# Satellite photos show uncomfortable truth



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 1, 2014)

Once You Look At These 7 Satellite Photos You Will Discover A Very Uncomfortable Truth


> What do you get when you collect 27 years' worth of satellite pictures and turn them into GIFs? The scary realization that we can drastically change the face of the earth in some years and not even realize it.


----------



## LiberalMedia (Sep 1, 2014)

Look at this, Wrongpublicans. I never want to hear "hurr durr global warming is a hoax" ever again. This is PROOF that global warming is manpig-made, and very real.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 1, 2014)

This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation.  It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem.


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

Yup.  I concur.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2014)

So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?



I made no such claim.  What I wrote is clear: 

"This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation. It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem."

What part of what I wrote do you find offensive?  I don't know if the current weather phenomenon is a natural occurrence not caused by man, or if some of it is caused by man or all of it; and, I don't know if man's pollution of the environment is a catalyst creating this phenomenon or its primary cause.   Nor do you!


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 1, 2014)

So which is it... "uncomfortable" or "inconvenient"? 

Maybe it's neither...

The Greatest Hoax How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future Senator James Inhofe 9781936488490 Amazon.com Books


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

Are you recommending a book by James Inhofe?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 1, 2014)

*Alaska s iconic Columbia Glacier expected to stop retreating in 2020 -- ScienceDaily*
*Alaska's iconic Columbia Glacier expected to stop retreating in 2020*
Date:
November 26, 2012

Source:
University of Colorado at Boulder

Summary:
The wild and dramatic cascade of ice into the ocean from Alaska's Columbia Glacier, an iconic glacier featured in the documentary "Chasing Ice" and one of the fastest moving glaciers in the world, will cease around 2020, according to a new study.
----------------------------------------------

Don't let the witch doctors scare ya. Glaciers have been melting for about 15,000 yrs now.. You wanna live in a climate where they are growing?


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Are you recommending a book by James Inhofe?


If I were to recommend a book, it would be A Clockwork Orange. Or the biography of William Casey. I'm just saying that Inhofe's book is there.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 1, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?
> ...



That's pretty nihilist of ya !!! Of course, we have adequate records of weather going back 200 yrs or so and could EASILY determine if anything was not normal or suspicious. But that would take all the fun out this forum.. 

Tell us what "severe" events the MSMedia has been scaring you with bunky...


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

A lot of folks here seem to be quite upset by the occurrence of Rossby Waves.  Others by Typhoon Haiyan.  There has been no shortage of strong opinions concerning severe weather.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> I made no such claim.  What I wrote is clear:



What you wrote is alarmist nonsense.



Wry Catcher said:


> "This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation. It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem."



Is the reporting really due to unprecedented weather or is it due to a 24 hour news cycle that must be filled and must be interesting enough to bring in the watchers?  All one need do is look back into history to see far worse weather being reported.



Wry Catcher said:


> What part of what I wrote do you find offensive?  I don't know if the current weather phenomenon is a natural occurrence not caused by man, or if some of it is caused by man or all of it; and, I don't know if man's pollution of the environment is a catalyst creating this phenomenon or its primary cause.   Nor do you!



Since worse weather and the other phenomena pictured were far worse in the past when man's influence was about that of the rest of the animals on earth, it is clear that if man is having any influence at all it is a dampening influence...


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

Where do you see "dampening"?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> Where do you see "dampening"?



If one looks at the past and compares it to today as opposed to simply going into hysterics over today with no historical context...one sees that today the climate is not nearly as volatile as in the past.

Further, if one has some inkling of the past, then one knows that wild and wooly is the nature of the climate on earth and whatever we see or our grandkids see it will be nothing compared to the past...


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

That would be the past long, long before anything like humans, human culture or human infrastructure existed.  It has NOT been wild and wooly while we've been learning how to post videos of our cats to the internet and build Easy Bake Ovens.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I infer you limit your 'news' to Fox.  

Summer storms, 2 inch an hour rain, hail the size of tennis balls, floods, extreme heat and draught in the west.  It's not a normal summer, maybe it is a 'normal' anomaly, but my mind is open to humanity's impact on the weather in the long term. 

There are those who deny humanities impact on the soil, air and water and many of them are also disinclined to wonder if our actions impact the weather. Are they all Iconoclasts, is that what binds the New Right together?  Or are they brainwashed by the ongoing propaganda which fills our airways?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> That would be the past long, long before anything like humans, human culture or human infrastructure existed.  It has NOT been wild and wooly while we've been learning how to post videos of our cats to the internet and build Easy Bake Ovens.



guess you haven't seen the latest paper published in the climate of the past...it finds that the last interglacial was considerably warmer than the one we are in...again, not hind cast by the failing models...the failure just never ends for you people, does it?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

:the failure just never ends for you people, does it?"

What a stupid comment ^^^.  "You people" includes 97% of 
climate scientists.

*Climate Change Consensus *

Of course you believe the government lies and the entire scientific community conspires with the government on this issue, don't you?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> :the failure just never ends for you people, does it?"
> 
> What a stupid comment ^^^.  "You people" includes 97% of
> climate scientists.
> ...




That 97% is the glaring evidence of your failure...it is a lie and everyone knows it and yet, you keep repeating it as if it meant something....consensus, even if it is real doesn't mean anything...look at medicine...up until a couple of years ago about 100% of doctors would have told you that a stomach ulcer was due to stress....today, it is know that they were wrong....look at chemistry...up until a few years ago, more than 97% of chemists would have told you that quasicrystals did not exist...today, they know that they were wrong and do exist...and those are just two examples that have recently happened in the hard sciences...not a soft pseudoscience like climate science....consensus is politics...not science and anyone who must scream consensus instead of showing undeniable scientific evidence is just kidding themselves.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?
> ...


What has changed?

Do you know what changed, the equipment used to monitor storms.  That's what changed.  they can see the details of storm and report it live.  Didn't happen like that over 10 years ago. Radar is what they had and to some degree measuing the storm system, but not like today, and now, oooooooohhhhh, they're more severe.  No they are not Period. You believe in something that hasn't happened.  You can have yourself all reved up, but please don't submit your fears here.  Have you heard of Bull-sh---t before?  You just filled up a page.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



The only delusions I see here is the folks who watch the weather for sure signs  that Gaia is in distress because they see hail the size of tennis balls or 2"rain/hour.. I watch the charts of historical records to SEE if those things are anomalous.. And so far -- no hurricane, tornado, drought or flood exceeds the historical norms by enough to panic as much as the leftists who have already decided the omens are upon us..

What does 0.5degC mean to a supercell thunderstorm? THAT's the GW magnitude. Where I live, the temperature at the surface is HARDLY EVER within 0.5degC of the average.

Give me a chart and some numbers... Not the attitude, partisan crap and witchdoctor act.. It does resemble the ultimatum from a tribal witch doctor, stop your actions, sacrifice a virgin or this is what will happen.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > :the failure just never ends for you people, does it?"
> ...




Nice spin.  I simply offered an opinion by the scientific community of today.  Never did I, or would I, ever claim undeniable scientific evidence, nor would I offer an appeal to authority as an absolute truth. 

Science is about continuous testing of a hypothesis, something you seem to have left out.  You've concluded climate change is not related to human activity, and defend your hypothisis with ad hominem attacks, straw men and arrogance.

Our climate is healthier as the clean air act demonstrates:

Highlights from the Clean Air Act 40th Anniversary Celebration Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act US Environmental Protection Agency

Now spin this link ^^^!


----------



## PredFan (Sep 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?


Ding ding ding ding ding!

We have a winner!


----------



## Truth_is_impossible (Sep 2, 2014)

as long as the public and "oil - thirsty" governments  will not put the funds to renewables and conservation... nothing will help. a change costs. we took a huge loan from nature to grow and we will have to pay this in the short term in order to have a planet for our kids.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


But someone asked a question about whether you think severe weather has happened in the past and you never replied.  Why is that?

Funny you should mention "Science is about continuous testing of a hypothesis" you haven't been here before I supposed.  you see it is what we have been asking for since 2014 started.  Seem they don't agree that testing supports hypothesis.  Even though that is what it states to get to a theory.  Maybe you should be asking the warmers on here for that experiment that shows how warm 120 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause on the surface.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2014)

Here's a disturbing time lapse video that is sure to cause settled science consensus


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2014)

If only we could find a way to harness the power of stupidity and gullibility and channel it into energy. The AGWCult can supply an infinite quantity of raw materials


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 2, 2014)

So, all you warmers, what do you suggest be done to right this wrong by the "MAN" made globull warming?

give money to politicians to buy magic wands to stop it?
build some gas ovens and kill off a few billion people?

really what is their solutions besides it NEEDING MONEY


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> So, all you warmers, what do you suggest be done to right this wrong by the "MAN" made globull warming?
> 
> give money to politicians to buy magic wands to stop it?
> build some gas ovens and kill off a few billion people?
> ...



Needing more money and more power is what got us into this mess, a mess the loud majority above deny.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Maybe you need to ask the correct questons of the experts, and not prejudge an entire scientific community as incompetent or dishonest.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


what's wrong with the question?  Why can't they just show the evidence that shows that severe weather is a by product of CO2?  Are they friggn Gawds and no one is allowed to ask such things?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > So, all you warmers, what do you suggest be done to right this wrong by the "MAN" made globull warming?
> ...


which loud majority are you referring to? BTW, it seems you have made up your mind.


----------



## Zander (Sep 2, 2014)

BFD..... The earth is constantly changing.  Get over yourselves......


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...





LOL....classic......all far lefties get hysterical about regular shit happening be it wild weather or some gun tragedy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2014)

All the AGW community are the same suckers who are targeted by overnight cable TV marketing........they sell all this shit the braindead want like Turbonaters, clapoff lights and car tranny caddys........glasses that double as binoculars.......fake TV's.......

*"But wait....if you call now, we'll double the offer........"*


----------



## Zander (Sep 2, 2014)

The grand canyon was just a few small holes at one time......It must be global warming that created it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



What part of "above" befuddled you, Stephanie?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

Zander said:


> The grand canyon was just a few small holes at one time......It must be global warming that created it.



Must be, are you channeling CrusaderFrank?  If not, it was a great effort in posting an idiot-gram


----------



## KissMy (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?
> ...



Maybe we should stop the flow of climate changing illegals into this country.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



What does the Clean Air Act have to do with CO2 emissions? Are your lungs in constant violation? 

For that matter -- what does pollution have to do with CLIMATE?


----------



## Zander (Sep 2, 2014)

According to climate alarmists, exhaling is polluting.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



All mentally challenged righties get hysterical about regular shit they hold to be absolutley true when challenged.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes Viginia, there are dumb questions.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Viginia -- is that a state of mind? Of course they are dumb questions, but that's where your rhetoric leads. You want to CONFUSE carbon pollution with CO2 -- then you are gonna be treated as a dumbass. Even if you are the EPA...


----------



## teddyearp (Sep 2, 2014)

Wow, just wow.  This planet is purported to be billions of years old.  The surface over that time has warmed and cooled exponentially over all those years.  Our modern weather 'records' only go back what, 100 years?  200?

Is the planet now in a warming trend?  Maybe.  Is it solely because of human influence? Doubtful. Does the human influence have anything at all to do with it?  Maybe, but honestly I think it is awful precocious of *any human being* to think that our 100-200 years of industrialization and burning fossil fuels could have enough effect on the global climate that historically takes tens of *thousands* of years to cycle.

[jab] But all it takes is a guy to proclaim "An inconvenient truth" and others lap it up as truth.  No matter that the guy who 'proclaimed' it has a house uses more fossil fuels in a month than most folks houses do in a year . . . . [/jab]

Oh, but wait, there's more:

Is a mini ice age on the way Scientists warn the Sun has gone to sleep and say it could cause temperatures to plunge Mail Online


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 2, 2014)

KissMy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Okay, that's about the funniest thing I've read on this board.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 2, 2014)

It has been cold here all year long, sounds like a shifting weather pattern, but long term it would be cause for glacial alarm.  Oh noes, its the modern ice age!


----------



## KissMy (Sep 2, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


----------



## whitehall (Sep 2, 2014)

Environmental guru Carl Sagan predicted we would all be dead by now. Russia just signed a 30 year contract to supply China with fossil fuel while the A-Hole in the White House just signed a contract with the windmill industry to allow them to kill migratory endangered birds for the next 30 years. Leave it to the radical left to be fearful of nice weather and blame America for inevitable fluctuations in that big nuclear reactor in the sky.


----------



## westwall (Sep 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?
> ...










For your statement to have any meaning whatsoever you of course MUST be able to point to a time when there was no "severe" weather.  Have fun and please post one year when there was no severe weather.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 2, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



A  dumbass is one who creates a straw man out of wet hay. 

In my thread I posted nothing about CO2 or Carbon Pollution - I used the generic term "pollution", and the impact human kind had in the formation of SMOG and Acid Rain.


----------



## Politico (Sep 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> *So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?*  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?



He can feel it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Nice spin.  I simply offered an opinion by the scientific community of today.  Never did I, or would I, ever claim undeniable scientific evidence, nor would I offer an appeal to authority as an absolute truth.



You offered up an inaccurate opinion of the state of the scientific community today as the 97% number is just a lie...then I pointed out that even if the 97% consensus number were real (which it isn't) it would still mean nothing since consensus is not science and those who must make their argument by pointing out consensus are not arguing science...they are arguing politics.  If you had an actual compelling scientific argument to make, you wouldn't be reduced to crying consensus.



Wry Catcher said:


> Science is about continuous testing of a hypothesis, something you seem to have left out.  You've concluded climate change is not related to human activity, and defend your hypothisis with ad hominem attacks, straw men and arrogance.



No, that is something that climate science has left out...they have substituted the false consensus meme for the required testing....I wish that some of you could post the actual testing that is going on to prove the hypothesis...it would make the debate much more interesting.  All you have is climate models...spectacularly failing climate models....You have decades of failed predictions...you have constant excuse making for the failure of the predictions....you have no actual science at all...and the never ending consensus fallacy is just boring.  

By all means, show me evidence of the continuous testing that is going on to prove either the greenhouse theory of the AGW hypothesis.



Wry Catcher said:


> climate is healthier as the clean air act demonstrates:



And there, in a nutshell is the climate alarmist argument...you attempt to scold me for not understanding that science is about continually testing a hypothesis and then back up your argument with a political opinion.

[QUOTE="Wry Catcher, post: 9730759, member: 20297"Now spin this link ^^^![/QUOTE]

What's to spin...it is politics and politics is all spin....it has already been duly spun...what..you want to spin it some more?

Instead of politics lets see the evidence of the continuous scientific testing to prove the climate change hypothesis...you claim that is what science is all about...I agree.  Lets see their work....lets see the testing...lets see the methodology...lets see the results.  Where is it?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Maybe you need to ask the correct questons of the experts, and not prejudge an entire scientific community as incompetent or dishonest.



It isn't the entire scientific community that is incompetent and dishonest...just the leadership in the climate science community.  We regularly see other scientific disciplines learning and freely admitting that they were wrong when their continuous testing proves their previous beliefs wrong...we see them move on when experimental results and reality don't mesh with their hypothesis...in the climate science community, however, when the observations don't match with their results...they simply make excuses....it is that excuse making that now has man made global warming causing more and less rain...more and less snow...warmer and cooler temperatures...more and fewer tornadoes...hurricaines...etc etc etc...and it goes on and on.  

In real science, one failure of a hypothesis is enough to discard a hypothesis and go back to the drawing board to reevaluate the thinking....how many failures of the AGW hypothesis will be required before it is shit canned.  At this point, the failures are legion and the growing list of excuses for the failures of the hypothesis are legion squared.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 3, 2014)

Is this real science?

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2014)

Well not surprised all the "alarmist" the sky is falling Warmers didn't offer up on solution when asked ?

I think they just get their jollies off on scaring the hell of people. Of course we know what these politicians motives are. MORE MONEY MORE CONTROL OVER YOU


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Once You Look At These 7 Satellite Photos You Will Discover A Very Uncomfortable Truth
> 
> 
> > What do you get when you collect 27 years' worth of satellite pictures and turn them into GIFs? The scary realization that we can drastically change the face of the earth in some years and not even realize it.


ROFL


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 3, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Here's a disturbing time lapse video that is sure to cause settled science consensus


We must stop man made chia pets before they take over the planet!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Is this real science?
> 
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming



a theory is not evidence


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Is this real science?
> 
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming




Empirical - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. 

OK, so considering the actual definition of empirical, which part of that do you believe is actual empirical evidence that man is causing warming? I read it and they give a description of the hypothesis...and state a few facts, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as empirical evidence that man is causing warming...if you think it is there, then tell me which part you believe is actual empirical evidence.


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

OBSEERVATIONS = EMPIRICAL DATA

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible.

On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F).

At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F.

In comparison the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to theWMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe.

Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold.

Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun

POINT OF INQUIRY
why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon?

HYPOTHESIS
The answer is because of our atmosphere.

OBSERVATION
The moon doesn’t have one

it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun

At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth

CALCULATION FROM STEFAN-BOLTZMAN
The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

BACK TO OBSERVATIONS
This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans.

Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C.

HYPOTHESIS (if you like}
The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

OBSERVATION
These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost.

POINT OF INQUIRY
So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

OBSERVATION
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: *more energy is remaining in the atmosphere*.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 3, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Is this real science?
> 
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming



Don't really care WHAT that is. The site skepticalscience has ATOM BOMB counters on every page drawing an equivalence to the 0.5degC rise in temp during your lifetime to nuclear annihlation.  Please try again.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> OBSEERVATIONS = EMPIRICAL DATA


NOPE.......................

POINT OF INQUIRY
So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

OBSERVATION
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: *more energy is remaining in the atmosphere*.[/QUOTE]
NOPE, and more NoNseNse!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> OBSEERVATIONS = EMPIRICAL DATA
> 
> It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible.
> 
> ...


ROFL


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Is this real science?
> ...



That was a response to SSDD who claimed the Skeptical Science article contained no empirical data.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


 it most likely didn't since all you post is nonsense.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2014)

> OBSEERVATIONS = EMPIRICAL DATA



he spouts off a bunch bs and thinks ma and pa middle America should be impressed and just fall at the feet of "globull warming"
well by golly yepper you see that ma he knows his stuff. He can put up a whole bunch of words he must be it


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Is this real science?
> ...



As I've said before, I'm not an expert, I'm not a scientist and I'm not certain as to what percentage human activity has on the weather.  The empirical evidence - SMOG and Acid Rain - indicate to me that human activity can effect the weather.  

Is the impact long term?  I know that efforts to control pollution mitigated both; would they have gotten worse had not responsible leaders sought to remedy the cause?  I think so.

Will the warming of the Oceans create a long term (permanent?) change?  Who knows?  I'm simply not willing to take the chance, why you and other so called conservatives do so both suprises and disgusts me.

If sadly funny that the conservative meme worries about our nations debt on future generations, but gives not a moments pause to reflect on their health and well-being.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


 Oh contrare, the path of the left will be worse, believe you me!!!!! without a home and it being cold without heat, the future would be very painful for my kids.  I protect them from that.  And since you have no evidence and still buy into the mumbo jumbo you are a fool!


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

You have said repeatedly that we have no evidence.  What do you find in AR5 or in the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which the IPCC bases its conclusions?  Do you really consider yourself both educationally qualified and sufficiently knowledgeable about those particular thousands of research papers to conclude no evidence exists?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> You have said repeatedly that we have no evidence.  What do you find in AR5 or in the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which the IPCC bases its conclusions?  Do you really consider yourself both educationally qualified and sufficiently knowledgeable about those particular thousands of research papers to conclude no evidence exists?


ROFL


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That would be the past long, long before anything like humans, human culture or human infrastructure existed.  It has NOT been wild and wooly while we've been learning how to post videos of our cats to the internet and build Easy Bake Ovens.
> ...



I guess you are pretty damned ignorant to even begin to think that you can lie like that and get away with it. Yes, there was a point that the last interglacial was warmer than the present one. And the sea levels were about 20 ft. higher. Plus the CO2 level was at 300 ppm, and the CH4 at a slightly higher level than its normal 700 to 800 ppb. So, the models would indeed 'hindcast' a warmer time at 330 ppm than 280 ppm. Just as those same models are predicting a much warmer Earth from the present 400 ppm of CO2 and more than 1800 ppb of CH4. And we are seeing that warming in progress right now.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You have said repeatedly that we have no evidence.  What do you find in AR5 or in the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which the IPCC bases its conclusions?  Do you really consider yourself both educationally qualified and sufficiently knowledgeable about those particular thousands of research papers to conclude no evidence exists?
> ...



Much shorter than most of the dumb fuck comments here. But just a dumb.

The fact remains, Crick, Oreginecman, and so many others have present real scientific papers from real scientists. You people present shit and try to pretend it is real. Flap-yap doesn't buy shit in the real world, and that is all you have.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


ROFL you CO2 guys make me laugh so hard.  Please stop, your gonna make me choke.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Well, I find the willfull ignorance of the retarded more a matter of pity than laughter, so I am not laughing at you. Be kind to your self, and don't hurt yourself getting out of bed.


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> > OBSEERVATIONS = EMPIRICAL DATA
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hello Stephanie.

Did you get a chance to review the many surveys, polls and studies at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Hey Old Farce, did you learn what plants consume yet?  We learned this shit in elementary school.  Where were you?






When did retarded start including IQs over 160?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> You have said repeatedly that we have no evidence.  What do you find in AR5 or in the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which the IPCC bases its conclusions?  Do you really consider yourself both educationally qualified and sufficiently knowledgeable about those particular thousands of research papers to conclude no evidence exists?



Slapping each other on the back is not evidence


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Presented papers, but no evidence


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

Was that supposed to be an example of your evidence?


Frank, do you understand what the term "evidence" means?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Was that supposed to be an example of your evidence?
> 
> 
> Frank, do you understand what the term "evidence" means?



Evidence might be clear examples that the climate is outside of the limits of natural variation...actual evidence that proves a point....and correlation does not equal causation...actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> ..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?



You, more than Kosh or JC456, need a course in B-A-S-I-C science.  Unfortunately, I'm quite certain you'd get less out of it than would they.  I'd actually be surprised if you could find an instructor that would let you remain in the class for the entire term.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?
> ...


You're the one that needs a remedial science class.  You, along with the rest of you dim bulbs that think CO2 is gonna kill us all.


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2014)

It will kill some folks.  I'm sure it already has.  But it won't kill us all.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?
> ...


 Well, we're waiting.  got that proof of causation?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> It will kill some folks.  I'm sure it already has.  But it won't kill us all.


 more mumbo jumbo with no evidence.  You are a kick s0n! a LoSiNg one at that!


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> You're the one that needs a remedial science class.  You, along with the rest of you dim bulbs that think CO2 is gonna kill us all.





Crick said:


> It will kill some folks.  I'm sure it already has.  But it won't kill us all.



Wait, what? How many people has CO2 killed? ROFL, I've got to here this one.  You do realize that carbon dioxide is not carbon monoxide, right?

You do realize that the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% this vs 21% for oxygen, right?  You do realize that plants convert CO2 to oxygen right?  You do realize that plants grow faster and use water more efficiently when CO2 is increased right?  You do realize that CO2 would have to be ~ 250 times (2+ orders of MAGNITUDE) HIGHER in concentration before it became toxic to humans right? CO2 is not a poison it is a natural and necessary part of the atmosphere.  The result of increased CO2, if that happens, will be a massive increase in plant growth that will offset the increase, until the system achieves equilibrium.

Are you talking about people in space suits? ROFL dude.. put down the shovel while your ahead.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?
> ...



Yammering rather than providing the requested evidence....how unsurprising is that?  By the way, did you see the "newly discovered" photos take of the arctic in the 1960's....huge holes in the ice....here is one taken in September 1969 by the NIMBUS satellite...look at the amount of open water and compare it to today....Seems that today's "ice loss" is far from unprecedented....as I said, the reason you people want to restrict the debate to very limited time periods is that if you look at actual climate history, your stupidity and senseless hysterics is self evident.


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2014)

.


SSDD said:


> Yammering rather than providing the requested evidence....how unsurprising is that?



Considering your attempt to require proof on a natural sciences question, not surprising at all.



SSDD said:


> By the way, did you see the "newly discovered" photos take of the arctic in the 1960's....huge holes in the ice....here is one taken in September 1969 by the NIMBUS satellite...look at the amount of open water and compare it to today.



Okay, let's.














...Seems that today's "ice loss" is far from unprecedented....as I said, the reason you people want to restrict the debate to very limited time periods is that if you look at actual climate history, your stupidity and senseless hysterics is self evident.[/QUOTE]

Don't be an idiot.  Data is being presented where its available.  Can YOU measure the actual ice extents from this photograph?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> .
> 
> 
> SSDD said:
> ...


I see you remain stuck in a rut.  I provide you with the maps from the 1930s, you ignore it.  Which is typical for your ilk.  Yep never look at the facts.  Right, it's your favorite thing to do.  Look for more mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Kosh (Sep 4, 2014)

I know let us start to study climate during a warming phase and then blame it on humans..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one that needs a remedial science class.  You, along with the rest of you dim bulbs that think CO2 is gonna kill us all.
> ...



Oh my, the fucking dummy with the 160 IQ! And, no, I do not realize that all plants grow faster and use water more efficiently at higher CO2 levels, because all plants do not. And nobody is talking about toxic levels of CO2, we are talking about climate changing levels of CO2. And that is already here. 

Now, you state that there will be a massive increase in plant growth if there is an increase in CO2. So, where is that massive increase in plant growth, Homer? After all, the CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2014)

Kosh said:


> I know let us start to study climate during a warming phase and then blame it on humans..



Hey Kosh, when are you actually going to post something that reflects more than a single digit IQ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2014)

The Northwest Passage has been attempted since the 15th century. Nobody was able to do it until 1903, and then it was done only in a three year trip. Since 2000, many boats and some ships have done it with no problems, and without the assistance of ice breakers. Not every year, but enough of them to label Hansen't predictions that he made in 1981 concerning it's opening as accurate. 

That the useless and ignorant flap-yappers of this board are not aware of this is simply the confimation of their state of willfull ignorance.


----------



## alpine (Sep 4, 2014)

90+% of scientists and 90+% of scientific papers published support the view of man made global warming. 

Whoever opposing to this statistical data, we simply call hopeless "ignorant"...


----------



## Kosh (Sep 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey Kosh, when are you actually going to post something that reflects more than a single digit IQ?



This from one the AGW cut and paste religious cult.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

Kosh said:


> I know let us start to study climate during a warming phase and then blame it on humans..



What warming phase?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Where did I say "all plants" you POS liar?

Where is your evidence that CO2 levels have had any negative affects whatsoever on the climate?

Send me a 100m grant and I'll gladly do the research.  Otherwise you'll just have to be happy with closed environment experiments.  You look them up, I'm bored with you.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

When I said "I'm sure it already has", I was speaking of events like Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, people dying of thirst, starvation, flooding, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> When I said "I'm sure it already has", I was speaking of events like Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, people dying of thirst, starvation, flooding, etc, etc, etc.


So you actually believe increased levels of CO2 caused hurricane Katrinia.  You actually believe that increased levels of CO2, the atmospheric component that plants use during photosynthesis, causes starvation.   wow... just wow.  Arguing with folks like you is like trying to argue with a 3 year old spoiled brat.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > When I said "I'm sure it already has", I was speaking of events like Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, people dying of thirst, starvation, flooding, etc, etc, etc.
> ...


I don't believe we've ever had a hurricane Katrinia, but if you mean't Katrina, then, no, I don't believe it was caused by increased levels of CO2.  I believe increased levels of CO2 increased the Earth's temperature and in some part were responsible for the very high SST of the Gulf as Katrina was coming across.  I believe the effects of excess CO2 made Katrina more likely and I believe that the effects of excess CO2 made Katrina more powerful.  The same is true for everything else I noted.  It will be a great long while before the blame for any natural event can be lain solely at the foot of CO2.  That does NOT mean that CO2 is blameless.



RKMBrown said:


> You actually believe that increased levels of CO2, the atmospheric component that plants use during photosynthesis, causes starvation.



Global warming has already been responsible for a number of significant seasonal weather changes around the globe: the droughts in the southwestern US for instance.  You may not be familiar with the rest of the world, but large numbers of people do not have access to grocery stores or have refrigerator freezers.  They often have only what they can grow and what they and catch to eat.  Weather changes that lead to crop failures can and do cause starvation.  Malnutrition leads to increased risk from diseases and injuries and reduces the productivity required to feed oneself when one's food is the product of one's labors.



RKMBrown said:


> wow... just wow.  Arguing with folks like you is like trying to argue with a 3 year old spoiled brat.



Do you really think so?  Let's see how that works out for you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Are you or are you not aware that hurricanes are caused by moisture. Which is it, your global warming is causing additional moisture which is causing hurricanes or it's causing droughts which is starving people out?  Do you or do you not know that colder climate results in more droughts, not less.  This is a yes or no question.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Are you or are you not aware that hurricanes are caused by moisture. Which is it, your global warming is causing additional moisture which is causing hurricanes or it's causing droughts which is starving people out?  Do you or do you not know that colder climate results in more droughts, not less.  This is a yes or no question.



It is?  Then let me offer you a helpful bit of knowledge:

From Wikipedia:

A *false dilemma* (also called *black-and-white thinking*, *bifurcation*, *denying a conjunct*, the *either-or fallacy*, *false dichotomy*, *fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses*, the *fallacy of false choice*, the *fallacy of the false alternative*, or the *fallacy of the excluded middle*) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies two options (dilemma, dichotomy, black-and-white) may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" if something is reduced to only three options, instead of two.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). This fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

Some philosophers and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."[1] An exception is analytic philosopher John Searle, who called it an incorrect assumption that produces false dichotomies.[2] Searle insists that "it is a condition of the adequacy of a precise theory of an indeterminate phenomenon that it should precisely characterize that phenomenon as indeterminate; and a distinction is no less a distinction for allowing for a family of related, marginal, diverging cases."[2] Similarly, when two options are presented, they often are, although not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities; this may lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive of each other, even though they need not be.[_citation needed_] Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy may be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
***************************************************************************************
Increased CO2 is causing the accumulation of more and more solar energy from the sun which is raising the temperature of the planet's surfaces, its oceans and its atmosphere.   All weather is driven by solar energy.  

Are you familiar with a Carnot heat engine?

Increasing temperatures will cause changes to the Earth's weather patterns.  Our supply of food, be it crops, animals feeding on those crops or fish in the ocean, will be affected by changes in the Earth's weather patterns.


----------



## Kosh (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> What warming phase?



Typical AGW cult member..

Thinks the planet does not warm unless it is caused by humans..


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Are you or are you not aware that hurricanes are caused by moisture. Which is it, your global warming is causing additional moisture which is causing hurricanes or it's causing droughts which is starving people out?  Do you or do you not know that colder climate results in more droughts, not less.  This is a yes or no question.
> ...


Yes, changes to temperatures affect weather patterns, duh!  You don't seem to be retarded, why are you acting like you are?  Why are you insisting that changes are bad?  What makes you think you and your kind can affect the weather in any way shape or form?

If you had to pick a change would you vote for a return to an ice age or warming and why.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Yes, changes to temperatures affect weather patterns, duh!



Yes and those changes can go in all manner of directions.  Increases in polar temperatures can cause Rossby waves which have brought polar air masses down to the central and eastern US making lots of folks think it's evidence that no warming is taking place.  The droughts in the SW US have made folks thinks its been proven that increased temperatures will cause increased evaporation.  Dogs and cats playing together...



RKMBrown said:


> You don't seem to be retarded



Oh, thank GOD!  I was really worried about that.  Really.



RKMBrown said:


> why are you acting like you are?



That'd be a long story.  Ah-boot 60 years I'd a-guess.



RKMBrown said:


> Why are you insisting that changes are bad?



Hmmm.... probably something about people suffering when changes make it more and more difficult for them to find shelter, food and water.



RKMBrown said:


> What makes you think you and your kind can affect the weather in any way shape or form?



We already have.  They call it AGW.  I bet you've seen the pictures:

































RKMBrown said:


> If you had to pick a change would you vote for a return to an ice age or warming and why.



I don't have a preference.  And apparently you didn't catch the theme behind that false dilemma article.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, changes to temperatures affect weather patterns, duh!
> ...



You don't seem to understand yet.  Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous.  But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change.  Fear is the mind killer.  You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.

In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... get this breathing.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> You don't seem to understand yet.



I think I've understood everything you've said so far.  If that hasn't been quite what you wanted to say, well...



RKMBrown said:


> Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous.



Perhaps that explains why I've never said any such thing.



RKMBrown said:


> But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change.



Hmmm, no.  What it points to is that you still don't seem to understand the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, or as I always called it, the false dichotomy.  You ask me whether I want to suffer hot or suffer cold.  I don't want either,  The temperature of the world is a continuous spectrum.  There are an infinite number of values it could take on.  I would be satisfied with whatever the equilibrium temperature for a CO2 level of 280 ppm.  I could be satisfied with warming or cooling if only it took place at the pace with which it has warmed or cooled in the Earth's past.  The Earth's temperatures and the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere have risen and fallen throughout the Earth's history.  But on those occasions - even those occasions that led to mass extinction events - the CO2 levels and the temperatures changed at an absolutely glacial pace when compared to the rate of change today.  It's not the absolute temperatures that are going to hurt us.  It's the rapid pace of change.



RKMBrown said:


> Fear is the mind killer.



Fear is A mind killer.  So is ignorance.  So are the prejudice and bias that ignorance breeds.



RKMBrown said:


> You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.



I haven't succumbed to anything.  I've been convinced by overwhelming evidence, by the application of logic, by my knowledge of physics and chemistry.  I've been swayed by the overwhelming majority of experts: people who know the physics and the chemistry and the logic better than me or anyone else on this board - that anthropogenic global warming is valid and correctly describes the working of the Earth's climate.



RKMBrown said:


> In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... get this breathing.



Sorry, no.  And if you find it necessary to think of your debating opponents, or simply all those with whom you disagree, to be quivering in rank fear while you stand there brave and tall... well, you must not have much faith in your arguments.

Why don't you come back when you've grown a pair.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to understand yet.
> ...


Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2.  Which is it?  This another one of your so called false dichotomies?

This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2.  Make up your mind.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2014)

What a muddle-brained dupe. SOS..

1) Where is the Ocean munching heat consumption in the IPCC AR "forcings" chart? Anything that eats that much heat is a NEGATIVE forcing.. And WHY do they insist on LYING about the solar forcing number?  Climate Science is SO retarded.. 

2) Where would you expect to see CO2 levels during a series of Ice Ages when all that gas is sequestered in mile deep Ice?

3) It's been explained to you MANY times that the author of one of the historical hockey stick graphs ACKNOWLEDGES that the methodology used to create that POS does not have NEAR enough the resolution to pick up a 80 yr temperature spike like we've seen. And MASSIVE LOCAL evidence points to a Med Warm Period equivalent to or EXCEEDING our current spike in maybe a 100 or 200 yr period. 

4) Don't look now -- but those modeled projections of future temperatures are already WAY off. Time for a NEW CHART !! 

But keep on posting the same crap.. And at all costs -- avoid any thinking or analysis...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 5, 2014)

some of those were pretty cool

like the Vegas one and the Dubia coast


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2.  Which is it?  This another one of your so called false dichotomies?
> 
> This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2.  Make up your mind.



It really seems as if you have absolutely no shafts in your quiver save the one labeled "The False Dilemma"

Again, come back when you have a real argument, cause this don't qualify.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2.  Which is it?  This another one of your so called false dichotomies?
> ...


Which are you claiming was your lie?  Your statement where you deny you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, or the one where you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2.  Which is the lie?


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2014)

No offense, really, but you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> No offense, really, but you're a fucking idiot.


Which are you claiming was your lie? Your statement where you deny you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, or the one where you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is the lie?


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2014)

Are you really this stupid or are you posing in an attempt to gain sympathy?

*Speaking of lies*: why don't you find where I stated that anthropogenic global warming is the result of human respiration?

*Speaking of lies:* why don't you find where the experts I quote stated that anthropogenic global warming is the result of human respiration?

*Speaking of lies:* why don't you review the Wikipedia article I showed you on the logical FALLACY known as the FALSE DILEMMA?
False dilemma - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> Are you really this stupid or are you posing in an attempt to gain sympathy?
> 
> *Speaking of lies*: why don't you find where I stated that anthropogenic global warming is the result of human respiration?
> 
> ...


Are you actually trying to say that human respiration does not generate CO2?  I didn't think anyone could be that stupid.

Here:


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2014)

That doesn't correct for your lies.  Show us where I made the statements you've claimed I made.  Show us where the experts I use have made the statements you've claimed they made.  Show us where it says the False Dilemma is not a logical fallacy.


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2014)

Were you aware that these data ALSO came from satellites?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> That doesn't correct for your lies.  Show us where I made the statements you've claimed I made.  Show us where the experts I use have made the statements you've claimed they made.  Show us where it says the False Dilemma is not a logical fallacy.


I did show you.  I quoted them.  Are you posting from a mental hospital?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> Were you aware that these data ALSO came from satellites?


ROFL news flash, ice melts in the summer.


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't correct for your lies.  Show us where I made the statements you've claimed I made.  Show us where the experts I use have made the statements you've claimed they made.  Show us where it says the False Dilemma is not a logical fallacy.
> ...



Scroll right up there and let us know what post number you believe has these quotes.  That'd be the little number in the upper right corner.  This post is #124.  We'll be waiting.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


#111

Are you mentally handicapped? Yes or no?  If you are a mental patient I'll just leave you alone.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Were you aware that these data ALSO came from satellites?


 what is your point?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Were you aware that these data ALSO came from satellites?
> ...


I just assumed his point was that ice melts in the summer.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 Right? Woo hoo!!!


----------



## Esmeralda (Sep 9, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation.  It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem.


Most American families have two or three cars, and big ones at that. America creates a huge amount of air pollution.  There's a place to start.  And I don't think we should be telling other countries what to do until we are doing the right thing ourselves.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation.  It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem.
> ...


 Why?


----------



## Esmeralda (Sep 9, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming?  Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?
> ...


It's better to be safe than sorry and, thus, make the corrections needed to prevent further damage to the environment.  As well, it makes a better place to live in...clean air, clean water, etc.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 Based on what? And why?


----------



## Esmeralda (Sep 9, 2014)

Y


jc456 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You are just a fucking idiot. Go play out on the freeway.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Y
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


 Based on what?  I know, you don't have a clue!  oooooooooooo.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation.  It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem.
> ...


Define air pollution.

map of deaths from air pollution:


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...


 why?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Y
> ...



Based on what?  Why?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 9, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



LOL, anyone can play your game.  It's no wonder she went off on you, you deserve it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't correct for your lies.  Show us where I made the statements you've claimed I made.  Show us where the experts I use have made the statements you've claimed they made.  Show us where it says the False Dilemma is not a logical fallacy.
> ...



Why do you go out of your way to prove you're an asshole? Everyone who has read your posts knows that to be true, that and the fact you're not very bright (in that assessment I'm being kind to you, Brown).


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 9, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


You're an idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No, I'm not.  But thanks so much for sharing.  As you can not refute my assessment, we can assume you agree.


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2014)

Here is the post RKMBrown identifies as containing instances in which I and or the experts I use state that AGW is being caused by human respiration



RKMBrown said:


> You don't seem to understand yet.





Crick said:


> I think I've understood everything you've said so far.  If that hasn't been quite what you wanted to say, well...





RKMBrown said:


> *Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous.*





Crick said:


> *Perhaps that explains why I've never said any such thing.*





RKMBrown said:


> But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change.





Crick said:


> Hmmm, no.  What it points to is that you still don't seem to understand the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, or as I always called it, the false dichotomy.  You ask me whether I want to suffer hot or suffer cold.  I don't want either,  The temperature of the world is a continuous spectrum.  There are an infinite number of values it could take on.  I would be satisfied with whatever the equilibrium temperature for a CO2 level of 280 ppm.  I could be satisfied with warming or cooling if only it took place at the pace with which it has warmed or cooled in the Earth's past.  The Earth's temperatures and the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere have risen and fallen throughout the Earth's history.  But on those occasions - even those occasions that led to mass extinction events - the CO2 levels and the temperatures changed at an absolutely glacial pace when compared to the rate of change today.  It's not the absolute temperatures that are going to hurt us.  It's the rapid pace of change.





RKMBrown said:


> Fear is the mind killer.





Crick said:


> Fear is A mind killer.  So is ignorance.  So are the prejudice and bias that ignorance breeds.





RKMBrown said:


> *You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.*





Crick said:


> *I haven't succumbed to anything*.  *I've been convinced by overwhelming evidence, by the application of logic, by my knowledge of physics and chemistry*.  I've been swayed by the overwhelming majority of experts: people who know the physics and the chemistry and the logic better than me or anyone else on this board - *that anthropogenic global warming is valid and correctly describes the working of the Earth's climate*.





RKMBrown said:


> In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... *get this breathing*.





Crick said:


> *Sorry, no. * And if you find it necessary to think of your debating opponents, or simply all those with whom you disagree, to be quivering in rank fear while you stand there brave and tall... well, you must not have much faith in your arguments.





Crick said:


> Why don't you come back when you've grown a pair.





RKMBrown said:


> Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2.  Which is it?  This another one of your so called false dichotomies?
> 
> This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2.  Make up your mind.



Good work Mr Brown.  You really ferreted that one out.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Here is the post RKMBrown identifies as containing instances in which I and or the experts I use state that AGW is being caused by human respiration
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're welcome.

Are you ready to pick one yet?  Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity. For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing.  As another example, cow farts.  You denied it once then claim you and you're so called experts are so called believers in global warming being caused by human activity (anthropogenic).  How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence? How much should you be forced to pay for each breath taken in vain against the planet? What is your per human budget for CO2 generation?  How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2014)

I try not to encourage certain activities.  Your failure to post reference material for any of your absurd claims is not proof that you lie.  But twice now: here and the thread in which you posted six or seven comments critical of the IPCC as the source of your claim that "71% of scientists had withdrawn their names" from the IPCC assessment reports, you have put up or pointed to material that you stated proved one of your points.  They don't.  They prove you are stupid and stupid enough to lie.

And that pretty much says it all.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> I try not to encourage certain activities.  Your failure to post reference material for any of your absurd claims is not proof that you lie.  But twice now: here and the thread in which you posted six or seven comments critical of the IPCC as the source of your claim that "71% of scientists had withdrawn their names" from the IPCC assessment reports, you have put up or pointed to material that you stated proved one of your points.  They don't.  They prove you are stupid and stupid enough to lie.
> 
> And that pretty much says it all.


Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Why can't you answer the question?  Are you to embarrassed for your grant seeking friends?  Or are you being paid from grant money for saying CO2 is a poison?

Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity, yes? Or are you and your friends using a different definition?

For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing, is a human activity, correct?  Or are you and your friends picking and choosing which types of human activities are sinful with regard to CO2 and which C02 activities will be deemed ok by your so called esteemed colleagues.

As another example, cow farts. How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence?

How much should we be forced to pay for each breath, burp, or cow fart taken in vain against the planet?

What is your per human budget for anthropogenic CO2 generation? How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?

What material did I point to that you are saying is stupid?  The picture about the respiratory cycle that shows how plants use CO2?  You think photosynthesis is stupid? You think I'm lying about photosynthesis?  ROFL put down the crack pipe.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no?



No, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.

My footsteps aren't wearing a path to the center of the earth, causing a volcanic catastrophe to engulf the planet. Sure, technically they are, but scale matters, and only a raging dumbass would claim my footsteps are wearing a path to the earth's core, or that my breathing is causing a climate catastrophe. That raging dumbass would be you.



> Why can't you answer the question?



Just did. I'll also point out it's a dishonest and stupid question, one that only a cowardly cultist would use to deflect attention from his own abysmal ignorance of the issues. So how about you just stop lying about we supposedly say? That way, at least you'd merely be in the "'effin stupid" category instead of the "dishonest and 'effin stupid" category, which would be a big step up for you.

We do get it, of course. Your cult lies as readily as normal humans breathe, and you yourself would instantly sell out your integrity for a buck. Hence, you assume everyone else is as corrupt and immoral as yourself. Not being capable of ethical behavior yourself, you assume nobody else is capable of it either. Not being like you, I won't say you're getting paid. First, nobody would pay a dumbass like you. Second, my mind doesn't work that way, assuming graft and corruption. Stupidity is much more common than malice, and you're just 'effin dumb.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2014)

What did I miss?  I thought the response was to Jiminey?  Why are you crashing?

Holy crap dude, you have issues.

One thing extra,  Nice to see you don't believe in AGW!  A lot of posts that seem to be misdirected since you all no  longer believe that.  whew!!!!! But still dude, come down from the edge of the building.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no?
> ...



Uhmmm.... ok.  I'm gonna guess sarcasm isn't popular or used very often where you come from.  Just because you agree with me, doesn't make me stupid.... Or does it?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2014)

wish they'd make up their minds on what they believe though.  I knew they were confused, but wow, now they changed their entire argument.  WoW


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> wish they'd make up their minds on what they believe though.  I knew they were confused, but wow, now they changed their entire argument.  WoW


I think it's one of those liberal things that you just have to feel to understand the argument.  If your mind isn't right the argument falls on it's face.  Thus the need for the constant beatings and changes to definitions of terms until your mind is right and you see the truth of their argument.


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Why can't you answer the question?  Are you to embarrassed for your grant seeking friends?  Or are you being paid from grant money for saying CO2 is a poison?



I won't be picking either of your choices.  Try not to take it personally.  It's just a sucky strategy on your part.

CO2 warms the planet.  The physics doesn't care where it comes from.  Human's, worldwide, exhale just under 3 billion tons of CO2 annually.  Fossil fuel combustion produces a little over 35 billion tons annually.  Besides the fact that human exhalation represents only ~8.5% of fossil fuel's contribution, the  CO2 humans exhale gets almost immediately consumed.  Plants worldwide absorb roughly 100 billion tons of CO2 annually.  Unfortunately, well more than half that absorbed CO2 gets released when the plant material decomposes.  What it boils down to is that within much less than an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 released by human breathing is absorbed by plant respiration.  Both processes are continuous so the net effect is very close to nil.

The combustion of fossil fuels, however, have a very different story.  Fossil fuels come from plants that  died and were buries tens to hundreds of million years ago. Releasing that long-sequestered CO2 has a real impact on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It is by far the largest contributor to the long rising Keeling curve.

So, I hope that's enough quantitative information that you might give some serious thought to dropping your nonsense about human respiration and global warming.



RKMBrown said:


> Note anthropogenic is an adjective which means originating in human activity, yes? Or are you and your friends using a different definition?



I'm quite certain that the experts are using the term correctly.  I am growing less certain that you are doing so, but we shall see.



RKMBrown said:


> For example, exhaling CO2, aka. breathing, is a human activity, correct?



Yes, human breathing is a human activity. (shakes head sadly)



RKMBrown said:


> Or are you and your friends picking and choosing which types of human activities are sinful with regard to CO2 and which C02 activities will be deemed ok by your so called esteemed colleagues.



I am not a scientist.  I am a systems engineer at an R&D facility operated for the US Navy. I have working relationships with a number of scientists, but the topics concern sensor and weapon systems.  Since neither I nor any of the scientists with whom I work, do climate research, I have no collegial relationships with climate scientists, esteemed or not.  In general, I accept the views of mainstream science on all science topics; they are my views because I adopt them



RKMBrown said:


> As another example, cow farts. How many cows do you want to kill in the fields to save the planet from cow flatulence?
> 
> How much should we be forced to pay for each breath, burp, or cow fart taken in vain against the planet?



Nothing.



RKMBrown said:


> What is your per human budget for anthropogenic CO2 generation? How much do your so called scientists want each human to pay for their so called CO2 budget?



Go here and read.  The topic is orders of magnitude more complicated than this puerile question indicates you believe.  IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014



RKMBrown said:


> What material did I point to that you are saying is stupid?  The picture about the respiratory cycle that shows how plants use CO2?  You think photosynthesis is stupid? You think I'm lying about photosynthesis?  ROFL put down the crack pipe.



I don't have a crack pipe to put down.  What would really help, though, would be if you had a basic science textbook to pick up.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

CO2, has zero effect on the earth's weather.

Not one scientist states otherwise.

Just post one technical paper, all are qualified with statements such as, "maybe".

No scientists states co2 warms the planet, they say maybe in every paper.

Post a paper, not a press release or a partial abstract. Go ahead, publish the truth, not the rumor.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Are you ready to pick one yet? Does exhaling CO2 cause climate change such as warming the planet, yes or no? Why can't you answer the question?  Are you to embarrassed for your grant seeking friends?  Or are you being paid from grant money for saying CO2 is a poison?
> ...


ROFL I see so CO2 exhaled by humans is clean CO2, cause well because you say it is.

Can you explain why ALL OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS have been proven wrong?


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

I was puzzled why model runs executed in 2012 would be zeroed at 1979.  Having seen such DATA MANIPULATION performed by Spencer and Christy in the recent past, I opted to try to find out why it was done in this instance.

I downloaded The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for August, 2013 to which is attached the BAMS online journal "The State of the Climate 2012".  The latter is a very impressive compilation document, filled with data graphics and a great deal of information.  I saw a significant number of items that I will be pulling out for future discussion.  What I did not find were any of the data noted in the graphic you supplied.

Despite the footnote's implications, your graphic did not come from the August BAMS issue nor from their report on the "State of the Climate in 2012".  And, given the thorough treatment BAMS exercised in their compilation, the footnote on your graph saying "Various, as described in the "State of the Climate in 2012" is essentially synonymous with stating "published at some point in a technical journal on the planet Earth".  The list of References for the 2012 climate report runs 25 and a half pages of double column entries - roughly 25 per page, none of them hyperlinked.  Additionally I found that not a single graphic anywhere in the report showed future data.  There were NO predictions or projections from model data anywhere in the report.

Given all that, would very much like to know where that graphic actually DID come from.  Fortunately, Google allows one to search for the source of an image.  I found that this one had been used by dozens of denier blogs without accreditation.  Finally, however, Anthony Watts had the good graces to identify John Christy, University of Alabama climatologist as the author of the graphic.  It was included in a rebuttal to the 2014 National Climate Assessment (NCA) assembled by "14 meteorology and climatology experts".  The accompanying text reads:
_*NCA CLAIM #3: Third LoE – “The Climate Models”
The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate. *(NCA, Page 24)

*RESPONSE: *The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.

TheseClimate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are *monumental failures*._
*******************************************************************************************
The use of the manufactured term "GHG Hot Spot Theory" is disingenuous bullshit, but hardly a surprise from sources such as these.

The NCA graphic is in a protected PDF.  The 2014 NCA may be found at file:///C:/Users/Abraham/Downloads/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impacts_in_the_United%20States_LowRes.pdf  The referenced graphic actually appears on page 23 vice 24.  There is *no* deviation from observations.  There is a distinct break between model behavior after 1950 using natural (solar and volcanic) and that using anthropogenic forcing.  The model data in the NCA graphic is actually from
*Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance*

Markus Huber
& Reto Knutti
Published in Nature Geoscience at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html.  Being "Nature", the article is behind an expensive paywall.  The abstract, however, reads as follows:

_The Earth’s energy balance is key to understanding climate and climate variations that are caused by natural and anthropogenic changes in the atmospheric composition. Despite abundant observational evidence for changes in the energy balance over the past decades1, 2, 3, the formal detection of climate warming and its attribution to human influence has so far relied mostly on the difference between spatio-temporal warming patterns of natural and anthropogenic origin4, 5, 6. Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming. We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85°C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1°C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56°C. *The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it.* *Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming*._


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> CO2 warms the planet.  The physics doesn't care where it comes from.  Human's, worldwide, exhale just under 3 billion tons of CO2 annually.  Fossil fuel combustion produces a little over 35 billion tons annually.  Besides the fact that human exhalation represents only ~8.5% of fossil fuel's contribution, the  CO2 humans exhale gets almost immediately consumed.  Plants worldwide absorb roughly 100 billion tons of CO2 annually.  Unfortunately, well more than half that absorbed CO2 gets released when the plant material decomposes.  What it boils down to is that within much less than an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 released by human breathing is absorbed by plant respiration.  Both processes are continuous so the net effect is very close to nil.


 
So you're saying that CO2 emits heat?  Can you prove that?


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

All matter both absorbs and emits heat.  That is a very fundamental piece of physics.  Perhaps you've noted some of the discussion with SSDD about black body radiation?

What I was saying in the text you quoted - and perhaps not in the best possible manner - was that plant and animal respiration form the core of the original carbon cycle.  We take in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.  Plants take in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen.  Life on this planet is not a significant source of _increased_ CO2 emissions.  The combustion of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 that had been long sequestered in coal and oil deposits, is the _most significant_ source of increasing CO2 emissions.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> All matter both absorbs and emits heat.  That is a very fundamental piece of physics.  Perhaps you've noted some of the discussion with SSDD about black body radiation?
> 
> What I was saying in the text you quoted - and perhaps not in the best possible manner - was that plant and animal respiration form the core of the original carbon cycle.  We take in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.  Plants take in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen.  Life on this planet is not a significant source of _increased_ CO2 emissions.  The combustion of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 that had been long sequestered in coal and oil deposits, is the _most significant_ source of increasing CO2 emissions.


 But the issue at hand isn't so much the increase in the CO2, it is the claim of increased heat as the CO2 increases, and there is no data that supports that.  If 120 PPM was added as reported, how warm is 120PPM?  Are you going to say you have data on that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I try not to encourage certain activities.  Your failure to post reference material for any of your absurd claims is not proof that you lie.  But twice now: here and the thread in which you posted six or seven comments critical of the IPCC as the source of your claim that "71% of scientists had withdrawn their names" from the IPCC assessment reports, you have put up or pointed to material that you stated proved one of your points.  They don't.  They prove you are stupid and stupid enough to lie.
> ...



Crick is the one in denial... A full 1/3 of the CO2 charged to mankind comes from farming and domestic animals. LITERALLY breathing and farting. THAT's what "YOUR" experts say.. And that's why there is an engaged propaganda campaign to reduce meat consumption in order to "reduce Carbon emissions". I ASSUME human breathing, farting and soda can popping all adds up --- don't it?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Ayup makes no sense.  We are carbon based life forms, thinking carbon is going to be our doom is beyond ludicrous on face.  It's the equivalent of saying that a butter fly flapping it's wings in china might lead to global catastrophe.  It's possible but HIGHLY unlikely.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2014)

Actually in EPA speak -- we are all little carbon combustion engines with no real pollution controls installed..  

Termites are the number 2 specie in contributions to greenhouse gases and they are remarkably prolific at CO2/Methane generation. That one specie is something like 1/15th of the ANTHRO contribution.. ONE FREAKING SPECIE  !!!!


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Termites are tremendous in many ways.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 11, 2014)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Stupid request.  Time will tell if what I noticed becomes the new normal, or if you are correct and climate change isn't happening, or is, and there is nothing humanity can do to mitigate the future damage.

Fortunately responsible public officials are planning for a new normal; of course if the ostrich set elects other ostriches ... well who cares, we'll be long dead and its our posterity's problem.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Stupid request.  Time will tell if what I noticed becomes the new normal, or if you are correct and climate change isn't happening, or is, and there is nothing humanity can do to mitigate the future damage.
> 
> Fortunately responsible public officials are planning for a new normal; of course if the ostrich set elects other ostriches ... well who cares, we'll be long dead and its our posterity's problem.



"Normal" on planet earth is temperature differences at different parts of the globe in a single day being over 200 degrees....weather patterns are caused by temperature differentials...the weather has always been wild and wooly on planet earth...all one need do is look back at historical news clippings to see this.


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

And sea level during the Holocene?  Where has that been?  And the seven billion mouths to feed?  Where have they been?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid request.  Time will tell if what I noticed becomes the new normal, or if you are correct and climate change isn't happening, or is, and there is nothing humanity can do to mitigate the future damage.
> ...



Thus, your point seems to be everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it.  Well, some do. 

"Finally, some good news about the environment: The giant hole in Earth’s ozone layer is shrinking.

"The atmospheric layer that protects Earth’s inhabitants from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays is slowly rebuilding itself, according to a United Nations report published Wednesday.

"Scientists credit the recovery to the phasing out of chemicals used in refrigerators, air conditioners and aerosol cans in the 1980s."

Earth 8217 s ozone layer is recovering - The Washington Post

Of course that was the 1980's, before Gingrich and Delay, Boehner and McConnell, four among many who declared war on compromise and cooperation and putting the country first.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 12, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I do things about the weather.  I wear a jacket when it gets really cold.  I take a rain coat or umbrella if I think it's gonna rain.  I insulated my house to keep heating and cooling costs down.  I chop firewood for the winter.  I winterize my boat.  I wax my cars to keep the paint from weathering. I select properties to purchase and improve based on weather patterns.


----------



## Crick (Sep 14, 2014)

Do you try to reduce the amount of GHGs you and everyone else produce?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you try to reduce the amount of GHGs you and everyone else produce?


 let me ask a question about the GHGs, when they did away with freon, why was that?


----------



## Crick (Sep 16, 2014)

Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere.  Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.


----------



## elektra (Sep 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere.  Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.


You leave out how this theory has proven to be false, hence the new Apocalypse is brought on by the seemingly harmless bubbles in Coca Cola.


----------



## Crick (Sep 16, 2014)

I left out no such thing because the "theory" is quite true.  And the bubbles in Coca Cola are not Freon.

*Regulation*
Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector,James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock's work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolyticcleavage of the C-Cl bond.




NASA projection of stratospheric ozone, inDobson units, if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned. Animated version.
By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, theMontreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On March 2, 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.




Ozone-depleting gas trends
Because the only CFCs available to countries adhering to the treaty is from recycling, their prices have increased considerably. A worldwide end to production should also terminate the smuggling of this material. However, there are current CFC smuggling issues, as recognized by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in a 2006 report titled "Illegal Trade in Ozone Depleting Substances". UNEP estimates that between 16,000–38,000 tonnes of CFCs passed through the black market in the mid-1990s. The report estimated between 7,000 and 14,000 tonnes of CFCs are smuggled annually into developing countries. Asian countries are those with the most smuggling; as of 2007, China, India and South Korea were found to account for around 70% of global CFC production,[9] South Korea later to ban CFC production in 2010.[10] Possible reasons for continued CFC smuggling were also examined: the report noted that many banned CFC producing products have long lifespans and continue to operate. The cost of replacing the equipment of these items is sometimes cheaper than outfitting them with a more ozone-friendly appliance. Additionally, CFC smuggling is not considered a significant issue, so the perceived penalties for smuggling are low. While the eventual phaseout of CFCs is likely, efforts are being taken to stem these current non-compliance problems.

By the time of the Montreal Protocol it was realised that deliberate and accidental discharges during system tests and maintenance accounted for substantially larger volumes than emergency discharges, and consequently halons were brought into the treaty, albeit with many exceptions.

*Regulatory gap[edit]*
While the production and consumption of CFCs are regulated under the Montreal Protocol, emissions from existing banks of CFCs are not regulated under the agreement. In 2002, there were an estimated 5,791 kilotons of CFCs in existing products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans and others.[11] Approximately one-third of these CFCs are projected to be emitted over the next decade if action is not taken, posing a threat to both the ozone layer and the climate.[12] A proportion of these CFCs can be safely captured and destroyed.

*Regulation and DuPont[edit]*
In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[13] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.[13]

*Phasing-out of CFCs[edit]*
Use of certain chloroalkanes as solvents for large scale application, such as dry cleaning, have been phased out, for example, by the IPPC directive on greenhouse gases in 1994 and by the volatile organic compounds (VOC) directive of the EU in 1997. Permitted chlorofluoroalkane uses are medicinal only.

Bromofluoroalkanes have been largely phased out and the possession of equipment for their use is prohibited in some countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, from 1 January 2004, based on the Montreal Protocol and guidelines of the European Union.

Production of new stocks ceased in most (probably all) countries in 1994.[_citation needed_] However many countries still require aircraft to be fitted with halon fire suppression systems because no safe and completely satisfactory alternative has been discovered for this application. There are also a few other, highly specialized uses. These programs recycle halon through "halon banks" coordinated by the Halon Recycling Corporation[14] to ensure that discharge to the atmosphere occurs only in a genuine emergency and to conserve remaining stocks.

The interim replacements for CFCs are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which deplete stratospheric ozone, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs.[15] Ultimately,hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) will replace HCFCs. Unlike CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0. DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as alternatives to Freon in the 1980s. These included Suva refrigerants and Dymel propellants.[16] Natural refrigerants are climate friendly solutions that are enjoying increasing support from large companies and governments interested in reducing global warming emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning. Hydrofluorocarbons are included in the Kyoto Protocol because of their very high Global Warming Potential and are facing calls to be regulated under the Montreal Protocol[_dubious – discuss_][17] due to the recognition of halocarbon contributions to climate change.[18]

On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montrealsummit. Developing nations were given until 2030. Many nations, such as the United States and China, who had previously resisted such efforts, agreed with the accelerated phase out schedule.[19]

*Development of alternatives for CFCs[edit]*
Work on alternatives for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants began in the late 1970s after the first warnings of damage to stratospheric ozone were published.

The hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are less stable in the lower atmosphere, enabling them to break down before reaching the ozone layer. Nevertheless, a significant fraction of the HCFCs do break down in the stratosphere and they have contributed to more chlorine buildup there than originally predicted. Later alternatives lacking the chlorine, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have an even shorter lifetimes in the lower atmosphere. One of these compounds, HFC-134a, is now used in place of CFC-12 in automobile air conditioners. Hydrocarbon refrigerants (a propane/isobutane blend) are also used extensively in mobile air conditioning systems in Australia, the USA and many other countries, as they have excellent thermodynamic properties and perform particularly well in high ambient temperatures.

One of the natural refrigerants (along with Ammonia and Carbon Dioxide), hydrocarbons have negligible environmental impacts and are also used worldwide in domestic and commercial refrigeration applications, and are becoming available in new split system air conditioners.[20] Various other solvents and methods have replaced the use of CFCs in laboratory analytics.[21]


----------



## elektra (Sep 16, 2014)

I said replaced with the coca cola bubble theory, not that freon is the bubbles.

Such simple ideas you do not understand.
Do you even read, let alone understand your cut/paste.


----------



## Crick (Sep 17, 2014)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere.  Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.
> ...



Given what you quote from me in this post of yours, the only possible interpretation is that you believe the destruction of ozone by freon to be a false theory.  I was then left with only two choices regarding your Coca Cola bubbles comment : that you're confused or that you're stupid.  The distinction seemed moot.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere.  Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.


 But dude, it was confined in  pressurized copper pipe and not flowing freely in the atmosphere.  So tell me how does a gas in a pipe that is closed loop, makes its way into the atmosphere? I'm really interested.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> I left out no such thing because the "theory" is quite true.  And the bubbles in Coca Cola are not Freon.
> 
> *Regulation*
> Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector,James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock's work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolyticcleavage of the C-Cl bond.
> ...


 but where was the freon in the atmosphere coming from?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 LOL... again desparate post.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> but where was the freon in the atmosphere coming from?



We already told you. AC and refrigeration units across the world. Which leak. Come on, this is the most basic stuff. If the common sense concept of "leaks" is beyond you, then you're beyond help.

I do understand how the hardcore denier cult requires that its members declare ozone depletion is a myth, and you're just trying to fit in with your cult. That's just one of the many batshit crazy beliefs your cult mandates. As a new cultist, you'll also be required to believe that DDT is harmless, and that abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, so get to work on those beliefs as well.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > but where was the freon in the atmosphere coming from?
> ...


 hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, leaks. That is your story eh, leaks.  how many parts per million were leaks?  Come on now you're acting like every pipe in the world had cracks in them everyday.  The systems wouldn't work if that were true.  So you lie.  Lie, lie lie, that's all you know how to do to justify your position.  That is pure find another story moot!!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



All freon gases are "manufactured"  They are not "naturally" occurring.  Freon is a molecule dupont makes.  New freon compounds break up quickly in the atmosphere.  Old freon compounds used to stick around high in the stratosphere for some 50years and had the bad effect of breaking down O3.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 how much freon was in the atmosphere?  You do know the use of the product was in closed loop systems where the refrigerant was in pressurized copper pipe right?  It wasn't floating in the atmosphere.  Holy crap I can't believe you all.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



As far as I know they only did lab tests and models.  I'm not "personally" aware of any "actual" testing of how much of these various freon labeled compounds are currently roaming around up in the stratosphere.   IOW we're doing something that is not natural.. in this case manufacturing a pollutant that anyone with half a brain would classify as a semi-toxic pollutant when not contained... so we're limiting how much we are doing it as a pre-caution.  That's always the way I read it.  When I was 15 we used to spray cans of Freon on hot computers to keep them running. he he  Hell my A/C in my car when I was 16 leaked so much I had to put a new can of freon in it each week.  Closed system my ass


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 So how much do you supposed your call leaked PPM into the atmosphere.  Hahahahaahahahaha....what a hoot!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The more proper question is how much was manufactured.  I'd guess most of it was being dumped directly into the atmosphere pre 1980.  No one gave a shit.  No different than using hair spray.  Why do you need to know the PPM are you a freon denier?


----------



## Crick (Sep 18, 2014)

Prior to the 1980s, the standard method of working on an AC or refrigeration line was to vent the whole thing to the atmosphere, do your work and then fill it back up.  That goes a little beyond leakage.

You're also forgetting that Freon used to be the propellant in almost every aerosol can.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2014)

JC is forgetting nothing. He never knew, and still does not know, anything to begin with. All one has to do to understand the problem is read the why of the ban.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> JC is forgetting nothing. He never knew, and still does not know, anything to begin with. All one has to do to understand the problem is read the why of the ban.


 I think you all are nuts.  I'll agree to disagree with you all.  There was not an influx of freon in the atmosphere, so what was the PPM of it?  Again, here i am discussing with you k00ks proof, which you don't have and only spewing the warmers dialog.  LOL


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > JC is forgetting nothing. He never knew, and still does not know, anything to begin with. All one has to do to understand the problem is read the why of the ban.
> ...



The reason you are not getting the answer you repeatedly keep asking is because we all know the answer you are looking for does not exist.  What part of no one knows how much of said various freon molecular compounds are floating about various portions of the stratosphere is confusing you?  Why do you keep asking that question? Do you think it makes you look smart?

As stated, NUMEROUS TIMES TO YOU, the rules were made as a pre-cautionary measure based on the lab observed evidence that freon breaks down ozone.  Not because there is proof of how much o3 was being broken down by certain ppm of freon gases.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 It was an example of what is happening now with CO2 and why you see the objection by the skeptics.   You see, again no evidence or proof of what you're trying to sell.  it just ain't so!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Not quite the same.  In the prior case it was known that we need O3 as a barrier, skin cancer sucks. Freon being a man made compound was easy to manage.

In the case of CO2, a naturally occurring substance VITAL FOR PLANTS that is not a pollutant and could just as likely improve our lives than harm us...,  in this case it makes no sense to manage human burps, farts, or any use of carbon based fuels for that matter.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 Nope, you just have to buy carbon credits to do so right?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


One would have to be a COMPLETE MORON to buy permission to emit CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 And there you go!!!! Point to note!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2014)

Salt is absolutely neccessary in your diet. That being said, just down a quart of it at one sitting. It is neccessary, right? So it cannot possibly hurt you. 

CO2 is neccessary. Both for the plants and the fact that it retains enough heat that we do not have the oceans frozen over. However, rapidly increasing the GHGs, CO2 and CH4, in the atmosphere will lead to rapid change in climate regimes all over the planet. A planet with over 7 billion people that depend on agriculter to survive. 

In the geological past we have seen periods of rapidly increasing and decreasing GHGs. Both were periods of extinction.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2014)

At some point, there will have to be an emergency in order to get permission to burn fossil fuels. The emission of sequestered CO2 and CH4 are destabalizing the climate, and raising the level of the sea. As well as acidifying the oceans.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> At some point, there will have to be an emergency in order to get permission to burn fossil fuels. The emission of sequestered CO2 and CH4 are destabalizing the climate, and raising the level of the sea. As well as acidifying the oceans.



Got any hard evidence of that claim?  Anything that isn't merely correlation?  Correlation, doesn't equal causation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2014)

One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.



Yeah...I have seen that before....it is your go to bit of dogma....I have read it all and I have asked before, which part of it do you believe constitutes anything like hard proof of anything?  I expect, that as usual, you will not point to any section, or any link within that bit of drivel that is actually hard evidence of anything other than the fact that you don't have the slightest idea of what hard evidence is if you think it can be found in your link.  If you believe anything there is anything like hard evidence that man is responsible for climate change it explains exquisitely why you have been so completely duped.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 19, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Salt is absolutely neccessary in your diet. That being said, just down a quart of it at one sitting. It is neccessary, right? So it cannot possibly hurt you.
> 
> CO2 is neccessary. Both for the plants and the fact that it retains enough heat that we do not have the oceans frozen over. However, rapidly increasing the GHGs, CO2 and CH4, in the atmosphere will lead to rapid change in climate regimes all over the planet. A planet with over 7 billion people that depend on agriculter to survive.
> 
> In the geological past we have seen periods of rapidly increasing and decreasing GHGs. Both were periods of extinction.


Wrong.  Do you even know what the percent is of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you not know how stupid you sound?  It's not 1% its not even .1% it's 0.04%.  That's 4 parts for every 10000 parts. 4 Needles in a haystack.  More CO2 and warmer leads to more water ... all of which is better for plants and humans, not worse.  Cold is worse, not warmer.  An ice age is worse, not better.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 19, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.


Do you or do you not know that their models did not work?  That their predictions of global warming did not play out?  This is a yes or no question.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.
> ...


AYUP they created a Theory with a model that predicted disaster, then asked for "grant" money to try to save the planet.  We would have been better off spending that money on asteroid detection and deflection... the real reason for the prior planet extinctions.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



There are plenty of real environmental issues that need to be dealt with here on the ground but the AGW hoax sucks the air out of the room and the money out of the coffers...no other issue can be effectively dealt with till the hoax is exposed for what it is and is put on the trash heap with all the other failed hypotheses of the past.


----------



## Kosh (Sep 19, 2014)

CO2 does not drive climate.

Thus making the AGW scriptures bunk!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> At some point, there will have to be an emergency in order to get permission to burn fossil fuels. The emission of sequestered CO2 and CH4 are destabalizing the climate, and raising the level of the sea. As well as acidifying the oceans.


 


Old Rocks said:


> One hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzman law.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.


 
hahahahahahahahaahahahahaahaha, same old mumbo jumbo, dude don't you have an actual experience that you can reference like say an experiment that shows your claim?  oh I forgot, you don't. blah, blah, blah same old mumbo and jumbo you have nothing to supprot your claim therefore........................LoSiNg

One more time from The Discovery of Global Warming   February 2014
Skepticism (1900-1940s) 


TOP OF PAGEExperts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## Crick (Sep 19, 2014)

This is probably a waste of time as far as you (JC456) are concerned.  This will look like more of your "mumbo jumbo.  But I thought the people who'd actually passed seventh grade physical science and 8th grade English in on what Angstrom (in your post) missed.
**************************************************************************************
After the famous Arrhenius paper in 1896, where he did the first calculations of the CO2greenhouse effect, his theory was dismissed by Angstrom with a simple experiment. He let an infrared beam pass through a tube filled with CO2 and measured the emerging light intensity. Upon reducing CO2 concentration in the tube, only a tiny difference could be found and he concluded that very few CO2 molecules are enough to completely absorb the IR beam. The conclusion was that a CO2 increase could not matter. This was the birth of the first skeptic of the then called "CO2 theory" and of the more recent "CO2 effect is saturated" skeptic argument.

Thirty years later, E. O. Hulburt (Phys. Rev. 38, 1876–1890 (1931)) added convection to the purely radiative equilibrium assumed by Arrhenius. He found that convective equilibrium holds in the lower part of the troposphere up to about 10 Km, while radiative holds equilibrium above. The important consequence is that the details of the absorption in the lower troposphere do not matter since heat "is spread around and transferred upward byconvection". In other words, what govern the energy balance of the earth is the radiative balance in the upper troposphere and CO2 concentration there does matter.

Hulburt was very prudent in his conclusions:

_"The agreement is no doubt better than is warranted by the accuracy of the data on which the calculations are based. Apparently the uncertainties and omissions have conspired to counteract each other to some extent."_
Nevertheless, his work is definitely a milestone in the understanding of our atmosphere.

Hulburt's work should have put the controversy on the CO2 theory to an end, since "objections which have been raised against it by some physicists are not valid". Unfortunately, this paper passed almost unnoticed, I guess because meteorologists and geologists do not read Physical Review so often.

At the time of Hulburt the CO2 absorption coefficient was not known very accurately and even less its line shape, forcing Huburt to use a "box-like" shape. We may now build a simple model with a more realistic line shape and show that we get an increased absorption with increasing CO2 concentration anyways.

Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure. Did this energy disappear forever? Surely not, radiatively or convectively this energy "is spread around and transferred upward". But on the way up this light will find a decreasing pressure, i.e. less CO2 molecules. There will be a point where the light can escape to the outer space. The intensity of the emerging light will be appropriate for the temperature of this "last" layer layer.

We can crudely model this behavior using the Plank law and a gaussian-shaped absorption coefficient. We consider just two layers, the surface and the "last" layer, and the emissivity of this outer layer is modulated between 0 and 1 according to the absorption coefficient α. The result is shown in the figure below.






In the calculations I used an absorption wavenumber of 650 cm-1 and tuned the optical depth to reach saturation. The two dashed lines correspond to the Plank law for T=300 K and T=220 K. The red curve is the calculated emission; it follows the 300 K curve but deviates from it near the absorption band. This dip represents the energy prevented to reach the outer space, i.e. the greenhouse effect.

This graph can be _qualitatively_ compared with real measurements to be sure we're not too far off.

We can now look at what happens when we increase α. Following Angstrom (and many others in his times) the energy absorbed should not change. On the contrary, if we recall that the absorption coefficient is gaussian we would expect an increase in the energy retained by our layer along the wings. The effect is shown in the figure below.






We can see that although the absorption dip cannot fall below the 220 K curve, it becomes wider and the absorbed energy increases accordingly. This is as far as we can get with this simple model. Needless to say that there's much more than what can be done with the very crude model presented here. We know, for example, that the line shape of the absorption coefficient changes with both pressure and temperature due to what are called pressure and Doppler broadening. In the upper layers of the atmosphere the band initially gets narrower and then splits into several narrow bands (the roto-vibrational spectrum) leaving more room for the increase in CO2 concentration being more effective. We also know that there are weaker absorption peaks other than the stronger one quoted above which are not saturated.

Gilbert Plass in 1956 used these words:

_One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: theatmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals._
There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.

Clearly there's a world behind the absorption of IR light by CO2 in the atmosphere which I omitted. The physics behind it is now solid thanks to the decades of work of many different scientists, and despite the first highly respected skeptic ever who put the CO2 theory on hold for half a century. But you know, this is how science works.

_Note: I cannot conclude without acknowledging the fundamental role of Spencer Weart "The Discovery of Global Warming" from which I borrowed (and learned) a lot. His book and the supporting website are a treasure cove for anyone interested in how our current knowledge has been built step by step over time.

Is the CO2 effect saturated _​


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2014)

The edge effects of saturation are nearly inconsequential to the warming power compared to what it is initially at low ppm. And all that discussion uses an IDEALIZED CO2 absorption spectra without regards to the OTHER bands in CO2. OR the overlap of water vapor.

About 1degC/doubling or less. That's about all you need to know. And THAT is without interference from water vapor..


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 20, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> The edge effects of saturation are nearly inconsequential to the warming power compared to what it is initially at low ppm. And all that discussion uses an IDEALIZED CO2 absorption spectra without regards to the OTHER bands in CO2. OR the overlap of water vapor.
> 
> About 1degC/doubling or less. That's about all you need to know. And THAT is without interference from water vapor..


Which is the real issue... how does one use a lab experiment that does not reflect actual atmospheric thermodynamic conditions, to model predictive changes?  It's like saying hey look if we generate heat under water it boils... then drawing the conclusion that generating heat is bad.  It's like everyone forgot the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation.  It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem.





lmao.....leave it to the SanFrancisco guy to buy into the PC hype hook, line and stinker!!!


A historical perspective of extreme weather highlights the level of bozo in these people >>>


Chronology of Extreme Weather


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 20, 2014)

God.....I love this forum!!!


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2014)

I hate the space you waste.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2014)

Say what? Every has a fairy tale to sell....



> There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.



At 60,000 feet, the density of the atmos is so thin that it is virtually transparent to ALL EM radiation. And the amount of heat retained is about as significant to surface warming as your 0.08degC at 700 meters under the ocean.. The volume of CO2 being added does not THICKEN the atmos at altitude. Although retained heat MIGHT by a schoch...

If the profile of absorption goes to higher altitude, the EFFECT of IR opaqueness goes down exponentially.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The edge effects of saturation are nearly inconsequential to the warming power compared to what it is initially at low ppm. And all that discussion uses an IDEALIZED CO2 absorption spectra without regards to the OTHER bands in CO2. OR the overlap of water vapor.
> ...



Basic heat retention properties of any gas is an entry in a Chemistry handbook. That's the basis for the 1degC/doubling of CO2. But it DEPENDS on assumptions about the SPECTRUM of the illumination for the Sun and the IRed heat coming from the surface. AND the amount of water vapor which overwhelmingly STEAL warming from the CO2. 

So you can bet that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas, but trying to apply that to get a GLOBAL warming isn't gonna happen in a lab..


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> I hate the space you waste.




Translation?

"I hate this mofu who keeps blowing my shit up!!!"


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2014)

You haven't touched a single thing I've posted in all the time I've been here.  Not once.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> You haven't touched a single thing I've posted in all the time I've been here.  Not once.



Typical warmer dishonesty....you failed to mention that everyone else tears down your claims on a daily basis.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> This is probably a waste of time as far as you (JC456) are concerned.  This will look like more of your "mumbo jumbo.  But I thought the people who'd actually passed seventh grade physical science and 8th grade English in on what Angstrom (in your post) missed.
> **************************************************************************************
> After the famous Arrhenius paper in 1896, where he did the first calculations of the CO2greenhouse effect, his theory was dismissed by Angstrom with a simple experiment. He let an infrared beam pass through a tube filled with CO2 and measured the emerging light intensity. Upon reducing CO2 concentration in the tube, only a tiny difference could be found and he concluded that very few CO2 molecules are enough to completely absorb the IR beam. The conclusion was that a CO2 increase could not matter. This was the birth of the first skeptic of the then called "CO2 theory" and of the more recent "CO2 effect is saturated" skeptic argument.
> 
> ...


 So all of that and not one mention that the dude who did the experiment was wrong.  The fact is the CO2 saturates and adding CO2 will not cause the affect that you want and believe it will.  Sorry pal it's a good calculation, just doesn't represent the actual temperatures that you wish it to do.  The fact is the science isn't settled.  I just wish for once you'd just accept that we disagree with that claim.  And, that you can't even prove what it is you want to.  Just say it once and I'll leave you alone.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2014)

I thought you'd fail to understand.  What I posted was a clear and unambiguous refutation of Angstrom's experiment.  That the Earth's temperature, at present and at numerous times in the past, has been driven upwards by CO2 levels over a broad regime is also clear proof that, about this at least, Angstrom was wrong.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> I thought you'd fail to understand.  What I posted was a clear and unambiguous refutation of Angstrom's experiment.  That the Earth's temperature, at present and at numerous times in the past, has been driven upwards by CO2 levels over a broad regime is also clear proof that, about this at least, Angstrom was wrong.



Bullshit.. It was GUESSING and conjecture on Hulbert's part. From his wrong assumptions on the shape of the CO2 absorption spectra to his inability to measure atmos densities at high altitude. The idea that thinner gases in the upper trop are gonna hold enough heat to make up for saturation and convection at lower levels is a CONJECTURE for him at best.. 

They are retaining approximately the SAME heat now as they did in the 1850s..


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2014)

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2014)

In fact, measured data has failed to support the theory that rate of warming would increase in the upper trop as the lower atmos got increasingly saturated..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> It's accepted science.
> 
> Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.



It's ADMITTED in the basic physics you dork.. In those curves in the OP. The exponential shape IS the saturation effect. It is accepted in some similiar form by ALL the players involved.. 

You act like you believe that IPCC warming of 6 to 8 degC is all coming from man-made CO2 additions. It is NOT. The BULK of the catastrophic warming is coming from hand-waving assumptions on Magically Multiplying that warming with feedbacks. A position quite a bit less tenable these days because BTK "discovered" a MASSIVE negative feedback previously UNDISCOVERED by the idiots doing the Energy Diagrams. The main idiot would be the T in BTK..


----------



## Crick (Sep 23, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It's accepted science.
> ...




So the thousands of degreed scientists, including a significant number of atmospheric physicists who accept the greenhouse effect as a fact and who believe AGW is taking place and will continue to take place, are all just actually stupid.  They failed to listen to you channeling a refuted science experiment from the last century?

Show us a contemporary, peer reviewed study that indicates CO2's greenhouse effect is at saturation.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> So the thousands of degreed scientists, including a significant number of atmospheric physicists who accept the greenhouse effect as a fact and who believe AGW is taking place and will continue to take place, are all just actually stupid.  They failed to listen to you channeling a refuted science experiment from the last century?{/quote]
> 
> Can you spell error cascade?  It is much kinder than deliberate fraud...which seems to the the growing trend within climate science.
> 
> ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> It's accepted science.
> 
> Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.


That the same accepted hokey stick science that has been proven wrong again and again by actual temperatures not matching the predictive models?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> It's accepted science.
> 
> Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.


 Nope, I don't trust them, they are all fake!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It's accepted science.
> ...


 Tell you what, why don't you prove that CO2 drives climate.  YOU CAN'T........... *LoSiNg*


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You are incapable of following this discussion -- are you not? I said nothing of the sort about the warming or the GreenHouse theory -- BOTH of which I have repeatedly accepted. You are useless. Go find a better warmer..

But YES -- many of them are EITHER --- lazy or stupid..


----------



## Crick (Sep 25, 2014)

Heat energy going in to the deep oceans is not a negative feedback, dork.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2014)

Crick said:


> Heat energy going in to the deep oceans is not a negative feedback, dork.




The fuck it isn't moron.. If heat comes off the surface for ANY reason, it should have been in Trenberth's diagram..  If heat is put into STORAGE and taken out of the IR radiation and re-radiation budget it is a negative sink on heat surface energy.. 

I think what happened right there is that you TRIED to think for yourself and failed..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2014)

Your heroes contend that some mysterious yet to be defined process kicked in at the beginning of the pause to cause the oceans to suddenly have an appetite for heat. They are DEAD WRONG about that since the oceans have been munching the same amount of heat every year since we had the ability to accurately measure it. But to believe what you do -- it is a process likely related to some type of thermal feedback.

If increased surface winds (for instance) caused it -- what caused the excess surface winds? (softball question for a warmer)

At any rate, it is a FORCING that also SHOULD SHOW in the IPCC forcing diagrams because it REDUCES the effective retained heating of the surface --- but it never has --- and still doesn't. Aint that right Bullwinky? No energy should be allowed to go to storage in the deep oceans without the proper accounting for that energy in the forcing budget..


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Heat energy going in to the deep oceans is not a negative feedback, dork.
> ...


oh crap is that good...


----------

