The US Military And Global Warming

When you're feigning intelligence, you should use spell check.

When you're feigning intelligence, you should use spell check.

Almighty Mr. Intellectual here. Stupidly and Stupidity both pass the ole spell check. Just saying when you go bashing intelligence please get your facts straight.

Interesting.... See, the red squiggly line means it's misspelled, the green squiggly line means a grammatical error. Both are contained in the "spell check" function on my browser.

your

Whose grammar nazis?

You need the green squiggly line to figure that out like Jassik does? If not you win and I bow to YOUR grammar Nazism.

Both of my grandmothers were English teachers, I rarely need spellcheck, anyway. But, that's irrelevant. You make no attempt to use proper English in your rants about how stupid others are. It would be comical, if it wasn't such a glaring indication of your poor education.

Really it's just pure Michigan orneriness. If you really want to have a good time let him think you're from Ohio

Screw fuel prices skyrocketing and more rules and regulations that cost mass amounts of money to enforce, let alone what they costs the people that produce the food. "Will just sum it up in one word that has nothing to do with either"

This entire article is full of half truth and propaganda. I pity the people that believe it.

This video is more believable and logical than anything you just said Pleebo.

Very simply, there is a finite amount of thermal energy being radiated into the earth from the sun.

That energy gets absorbed and re-radiated but on different wavelengths. Different molecules absorb and re-radiate different wavelengths of energy, if a photon pass's through a molecule that isn't sensitive to that wavelength then it gets ignored and continues it's merry way.
CO2 has a few very narrow bands that it's sensitive to, otherwise it's transparent. It also shares it's primary emission range with H2O and the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is so great that it utterly dominates everything else.

Well, the thing to keep in mind is that it affects both incoming and outgoing radiation.
In both cases, the thermal radiation emitted from CO2 is omnidirectional; like omnisexual, it swings all directions.

In other words, CO2 absorbs incoming solar radiation at particular wavelengths. When it re-radiates, it can radiate in any direction/orientation, including back out into space (if at the outer limit). So what you would in effect have somewhat of a thermal barrier in the upper atmosphere, where the likelihood of propagation of that particular class of radiation "downwards" (or towards earth) is relatively non-existent past some depth.

However, that neglects the absorption of all other forms of solar radiation by land and water masses, which achieve a certain temperature and radiate heat back outwards. This energy, which bypassed the upper layer of CO2 absorption, is in effect downshifted in wavelength to whatever the temperature of the land/water/air currently is. That radiation hits the internal CO2/H2O barrier, where the absorption/re-emission occurs. Like the upper barrier, the lower barrier has a very low probability of penetration for radiation in particular wavelengths, prior to being absorbed/re-emitted. Similar to how the upper barrier retards "downward" propagation, the near-surface barrier retards "upward" propagation. This retardation drives higher temperatures, creating more H2O, which enhances the retarding effect, or 'greenhouse effect'.

There simply isn't enough energy in the right bands for CO2 to make the difference that AGW claims, it warms the atmosphere a few degrees total at best. H2O Vapor in the lower atmosphere is what creates our planets greenhouse effect, H2O in the upper atmosphere has the opposite effect as it reflects incoming solar radiation back into space before it has a chance to be absorbed and radiation. This is another fact that AGW theorists refuse to acknowledge, they treat all H2O exactly the same.

if you look at the blackbody emission spectra for -93.2 to 0 to 56.7C (I've used recorded extreme temperatures for boundary values)(simple calculator here), you can see that they are in the range of roughly 16.1um 10.6um to 8.8um, respectively.
From the link above regarding emission spectra, a good amount of the temperature range below 0C is absorbed completely by CO2, while there is some (relatively minor, compared to H20) absorption at some higher temperature ranges.

http://www.randombio.com/co2.html

Now the way the AGW theory attempts to "sidestep" thermodynamics is to claim that increased CO2 cause's a slight warming which cause's more CO2 to be out gassed from the Oceans along with more H2O vapor which leads to even more warming. They have yet to prove this or even experimentally demonstrate it in lab conditions, it's just "assumed" to be true.

The known physics says this can't happen, CO2 can't increase the temperature by a significant due to the energy balance issue

and from what we've observed H2O vaporization from the Ocean is balanced by additional high altitude cloud formations.

Otherwise the earth would of gone nuclear back in prehistoric times when we were looking at 3000~5000ppm of atmospheric CO2.

Which brings us to the biggest issue of them all, "Climate Scientists" and most humans for that matter, take an extremely myopic look on the Earths history. You are under the assumption that a century is a "long time", you are very wrong. Planetary history, which includes it's climate patterns, is measured not in centuries or even millenniums, but in millions of years, sometimes tens' of millions.

All those scary graphs that AGW folk like to show, they are all extremely dishonest because they are deliberately distorting the X and Y axis to give the false impression of this dramatic increase. It takes the Earth an incredibly long time to do anything, our entire existence has been nothing but an eye blink in comparison.

When viewed from the big scale it becomes apparent that nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

The only difference between now and ten thousand years ago is that we actually have the ability to record, compare and enumerate all the natural cycles and changes. They have always happened but we simply weren't capable of putting it all together and seeing the big picture.

And here is a piece of that big picture



Historically speaking, CO2 levels are at an extreme low for our planet.

But hey I doubt your here for any kind of information or knowledge. Judging from your past posts and tone you just want to find some sort of niche or angle to use for ridicule. Exactly as I discussed in my earlier post, anyone who disagrees with your ideology is branded a heretic and treated as such, even when they present a multitude of information that casts doubt on the truthfulness of your ideology.

The information I posted today should at the very least cast doubt on the veracity of current AGW "theory" by the IPCC, Al'Gore and friends. There is more then enough information available to instantly dispel the "consensus" bullsh!t, and the "95% certain the science is settled!" nonsense.

And now we're fighting over grammar. Keep those P&R expectations high, people.

This site, as well as all of your sources, seems to neglect re-emission of IR radiation from CO2 after it has been absorbed.

on the periodic table.
See above, regarding historic CO2 concentrations.

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left side of the plot. This figure illustrates a range of events over the last 550 million years during which CO2 played a role in global climate.[22] The graph begins (on the right) with an era predating terrestrial plant life, during which solar output was more than 4% lower than today

Falling oil prices show the "high risk" of fossil fuel investments compared with renewable energies, the U.N.'s climate chief said on Monday at the start of 190-nation talks on a deal to slow global warming.

The Dec. 1-12 meeting in Lima opened with hopes that a U.N. deal to slow climate change is in reach for 2015, helped by goals set by China, the United States and the European Union to cut greenhouse emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat, dismissed suggestions that a tumble in the price of oil to a five-year low on Monday could brake hopes for a shift to renewable energies as a cornerstone of the climate deal.

Oil price volatility "is exactly one of the main reasons why we must move to renewable energy which has a completely predictable cost of zero for fuel" once wind turbines or solar panels were built, she told a news conference.

"We are seeing more and more the realization that investment in fossil fuel is actually a high risk, is getting more and more risky," she said, welcoming a decision by Germany's top utility E.ON to spin off power plants to focus on renewable energy and power grids.

Still, other experts said the oil price fall could slow some investments in renewables and may make fossil fuel exporters such as Russia and Saudi Arabia reluctant to make concessions at the climate talks, fearing they could undermine their earnings.

"It's hard to tell what the total net impact will be here," Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said after Brent crude fell as low as $67.53 a barrel, its lowest level since October 2009, before rebounding to settle at $72.54.

Delegates in Lima are due to work out elements of a deal due to be agreed at a U.N. summit in Paris next year as part of a U.N. goal to limit average world temperature rises to 2 degrees (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

CORAL REEFS

Temperatures have already risen by about 0.9 C (1.5F) and a U.N. panel of climate scientists says there are risks of irreversible impacts, ranging from damage to coral reefs to a meltdown of Greenland's ice that would raise sea levels.

"The window for action is rapidly closing," Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told delegates, warning of worsening disruptions to food and water supplies.

His panel says it is 95 percent probable that man-made emissions are the main cause of warming. And 2014 may eclipse 2010 as the warmest year on record.

The talks have been boosted after the United States last month agreed to cut emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels and China agreed to set a cap on its soaring emissions by around 2030.

The European Union also aims to cut emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels. That means that nations accounting for more than half of world emissions have set already goals.

"There is probably more of an opportunity here than there has been in a very long time," U.S. Climate Envoy Todd Stern told a briefing in Washington.