Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

Reply
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
226
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

226 Views
Message 11 of 24

@Olderscout66, so where is the warming?  Look it up, their projections have just been wrong, year after year so much that Mr. Mann was actually caught manipulating the data in order to prove his position.  The data is not kept in one place and controlled by one person.  The Climate scientists in Alabama for instance have tracked and published the actual data.  

 

Chuck Todd worships at the cult church of Global Warming.  He reads a teleprompter while a camera points at him..

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
226
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
221
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

221 Views
Message 12 of 24

Now the deniers claim the Truth cannot be shown and that's why there's no EQUATIONS in the populat press.

 

Bullfeathers! The reason the papers we see don't show the math is about 5% would have a clue what their looking at, so here's proportedly the EASIEST set of equations explaining the relation between green house gasses , the "transparency" of the atmosphere, the role of the ice and the rise in temperature.

 

One of the most useful examples of a simple, but powerful, mathematical model used by climate scientists is the energy balance model — it only uses ideas from A level mathematics.

 

In the energy balance model we assume that the Earth is heated by the radiation from the Sun and that it has an average (absolute) temperature $T.$ Some of this heat energy is absorbed and the rest is radiated back into space. We then reach an equilibrium when these two balance. Now the heat energy from the Sun is given by

 \[ (1-a)S, \]  

where $S$ is the incoming power from the Sun (which is around $342 W m^{-2}$ on average), and $a$ is the albedo of the Earth: it measures how much of this energy is reflected back. The current value is $a =0.31.$ (The albedo would be higher if the Earth were covered in ice, since ice reflects the energy from the Sun.)

The heat energy radiated back into space is given by

 \[ \sigma e T^4, \]  

 

Here

 \[ \sigma = 5.67 \times 10^{-8} W m^{-2} K^{-4} \]  

is Stefan-Boltzmann constant (with temperature measured in Kelvin, denoted by $K$), and $ e$ is the emissivity, which is a measure of how transparent the atmosphere is. On the Moon, with almost no atmosphere, we have $e = 1$. Currently on the Earth we have $e =0.605.$

 

To find the Earth’s temperature we balance these two expressions so that

 \[ \sigma e T^4 = (1-a)S, \]  

and then we solve this for $T $ to give

 \[ T = \left(\frac{(1-a)S}{\sigma e}\right)^{1/4}, \]  

which you can evaluate on a calculator. Isn't that nice! Try it with the values above to find the current mean temperature of the Earth. Now take $e = 1$ to find an estimate for the average temperature of the Moon (all the other parameters stay the same). To check if you got the right answer, see here.

The power of this expression is that we can perform what if experiments to see what can happen to the climate in the future. For example, if the ice melts then the albedo $a$ decreases which means that $(1- a)$ and hence $T$ increases. Similarly if the emissivity $e$ decreases then the temperature $T$ increases. This is a worrying prediction as it is well known that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere leads to a decrease in $e.$ Thus there is a direct cause and effect link between an increase in carbon dioxide (which is of course what we are seeing) and a rise in the predicted mean temperature of the Earth.

Thus, even a simple model can provide us with useful, if worrying, insights into the future of our planet. Along side basic models such as this one, climate scientists use hugely complex models that take into account all the factors that influence the Earth's climate. To find out more, see Climate change: Does it all add up?

 

So math geeks, here's a mathmatical model that clearly shows the connection between rising temperatures and decreases in the albedo as polar ice disappears or decreases in emissivity as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Both those connections have been firmly established experimentally as has the direct link between human activity and concentrations of greenhouse gasses.

 

Let us all know where the math fails - in your opinion.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
221
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
221
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

221 Views
Message 13 of 24

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Fake news, as usual.  Chuck Todd is not a scientist.  He is a subaverage Joe with a microphone and camera pointed at him.


Was Chuck Todd saying he was doing the research, or was he citing experts in the field?

Which experts can you use to backup your uninformed opinion?


"experts" - vague bare plural

 

"uninformed" - ad hominem attack.

 

There is a mass delusion that the most qualified people in any given field of study are sufficiently competent to solve any problem in that field.  In reality, there are problems for which the best experts are unqualified.  For example, no meteorologist can consistently predict the weather a week in advance. But, when the problem is unsolvable to people with an IQ of less than 1000, which is everybody, there will always be "experts" who come forward and falsely claim that they are qualified to solve that problem.  Most climatologists fall into this category.  The vast majority of predictions of global warming have fallen short and yet the false prophets making them continue to claim that they are qualified and fools like Chuck Tod listen to them.  

 

The moral corruption of some prominent climate scientists is explained by these scientists:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbo8Ods8M0

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRpZivQDHw

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU


Ad hominem, what do you call "moral corruption" and your entire first post?  I said "uneducated" because you cannot back up your beliefs with scientific facts, just cherry picked data and opinions.  In another thread your points about these four videos were easily refuted, yet you try to use the same videos again, without offering further proof.  Since I already pointed out the problems with Tim Ball ,Willie Soon and the others, I don't think I need to repeat myself.  Your nit-picking of "fallen short" just shows your bias.  The trend towards validating their research has proven real, especially as climate models have been improved.  That would be similar to you claiming something isn't happening because scientists said there was 90% probability of it occuring and because it was 89%, you say their claims were false.


You didn't refute anything in the other thread.  The climate control scientists supporting man made global warming have not punlished their mathematical models in sufficient detail to be reproduced by readers therefore they have not presented arguments to refute.  This is sloppy science because the computer models should be described in enough detail so that the results can be duplicated by others.

 

Their results have been wrong.

 

Global_Warming_Predictions.png

 

And, Al Gore simply lied:

 

AntarcticIceIncreasing.png

You are getting sleepy.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
221
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
236
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

236 Views
Message 14 of 24

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Fake news, as usual.  Chuck Todd is not a scientist.  He is a subaverage Joe with a microphone and camera pointed at him.


Was Chuck Todd saying he was doing the research, or was he citing experts in the field?

Which experts can you use to backup your uninformed opinion?


"experts" - vague bare plural

 

"uninformed" - ad hominem attack.

 

There is a mass delusion that the most qualified people in any given field of study are sufficiently competent to solve any problem in that field.  In reality, there are problems for which the best experts are unqualified.  For example, no meteorologist can consistently predict the weather a week in advance. But, when the problem is unsolvable to people with an IQ of less than 1000, which is everybody, there will always be "experts" who come forward and falsely claim that they are qualified to solve that problem.  Most climatologists fall into this category.  The vast majority of predictions of global warming have fallen short and yet the false prophets making them continue to claim that they are qualified and fools like Chuck Tod listen to them.  

 

The moral corruption of some prominent climate scientists is explained by these scientists:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbo8Ods8M0

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRpZivQDHw

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU


Ad hominem, what do you call "moral corruption" and your entire first post?  I said "uneducated" because you cannot back up your beliefs with scientific facts, just cherry picked data and opinions.  In another thread your points about these four videos were easily refuted, yet you try to use the same videos again, without offering further proof.  Since I already pointed out the problems with Tim Ball ,Willie Soon and the others, I don't think I need to repeat myself.  Your nit-picking of "fallen short" just shows your bias.  The trend towards validating their research has proven real, especially as climate models have been improved.  That would be similar to you claiming something isn't happening because scientists said there was 90% probability of it occuring and because it was 89%, you say their claims were false.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
236
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
245
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

245 Views
Message 15 of 24

how sad that science. like facts, have no value in Trump supporters world, and it shows. Todd unlike Trump and his supporters respect  and value science.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
245
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
246
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

246 Views
Message 16 of 24

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Fake news, as usual.  Chuck Todd is not a scientist.  He is a subaverage Joe with a microphone and camera pointed at him.


Was Chuck Todd saying he was doing the research, or was he citing experts in the field?

Which experts can you use to backup your uninformed opinion?


"experts" - vague bare plural

 

"uninformed" - ad hominem attack.

 

There is a mass delusion that the most qualified people in any given field of study are sufficiently competent to solve any problem in that field.  In reality, there are problems for which the best experts are unqualified.  For example, no meteorologist can consistently predict the weather a week in advance. But, when the problem is unsolvable to people with an IQ of less than 1000, which is everybody, there will always be "experts" who come forward and falsely claim that they are qualified to solve that problem.  Most climatologists fall into this category.  The vast majority of predictions of global warming have fallen short and yet the false prophets making them continue to claim that they are qualified and fools like Chuck Tod listen to them.  

 

The moral corruption of some prominent climate scientists is explained by these scientists:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbo8Ods8M0

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRpZivQDHw

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

You are getting sleepy.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
246
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
258
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

258 Views
Message 17 of 24

@aruzinsky wrote:

Fake news, as usual.  Chuck Todd is not a scientist.  He is a subaverage Joe with a microphone and camera pointed at him.


Was Chuck Todd saying he was doing the research, or was he citing experts in the field?

Which experts can you use to backup your uninformed opinion?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
258
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
252
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

252 Views
Message 18 of 24

@Tom5678 wrote:
only to those who deny and live in an alternative universe like Trump I am afraid. Interesting how the only group in the world that deny climate change, are Republicans.

Actually, a lot of Republicans do believe it.  It would be even higher if a lot of the saner Republicans hadn't already left the Party.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/climate/republicans-global-warming-maps.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/republicans-climate-change-global-warm...

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
252
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
253
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

253 Views
Message 19 of 24
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
253
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
251
Views

Re: Meet The Press's special on climate change yesterday.....

251 Views
Message 20 of 24
only to those who deny and live in an alternative universe like Trump I am afraid. Interesting how the only group in the world that deny climate change, are Republicans.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
251
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

AARP Coronavirus Call-in Event

AARP will host a weekly, live Coronavirus Information Tele-Town Hall on Thursdays at 1 pm (ET). Learn more on AARP's Coronavirus Tele-Town Hall page and join us each week for the latest information.

Calling is toll-free. During the 90-minute live event, government experts will answer your questions and address health concerns related to COVID-19.

Top Authors