observed and noted by a scientist that reducing atmospheric Co2 levels slows down changes to the world climate???



This is why we call you deniers.

Quote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."



I wouldn't waste too much effort!

Some of those on here, would still be "skeptical", after both poles melt.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
boogieman
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 307
Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #134 - Jun 17th, 2011 at 4:42pm
 
WHat is this crap? Makes no sense and states the bleeding obvious. Looks very much like cut 'n paste to me. Is there anybody here or is it just spiders transferring garbage from news pages to here as posts?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 23
Send Topic Print