# Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...



## healthmyths (Dec 8, 2011)

First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:

All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:

10 boys at 100lbs average: 100 lbs.
But what happens if one of the 10 boys is overweight .. 300 lbs!
All 12 year old boys including the 300 lb average 120 lbs!

So it would be wrong to draw conclusion that ALL 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100lbs IF the 300 lb boy is excluded.. RIGHT???

How does this relate to global warming..

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration. 
"The number of [Siberian ] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951  and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present. 
 Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations 
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the worlds land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So the basis for global warming has been the record keeping of temperature stations around the earth..except for 12.5% of the Earth's surface and those temperatures were NOT included!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2011)

My, my, another real dumb ass posting on things he knows nothing about. 

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2011)

UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2011: +0.11 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## TheDecepticon (Dec 8, 2011)

*The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.* This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

*No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion;* the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shut the hell up about things you know NOTHING about.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2011)

The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online


----------



## Meister (Dec 8, 2011)

Give me a grant and I'll tell you what you want to hear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2011)

That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 8, 2011)

Who cares........the majority of the public views Al Gore as a joke for several years now.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my, another real dumb ass posting on things he knows nothing about.
> 
> Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)
> 
> http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf



So it is OK not to include 12.5% of the Earth's surface area over 50 years in temperature gathering?

It is scientific to take more readings in urban areas and consider that valid?

Again.. I'm not an expert on exaggeration, I'll leave that to Al-below-the-surface-millions-of-degrees- Gore!
 I'm just "sharing" what 
"The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order  to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 9, 2011)

TheDecepticon said:


> *The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.* This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
> 
> National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
> An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
> ...



Yea.. well go to Greenland!!!


----------



## code1211 (Dec 9, 2011)

TheDecepticon said:


> *The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.* This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
> 
> National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
> An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
> ...




And yet the warming caused by the Industrial Revolution started before the use of fossil fuels used in the Industrial Revolution.

Powerful stuff, this CO2, that can cause warming before it's there...

The problem with not questioning anything is that anything suddenly seems plausible.  

"Shut the hell up"?  The firm basis of all inquiry into all topics.


Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The commencement of the Industrial Revolution is closely linked to a small number of innovations,[16] made in the second half of the 18th century:
Textiles  Cotton spinning using Richard Arkwright's water frame, James Hargreaves's Spinning Jenny, and Samuel Crompton's Spinning Mule (a combination of the Spinning Jenny and the Water Frame). This was patented in 1769 and so came out of patent in 1783. The end of the patent was rapidly followed by the erection of many cotton mills. Similar technology was subsequently applied to spinning worsted yarn for various textiles and flax for linen. The cotton revolution began in Derby, which has been known since this period as the "Powerhouse of the North".
Steam power  The improved steam engine invented by James Watt and patented in *1775* was initially mainly used to power pumps for pumping water out of mines, but from the 1780s was applied to power other types of machines. This enabled rapid development of efficient semi-automated factories on a previously unimaginable scale in places where waterpower was not available. For the first time in history people did not have to rely on human or animal muscle, wind or water for power. The steam engine was used to pump water from coal mines; to lift trucks of coal to the surface; to blow air into the furnaces for the making of iron; to grind clay for pottery; and to power new factories of all kinds. For over a hundred years the steam engine was the king of the industries.
Iron making  In the Iron industry, coke was finally applied to all stages of iron smelting, replacing charcoal. This had been achieved much earlier for lead and copper as well as for producing pig iron in a blast furnace, but the second stage in the production of bar iron depended on the use of potting and stamping (for which a patent expired in 1786) or puddling (patented by Henry Cort in 1783 and 1784).




File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2011)

Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.


----------



## konradv (Dec 9, 2011)

healthmyths said:


> First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:
> 
> All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:
> 
> ...



The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps.  The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs.  If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy.  Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat?  I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.


----------



## konradv (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.



LOL!!!  We keep being told that AGW proponents ignore natural cycles and here we have Code ignoring natural cycles!!!  Do you knuckleheads forget your own arguments?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.





My, my, my...  The warming starts before the Industrial Revolution.  There is no denying that fact.  It simply does.  It happened.  Accept it.  Wide spread use of the coal driven steam engine did not occur until after 1775.  All of the proxies on the graph have started moving up 100 years before that and one of them 150 years prior.

Your challenge is to explain how the effect of the increasing CO2 which you claim to be the cause of the warming caused the warming before it was increasing.  Simply ignoring reality does not change reality.

Stopping the cooling and then reversing it would require more energy than just maintaining the warming once it started.  It takes more energy to increase the temperature of water from 32 to 33 than it does to increase from 33 to 34.

Whatever it was that caused the Little Ice Age apparently stopped and whatever it was that caused the temperature of the globe to increase during the previous millennium apparently started up again.

Both of these factors occurred without the causation you cite and yet you cling to that particular cause instead of looking to any one of about 20 other possibilities.

Why are you so sold on the single bullet theory when there are so many bullets to choose from that actually might be the cause?

The link below shows that CO2 did not actually increase until after 1850.

You are still arguing that the future causes the past.

File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online






And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's.  Amazing how that happens eh?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:
> ...





I'm confused by the statement in red.

The effect of GHG is to reflect the infra red radiation coming from the surface back to the surface, is it not?  Instead of allowing the heat to radiate back into space, the heat is reflected back to the surface and contribute toward escalating temperature.

Is this not the argument?

Is IR photons the same thing as IR radiation?  I Google IR photons and find nothing.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.






Well you got part of that correct.  The US did pull the 200K per year grant from Jones when they figured out he was unethical and unqualified.  I hear Mann is having trouble getting money now too, and Al Gores schemes have fallen by the wayside, so yes you are correct, once they are known to be unethical and unqualified the money is taken away from them.


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...






I too am a little confused about that statement?  If the world is indeed three dimensional why would the percentage be 50% returning to Earth?  The normal scatter would be less then 10% returning to Earth based on simple geometry.  Now if we lived on a flat Earth I can see his point.  Is konny secretly a Flat Earhter?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.
> ...





Natural cycles both terrestrial and extra terrestrial are candidates as the cause, both alone and in concert.

It is not I who have disallowed the impact of natural cycles or any other cause, it is the AGW crowd who have done exactly that.  I am open to any plausible explanation including that of the scientists at CERN who have recently produced in the lab and proven a correlation between extra terrestrial particles coming to Earth and global climate.

So many possibilities and only one proposed cause coming form the AGW Crowd.

Interesting, albeit a limiting kind of science, is it not?


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.







Ah yes, that little thing called history you so despise.  So riddle me this olfraud.  What was the temperature BEFORE the LIttle Ice Age?  What is the temperature we are returning TO?


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

konradv said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:
> ...







Ummm according to the Vostock ice core data what you just posted is absolute horse crap.
Those records clearly show a rise in temperatures followed HUNDREDS of years later by a rise in CO2.

You've got some 'splainin to do there konny.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online
> ...


And, it's amazing that tree ring data from 1950 on, showing no warming, was cut out of the data by Mann.

Odd, no?


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Well he is a super duper pooper ethical kind of guy don't you know.  olfraud says so.


----------



## Si modo (Dec 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Rocks says a lot, and a lot of what Rocks says is untrue, so...........

I mean, he has yet to fully grasp my position, but he keeps representing my position as something it is not.

Wait?

Could it be possible that he is *gasp* dishonest *gasp*?


----------



## westwall (Dec 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





Whaaa?  olfraud is as unethical as Mann?  Say it isn't so!


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.



Unethical people are given grants.  Who do you think Phil Jones and Michael Mann are?


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.



Hey you idiot!
Ever hear of "sequestration"???
Ever hear of "net carbon sink"???  Evidently you don't!

The* U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sinkit sequesters more carbon than it emits. *
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
*Net sequestration* (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) 
in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.  
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA 

Just in case that is too complicated for you..
There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% !  Understand now "net sequestration"???


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2011)

Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.
> ...



Intelligent and ethical scientists. Not a willfully ignorant redneck like you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online
> ...



Dishonest Walleyes. The usual we expect from you. It was warmer in the US, a little less than 2% of the earth's surface. For the rest of the world, it was not that warm.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





The data collection and record of that collection is what it is.  That said, there are places like the US and the UK where the data collection has been reliable, regular and relatively long term.

Other areas like Africa, Antarctica, the Pacific and really most of the world has very sporadic and/or irregular records of temperature collection.  The records of the US and the UK by their stability are probably more reliable than those from the rest of the world in terms of measuring change.

The relatively recent tendency of NASA to stop exploring space and opt instead to adjust past temperature readings is confusing to me, but that again is what it is.

Just as we figure the CO2 content of all air based on the readings from Mauna Loa, we can grasp a pretty good reflection of the change in climate from the best records regardless of the   confined nature of the samples world wide.

All of that said, the days of the land based climate tracking are past.  We have satellites that have made the Earth Stations obsolete in this endeavor.  They are as useful to this as the chariot is to Indy Car Racing.  An interesting diversion, but not really a cutting edge, or even a very useful, tool.

By their nature, they have become another in a series of proxy measurements.  For support of this, witness the wholesale changing that occurs to so many of the readings to make them conform to the satellite data.  Really a tad silly.

Why use them if we know that the collected data is wrong in the first place?


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.
> 
> Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.







If you're going to try and come across as "mr. MENSA BOY" you should at least learn how to spell your current conspiracy theory's name correctly.  So, that would be CALTHRATES MENSA BOY!  And if they are emitting so much how come the global temp is remaining static?


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Actually, ground based weather stations (when sited properly and maintained properly) are a good check on the satellite data.  The weather stations were able to point out the satellite issues that caused one them to be shut down in one instance for reading wildly innacurate temps in the Arctic.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





I stand corrected.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.
> ...



If you're going to try to correct other people's spelling, Mr. Retardo, you should maybe get a brain transplant. A monkey brain would be an upgrade for you. LOLOLOLOLOL.....such a very funny retard you are, walleyed.....LOL. The word is indeed "*clathrates*", not "_CALTHRATES_", you moron.

*Methane clathrate*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice, "fire ice", natural gas hydrate or just gas hydrate, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2] The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.[3]*


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






I stand corrected.  I was using a USGS source and they clearly had it spelled wrong.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 10, 2011)

Rolling Thunder quotes Winston Churchill who explains that the time of back passing is past.

Rolling Thunder seems to be a supporter of liberalism.

I don't understand how Liberalism and the quote from Churchill can be linked.


The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. - Sir Winston Churchill


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 10, 2011)

The k00ks never want people looking back past 1980.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 10, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Rolling Thunder quotes Winston Churchill who explains that the time of back passing is past.
> 
> Rolling Thunder seems to be a supporter of liberalism.
> 
> ...





code bro......you are assumming that Rolling Blunder has even heard of Winston Churchill!!! Probably thinks its some band.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.
> 
> Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.



Again with the OLD MYTHS and cliches!
Deforestation of WHAT  part of the earth?

Not the USA which is what I was specifically describing!

Yet YOU want the USA to pay for the Amazon deforestation?


FACTS about "deforestation" in the USA first!
"Over the past 50 years, net growth has consistently exceeded removals in the United States," said Smith, the tree expert.

1) It hit bottom in 1920, when only 735 million acres of woodlands were left.

2) As a result, the land area covered by forests has risen slightly, from 735 million to 749 million acres. 

Trees now occupy one-third of the nation's territory.

Only 10 percent of the land in Ohio was forested in 1910, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Today trees cover more than 30 percent of the state, although its population has more than doubled.

U.S. forest growth spotty, not likely to last | McClatchy


SO again.. with the cliched out of date ohh... we are in your totally inaccurate words.." The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas."
MAYBE right in the rest of the WORLD but the USA your out of date cliche is totally WRONG!

AGAIN just so you understand how WRONG you are:
1) early 1600s  more then 1 billion acres of forests.
2) 1920 735 million acres left OR about 30% less..
3) Today..almost 750 million acres and GROWING!!!

So as I said.. old out of date cliches..OLD TIMER!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2011)

healthmyths said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.
> ...


That's really funny, mythingbrains. I can't figure out if you're a paid troll trying to spread misinformation and lies or whether you're just really retarded and can't understand what you post.

You quote this line from an EPA site: _"The* U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink&#8212;it sequesters more carbon than it emits. *"_ and totally misrepresent what it says. Are you really that stupid or are you trying to fool people? The line refers to the amounts of carbon the natural *"U.S. landscape"* emits and sequesters every year, not the United States as a whole, cities, industry, cars and all. You even go on to stick  in a quote that explicitly states the truth and then you get it backwards and totally wrong when you try to 'set us all straight'. LOL. That takes some real stupidity. Here's the line you quoted: "_Net sequestration... in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent ... *This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors*._"  Are you incapable of understanding plain English, mythingbrains? It says that natural sequestration in the U.S. *only* offsets about 15% of total American CO2 emissions. You are actually moronically arrogant enough  at this point in your post to say this: "_Just in case that is too complicated for you.. There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% !  Understand now "net sequestration"???_" LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....I guess ordinary English is "_too complicated_" for you.






Source: EPA (2004) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002 (PDF) (304 pp, 22MB).

Moreover the whole line of debate here is about global warming caused by global carbon emissions so even claiming (mistakenly) that natural U.S. carbon sequestration exceeded our emissions is meaningless when the U.S. only occupies about 2% of the Earth's surface area. Nevertheless, you continue with that nonsense in a later post, once again trying to deflect the debate into just considering America. A common failing of half-witted rightwingnut brains like yours, is a weird false impression that America is the whole world and nothing outside our borders counts somehow.




healthmyths said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.
> ...


Most of it, actually. LOLOLOL....hilarious.....you imagine that world deforestation is an "OLD MYTH" and a "_cliche_". You really are confused and deluded, little dimwit.






healthmyths said:


> Not the USA which is what I was specifically describing!


Actually you were specifically getting it wrong about how much natural sequestration offsets American CO2 emissions.





healthmyths said:


> Yet YOU want the USA to pay for the Amazon deforestation?


Totally meaningless strawman. If we keep on pumping 30 gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year and continue to make the ultimate consequences of global warming even worse, everybody "_pays_".






healthmyths said:


> FACTS about "deforestation" in the USA first!
> "Over the past 50 years, net growth has consistently exceeded removals in the United States," said Smith, the tree expert.
> 1) It hit bottom in 1920, when only 735 million acres of woodlands were left.
> 2) As a result, the land area covered by forests has risen slightly, from 735 million to 749 million acres. Trees now occupy one-third of the nation's territory.
> ...



LOL. I still can't quite tell if you're just retarded or lying on purpose. The fact is the discussion is about global carbon emissions and global warming, not just the U.S., nutbag. As oldrocks' comment to which you responded made clear: "_The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas._" "*Of the Earth*", moron!!! The U.S.A. = 2% of Earth's surface area. Get it?

*World deforestation decreases, but remains alarming in many countries
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations*
(excerpts)

*25 March 2010, Rome - World deforestation, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, has decreased over the past ten years but continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries, FAO announced today.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forests (about 50,000 square miles) were converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year between 2000 and 2010 as compared to around 16 million hectares per year during the 1990s, according to key findings of FAO's most comprehensive forest review to date The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. The study covers 233 countries and areas. *


----------



## code1211 (Dec 11, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






This is one of those international problems that really isn't a problem in the USA, isn't it?

We have more trees now than at any time since WW2.  It's getting better here.  not worse.

To make a positive change, you really need to argue in an international context.  We are the heroes in this, not the villains.  It should be pretty obvious that the rest of the world can do as they please with no regard to what we desire.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 11, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


No, numbnuts, this is one of those international problems that really *is* a huge problem in the USA. The US is not in a separate dimension from the rest of the world, as rightwingnuts seem to imagine. We are all part of the same planet and in regard to global warming and the ongoing loss of natural carbon sequestration, the consequences of deforestation anywhere on Earth affects us too.






code1211 said:


> We have more trees now than at any time since WW2.  It's getting better here.  not worse.


North America suffered extensive deforestation after the European arrival. In some areas there has been some regrowth, mostly of plantation farmed trees lacking biodiversity, but the US is still losing primary forest land every year. 

*Area of primary forests in the United States (lower 48)
(around 1620, top; and 1850 middle; 1920, bottom)*




*Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away.  Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands.  In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.* 






code1211 said:


> To make a positive change, you really need to argue in an international context.  We are the heroes in this, not the villains.  It should be pretty obvious that the rest of the world can do as they please with no regard to what we desire.


What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "_the heroes in this_". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.

*A history of CO2 emissions*
The Guardian
2 September 2009 
(excerpts)

*Developing countries argue that any CO2 cuts agreed by developed countries at Copenhagen should incorporate the principle of historical responsibility. In other words, the rich should pay in the near future for its considerable past contributions to global warming.

Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

*


----------



## code1211 (Dec 11, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





What are you talking about?  Deforestation or CO2 increase?


----------



## konradv (Dec 12, 2011)

code1211 said:


> What are you talking about?  Deforestation or CO2 increase?



All part of the same thing, isn't it?  Deforestation decreases the effectiveness of an important carbon sink, leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 12, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about?  Deforestation or CO2 increase?
> ...




An increase in CO2 is just that.

Deforestation can cause a number of other things like specie extinction or erosion or habitat destruction.

He was talking about deforestation and in the USA, we have addressed this and have reversed it.  By setting up the straw man of international deforestation, he is imploring our government to increase the number of trees we enjoy when that is already happening.

Deforestation is almost always detrimental to the local ecology.  The increase in CO2 is not always detrimental to the local or even the global ecology.

Right now, we are at the all time high of CO2 and the temperature is cooling over the last ten years.  If CO2 was the primary or even and important driver of our climate, this would be impossible regardless of the other factors. 

If CO2 was a weak or even impotent driver of climate this would be expected.

You tell me.  Is CO2 the strongest driver of climate or impotent?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 12, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## konradv (Dec 12, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



You tell me.  Couldn't it be even colder?  Warming is relative.  If as you say the extra CO2 is a good thing, you still have to explain what happens to the extra trapped IR radiation in light of the principle of Conservation of Energy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 12, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.
> ...



Clathrate hydrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clathrate hydrates (or gas clathrates, gas hydrates, clathrates, hydrates, etc.) are crystalline water-based solids physically resembling ice, in which small non-polar molecules (typically gases) or polar molecules with large hydrophobic moieties are trapped inside "cages" of hydrogen bonded water molecules. In other words, clathrate hydrates are clathrate compounds in which the host molecule is water and the guest molecule is typically a gas or liquid. Without the support of the trapped molecules, the lattice structure of hydrate clathrates would collapse into conventional ice crystal structure or liquid water. Most low molecular weight gases (including O2, H2, N2, CO2, CH4, H2S, Ar, Kr, and Xe), as well as some higher hydrocarbons and freons will form hydrates at suitable temperatures and pressures. Clathrate hydrates are not chemical compounds as the sequestered molecules are never bonded to the lattice. The formation and decomposition of clathrate hydrates are first order phase transitions, not chemical reactions. Their detailed formation and decomposition mechanisms on a molecular level are still not well understood.[1][2] Clathrate hydrates were first documented in 1810 by Sir Humphry Davy.[3]

Clathrates have been found to occur naturally in large quantities. Around 6.4 trillion (i.e. 6.4x1012) tonnes of methane is trapped in deposits of methane clathrate on the deep ocean floor.[4] Such deposits can be found on the Norwegian continental shelf in the northern headwall flank of the Storegga Slide. Clathrates can also exist as permafrost, as at the Mallik gas hydrate field in the Mackenzie Delta of northwestern Canadian Arctic. These natural gas hydrates are seen as a potentially vast energy resource, but an economical extraction method has so far proven elusive. Hydrocarbon clathrates cause problems for the petroleum industry, because they can form inside gas pipelines often resulting in plug formation. Deep sea deposition of carbon dioxide clathrate has been proposed as a method to remove this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and control climate change.

Clathrates are suspected to occur in large quantities on some outer planets, moons and trans-Neptunian objects, binding gas at fairly high temperatures.


----------



## westwall (Dec 12, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






It's gotten cold enough to drop the snow level down to 2500 feet in the Antelope Valley about 50 miles north of LA.  That's cold baby.  Hasn't been that low since 1962 when the AGW crowd were predicting a new ice age.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 12, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "_the heroes in this_". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.
> ...


That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.






code1211 said:


> We are at the all time high in CO2 and yet the temperature has dropped over the last ten years.


That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.






code1211 said:


> How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?


Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.


----------



## westwall (Dec 12, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Only because of proven shenanigans.  Remove the alterations and all of a sudden they ain't so warm anymore.


Tsk, tsk.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



LOLOLOL.......you are such a funny, funny retard, walleyed....just hilarious.....but your delusions are still insane. No "_alterations_", no "_proven shenanigans_" except maybe in your crazy little denier cult bizarro-world hallucinations. There are so many observed signs and indications of rising temperatures all around the world, the fact that you imagine that the thermometer records are the only evidence is just another indication of how extremely ignorant you are about this whole subject. But then, denying reality is what you're all about.


----------



## konradv (Dec 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Thanks for the weather report, but can we get back to discussing climate?


----------



## westwall (Dec 13, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Why bother.  Every rain drop or storm is a "weather event" supporting your particular delusion.  Oh did you hear???  Seeee ya!

"TORONTO (AP)  Canada's environment minister said Monday his country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Peter Kent said that Canada is invoking the legal right to withdraw and said Kyoto doesn't represent the way forward for Canada or the world.

Canada, joined by Japan and Russia, said last year it will not accept new Kyoto commitments, but renouncing the accord is another setback to the treaty concluded with much fanfare in 1997. No nation has formally renounced the protocol until now."






Canada pulls out of Kyoto - Yahoo! News


----------



## westwall (Dec 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Sure thing blunder.  Here I present you two maps.  The 1st one is post temp adjustments.  The 2nd one is actual temp readings.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 13, 2011)

As usual, the Climate Change sheeple confuse cause and effect.


----------



## konradv (Dec 13, 2011)

PredFan said:


> As usual, the Climate Change sheeple confuse cause and effect.



Then enlighten us.  Given your post, you haven't proven you know the difference either.  You can't be saying "warming causes CO2", can you?  Well..., that's a cause AND an effect.  Get back to us when you figure that one out or just read a few of Old Rocks' posts.


----------



## konradv (Dec 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Sure thing blunder.  Here I present you two maps.  The 1st one is post temp adjustments.  The 2nd one is actual temp readings.



Nice pictures, but when is one of the "non-sheeple" going to explain that old Conservation of Energy bugaboo?!?!


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Spoken like a truly clueless retard who has no idea what is going on. As usual for you.





westwall said:


> Oh did you hear???  Seeee ya!
> 
> "TORONTO (AP)  Canada's environment minister said Monday his country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
> Peter Kent said that Canada is invoking the legal right to withdraw and said Kyoto doesn't represent the way forward for Canada or the world.
> ...



LOLOL....I guess that seems significant to you because you have your head jammed so far up your ass. Meanwhile, in the real world.....

*Global climate change treaty in sight after Durban breakthrough

Climate conference ends in agreement after two weeks of talks*

The Guardian
11 December 2011
(excerpts)

*The world is on track for a comprehensive global treaty on climate change for the first time after agreement was reached at talks in Durban, South Africa in the early hours of Sunday morning. Negotiators agreed to start work on a new climate deal that would have legal force and, crucially, require both developed and developing countries to cut their carbon emissions. The terms now need to be agreed by 2015 and come into effect from 2020.

The agreement  dubbed the "Durban platform"  is different from the other partial deals that have been struck during the past two decades, with developing countries, including China, the world's biggest emitter, agreeing to be legally bound to curb their greenhouse gases. Previously, poorer nations have insisted that they should not bear any legal obligations for tackling climate change, whereas rich nations  which over more than a century have produced most of the carbon currently in the atmosphere  should.

Another first is that the US, the second biggest emitter, also agreed that the new pact would have "legal force"  a step it flirted with in 1997 with the Kyoto protocol, but abandoned as Congress made clear it would never ratify that agreement.

All of the world's biggest economies and emitters already have targets to cut emissions between now and 2020, when the new deal would come into force.
*


----------



## westwall (Dec 13, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing blunder.  Here I present you two maps.  The 1st one is post temp adjustments.  The 2nd one is actual temp readings.
> ...







As soon as you can show us you actually understand the 2nd Law.  So far your interpretation is the exact opposite of what it says.


----------



## westwall (Dec 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Oh yes!  It's such a BIG deal....they've agreed to...wait for it.....START NEGOTIATIONS FOR A NEW AGREEMENT!  Wow, what a HUGE deal!  I bet that they can meet next year in some other remote resort location, at great expense and exhorbitant CO2 expenditure (not that that matters) to tell us yet again that they are doing something!


"The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest."

Climate conference approves landmark deal - BusinessWeek


----------



## code1211 (Dec 13, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





Did I say that "the Extra CO2" was a good thing?  I don't recall.  I don't know that I've ever referred to CO2 as being "extra".

And I don't have to explain anything.  All I have to do is observe that there are various factors affecting climate and wonder which of them in combination with the others is doing the most forcing.

You are saying that the extra CO2 is the cause of warming.  I say that first, the warming taken over time is not very unusual at all and second that the there so many factors affecting climate that singling one out as the primary one, assuming that factor is not the Sun, requires a whole lot oF proving.

If anyone were to say that the Sun is the primary driver of Global Warming, I would whole heartedly agree.

You are the one saying that you have the answer.  All I'm asking of you is proof.  You are welocm to present it at your leisure.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Is there one particular cause that you cite as the prime driver of Global Climate change?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 13, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing blunder.  Here I present you two maps.  The 1st one is post temp adjustments.  The 2nd one is actual temp readings.
> ...




How about if you explain exactly how it works and how much the climate has risen using the formulas that predicted the increase.  Feel free to compare the formulated results with the actual.  Feel free also to apply this to the ocean temperatures and the increases both expected and actual.

Why not use some predictions from, oh, 1988?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


As far as the current abrupt warming trend goes, scientists are very clear that it is the extra 40% of fossil carbon that mankind has added to the atmosphere that is causing it.






code1211 said:


> It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.


It seems that you are incapable of comprehending simple English 'cause, dude, that is not at all what I said. There are other factors, such as El Nino/La Nina, that drive the year to year variability and that variability can cause world average temperatures to vary slightly within the overall trend of rising temperatures. So some years wind up being cooler than some of the immediately preceding years but still hotter than the previous averages spanning 40 years or so.


----------



## westwall (Dec 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







What abrupt warming?  Last I saw the temps have stalled for the last decade and are possibly going to be dropping.  So, if the temps do indeed drop, what does that say about CO2 as a driver?


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2011)

An interesting find...

Ever since the first Climategate e-mail release, the public has become increasingly aware that scientists are not unbiased. Of course, most scientists with a long enough history in their fields already knew this (I discussed the issue at length in my first book Climate Confusion), but it took the first round of Climategate e-mails to demonstrate it to the world.

The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCCs policy goals. Yet, the IPCCs cause (Michael Manns term) appears to trump all else.

So, when the science doesnt support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCCs findings. After considerable reflection, Im going to avoid using the term conspiracy to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias.
Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Oh, walleyed, your denier cult delusions are occasionally humorous but mostly just sad. You are such a confused and demented little retard, it just hurts to watch you continually make such a fool out of yourself.

*NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries*
*Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
NOAA*
July 28, 2010
(government publication - free to reproduce)

*The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the active-weather layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earths surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,*





_Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)_

*The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming, said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet, said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAAs National Climatic Data Center. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at NOAA Climate Services. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: BAMS Annual State of the Climate.*


----------



## wirebender (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> [
> The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps.  The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs.  If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy.  *Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat?*  I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.



Konradv, you really don't have a clue do you?  You claim that the law of conservation of energy supports the greenhouse effect as described by warmists then you make a statement like the one highlighted in red.  You are claiming that heat already within the system is somehow adding heat to the system.  That statement is precisely the opposite of what the law of conservation of energy states.  For energy within a system to be adding energy to the system, energy must be being created somewhere and the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created.

It is you who needs to actually learn some science Polly.  Want a cracker?


----------



## wirebender (Dec 14, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Is IR photons the same thing as IR radiation?  I Google IR photons and find nothing.



konradv doesn't exactly get photons.  He, like some others on the board believe that photons are these tiny little free agents zipping around the universe somehow unconstrained by the laws of physics and not merely the smallest possible bit of energy in a given EM field which is tightly bound by the laws of physics.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> Is konny secretly a Flat Earhter?



Since the energy budgets are based on literal flat earth models, it stands to reason that anyone who buys into them is a flat earther.


----------



## konradv (Dec 14, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



You mentioned an increase in CO2.  That's the "extra" I'm talking about.  Extra CO2 leads to extra trapped IR, leads to an increased amount of re-emitedd IR heading towards earth.  That's what I'm talking about when I say the skeptics/deniers ignore the Conservation of Energy question.


----------



## konradv (Dec 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



It doesn't say anything about CO2.  It just shows that you only adhere to "natural fluctuation" when it's convenient.


----------



## konradv (Dec 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



All I get out of this is YOU CAN'T reconcile your theory with Conservation of Energy.  I'm not going to jump through you hops.  Whoever asserts must also prove!


----------



## konradv (Dec 14, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



CO2 is one of the factors.  Calling anything "primary" except the sun, is a red-herring.  CO2 isn't nullified OR a primary driver.  It's just one constituent, but one that we have an influence on.


----------



## konradv (Dec 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm not stating that energy can be created.  I'm saying that IR photons heading towards space are absorbed by CO2 then re-mitted back towards earth.  You seem to think that photons and heat are the same thing, when 99.99999999% of all physicists KNOW you don't get heat until a photon causes molecular movment in the matter it strikes, like EARTH!!!


----------



## wirebender (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> I'm not stating that energy can be created.  I'm saying that IR photons heading towards space are absorbed by CO2 then re-mitted back towards earth.  You seem to think that photons and heat are the same thing, when 99.99999999% of all physicists KNOW you don't get heat until a photon causes molecular movment in the matter it strikes, like EARTH!!!



If you are claiming that energy that is already within a system can somehow add energy to the system or that heat that is already within a system can somehow add additional heat to the system, then you are most certainly claiming the creation of energy somewhere.

You need to understand that a photon, as it applies to IR is nothing more than the smallest possible bit of IR.  It is just the tiniest possible amount of IR.  There is nothing magical about photons.  For the photon to be carrying energy, that energy had to come from somewhere.  It came from energy that was already within the system.  Moving that energy from one place to another does not increase or descrease the energy within the systerm.  The photon, being massless, and not matter at all can't make it to the surface of the earth against the greater EM field propagated from the surface of the earth anyway, but it can not add energy or heat to the system because the energy or heat was already within the system.


----------



## konradv (Dec 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not stating that energy can be created.  I'm saying that IR photons heading towards space are absorbed by CO2 then re-mitted back towards earth.  You seem to think that photons and heat are the same thing, when 99.99999999% of all physicists KNOW you don't get heat until a photon causes molecular movment in the matter it strikes, like EARTH!!!
> ...



The accumulation of more and more photons over time instead of their being lost to space IS the addition of energy. If a photon cannot add energy to the earth, where does the enrgy of the photon go?  Like others, others you're ignoring that old Conservation of Energy bauaboo.  Why  will no one address it?  It's a basic principle of science, but it's being ignored!


----------



## wirebender (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> The accumulation of more and more photons over time instead of their being lost to space IS the addition of energy. If a photon cannot add energy to the earth, where does the enrgy of the photon go?  Like others, others you're ignoring that old Conservation of Energy bauaboo.  Why  will no one address it?  It's a basic principle of science, but it's being ignored!



You simply don't get it konradv.  I am sorry, but this is all way over your head and I doubt that you will ever get it.

Anything above the temperature of absolute zero is radiating IR.  If it helps you to understand, then it is radiating photons.  Look about you wherever you have your computer sitting.  Everything you see is radiating photons and therefore is part of the energy budget within your home.

Now take some, or all of the items wherever you are, and place them in another room.  You have effectively moved the IR emitter and the photons it is emitting from one part of the system that is your house to another.  Do you believe that by moving that IR emitter and the photons it is emitting to a different location in your house that you have altered the energy budget within your house?  Have you caused more energy to exist within your house?  Have you changed the temperature within your house?  If you too everyting in your house and piled it all in one room, do you believe you could change the mean temperature within your house?  

Moving energy from one place to another within a system in which the energy is already resident will not alter the energy budget within that system.  Sorry konradv, but you can't get around the laws of physics no matter how much you wish it were possible.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The accumulation of more and more photons over time instead of their being lost to space IS the addition of energy. If a photon cannot add energy to the earth, where does the enrgy of the photon go?  Like others, others you're ignoring that old Conservation of Energy bauaboo.  Why  will no one address it?  It's a basic principle of science, but it's being ignored!
> ...



You simply don't get it wirebender. I am sorry, but this is all way over your head and I doubt that you will ever get it.

in your house analogy- if you place bookshelves, furniture, draperies, etc on outside walls then the heat will escape more slowly and the equilibrium temperature for a fixed amount of heat input will go up. 

on earth, the atmosphere slows the escape of IR to cold space, and therefore changes the equilibrium temperature at the surface. same input from the sun, same output at the top of the atmosphere, but a change in equilibrium temperature at the surface. 

in the same fashion that you claim clothes make a person colder, you claim that CO2 cools the surface. your logic and understanding of physical processes is distorted by your contrarian need to go against accepted scientific principles. you suffer from the same religious fervor that many AGW catatrophists do, just in the opposiite direction.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Ummmm, you might want to get a more recent report there silly person.  It's been superceded by far more accurate data.  But you don't do data, do you?  No, you do propaganda that's right.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







And yet, still, the Vostock ice cores show that 1000 year period with two cycles of warming and cooling with no alteration of tghe CO2 levels.  Interesting how that works and how you don't address that well known fact.


----------



## konradv (Dec 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Have done so repeatedly.  Natural fluctuations.  You know, the thing you say I forget, but turns out to only be an argument of convenience for you!  How about telling us about that Conservation of Energy bugaboo without constantly trying to distract us with nonsense, until we forget you never answered the question?


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Wow, so what you're telling me is that natural cycles are the primary driver of global temps?  Is that what you're saying?


----------



## wirebender (Dec 14, 2011)

IanC said:


> You simply don't get it wirebender. I am sorry, but this is all way over your head and I doubt that you will ever get it.



Mumble much to yourself these days?



IanC said:


> in your house analogy- if you place bookshelves, furniture, draperies, etc on outside walls then the heat will escape more slowly and the equilibrium temperature for a fixed amount of heat input will go up.



The heat will never go up unless more energy is brought into the system ian.  Cooling more slowly does not equal warmer no matter how you slice it.



IanC said:


> in the same fashion that you claim clothes make a person colder,



It isn't a claim ian, it is a proven, observable fact predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.  Sorry you can't understand.



IanC said:


> you claim that CO2 cools the surface.



CO2 serves to scatter IR.  That can't be construed as a means to increase temperature in any fashion.



IanC said:


> your logic and understanding of physical processes is distorted by your contrarian need to go against accepted scientific principles. you suffer from the same religious fervor that many AGW catatrophists do, just in the opposiite direction.



Sorry ian, but it isn't me who must distort and torture the laws of physics in an attempt to make them jibe with my beliefs.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> Have done so repeatedly.  Natural fluctuations.  You know, the thing you say I forget, but turns out to only be an argument of convenience for you!  How about telling us about that Conservation of Energy bugaboo without constantly trying to
> distract us with nonsense, until we forget you never answered the question?



And how is the present warming different from the past "natural" warming other than the fact that the "natural" warming was of a greater magnitude and came on more quickly than the "manmade" warming?  Are you perhaps saying that the CO2 we put into the air is buffering the natural warming?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




I understand what you said and what it means.  You, apparently, only understand what you said.

Our planet warmed by about .4 degrees between the year zero and the 1000.  Between the year 1000 and the year 2000 our world warmed by about .3 degrees.

I don't doubt the theory proposed by the AGW crowd because I disagree with the science.  I doubt it because the effect you predict based on the cause you cite is simply not there.

Between the year 2000 and now, we have flat or decreasing temperatures.  

Your case rests on the effect of warming following the cause of increased CO2.  We have the highest CO2 in this interglacial and yet we are 1 degree cooler than the high in this interglacial, the rate of warming is slowing comparing one millennium to the last and we are recently not warming at all.

Where is your proof?  If it is warming then it should be, well, warmer and that warming should be accelerating, not slowing.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Is IR photons the same thing as IR radiation?  I Google IR photons and find nothing.
> ...





Hi!  King of density here.

I didn't get the answer from what you said.  Is IR radiation and IR Photons the same thing?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nice flap-yap with not a single item to back it up. What a liar you are, Walleyes. Antarctica at the equator only 100 million years ago


----------



## code1211 (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





I've posted the link to this numerous times and if you demand I find it again, I'll try.

There are several sources that say that the effect of each identical increase in the ppm of CO2 in the air has a decreasing impact on the climate.  The comparison has been made to painting a window pain which blocks much of the light from passing through.  Following that another coat of paint is applied and then another and so on.  

Another analogy compares this to covering a window with a drape and then another and then another.

The comparison of course is adding to the CO2 which prevents some of the IR from escaping into space.

In either analogy the darkening effect of each succeeding layer is reduced from the previous.  At some point, the effect is not noticeable.

In the case of CO2, I have read that 20 ppm is enough to prevent snowball Earth.  Each Succeeding addition of 20 ppm would have a decreasing amount of warming impact.  At this point, increasing CO2 should have almost no impact and what do you know?  It hasn't much.

Anyway, back to "extra" CO2.  In all of nature, things increase and decrease.  "Extra" is a notion carried by people who think that there is a perfect balance that must be maintained.  When CO2 increases, nature will adapt to consume that by providing some thing or things that will consume it.

The illusion that the amount of CO2 was correct was only because nature had made the adaptation and the system was in balance.  This is not a magic or preordained thing.  It just happens.  Lots of grass?  Lots of buffalo.  Plenty of wetlands?  Plenty of ducks.  

Lots of sailors?  Gentlemen's clubs.  

Ain't nature just great?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





So, exactly, what is the amount of impact that CO2 has as a constituent factor?

More specifically what is the impact of the portion of the CO2 in the air that is contributed by Man?

I suppose both would be useful.  Enlighten us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Code, this "I have read" sucks. Cite your sources or be considered in the same light as the other intellectual lightweights that believe we should give credance to something without the slightest verification.

A drop from 280 ppm to 180 ppm puts continental glaciers in the US.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Show Code how you do it by bringing up your fraudulent sources, rockhead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2011)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system&#8212;including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons&#8212;are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956&#8211;2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change&#8212;an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade&#8212;is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and&#8212;if sustained over centuries&#8212;melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. 

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

*Of course, for people like yourself, any real scientific source is fraudulent. After all, what the hell to them pointy headed scientists really know?*


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> American Institute of Physics
> 
> ...



Those scientists know who's paying for their Volvo's....got appease the coffers ya know.
Scientists are unbias in their research, huh, rockhead?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2011)

Real fucking dumb, old boy. We are speaking of scientists from every nation and political system in the world. A consensus on AGW so strong that there is not a scientific society in the world, not even in Outer Slobovia, that states that AGW is not real.

All you have is denigration of good men and women doing a job for which many of them recieve less income than I do as a millwright in a steel mill.


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Ahh you're right, it was in the 70-80 degree's of lat 100 million years ago.   My memory is going!


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Real fucking dumb, old boy. We are speaking of scientists from every nation and political system in the world. A consensus on AGW so strong that there is not a scientific society in the world, not even in Outer Slobovia, that states that AGW is not real.
> 
> All you have is denigration of good men and women doing a job for which many of them recieve less income than I do as a millwright in a steel mill.



Bullshit, dumbshit.  There IS bias going on and there are reasons for it.  Mann, got caught and opened the floodgates to it.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but you seem to be old enough to deal with it.  You need to catch up, rockhead...you're sooo 2008.

Side note.....why would you work for a poluting steel mill?  That just seems so hypocritical of you.  tsk, tsk

hyp·o·crit·i·cal&#8194; [hip-uh-krit-i-kuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
*of the nature of hypocrisy,  or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess*
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2011)

wirebender said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You simply don't get it wirebender. I am sorry, but this is all way over your head and I doubt that you will ever get it.
> ...




do you ever re-read what you write? is it not torturing and distorting the laws of physics to claim that clothing cools a person down? sometimes you focus on a particular local temp, sometimes you focus on the overall heat content of a particular area, sometimes you are just full of shit. 

the human body only cares about keeping the core at 37C. without clothing it is the skin which is radiating heat to the environment and the skin temp is important to figuring out the heat loss. when a body wears clothes then it is the temp of the clothes that is important to figure out the heat loss and the skin temp doesnt matter as it is only a part of the temp gradient from the 37C core to the environment. 

with the earth/atmosphere system we care about the surface temp. it doesnt matter to us that the sun's input is matched to the TOA output. we care about the surface boundary where we live. when the concentration of CO2 affects the equilibrium temp we notice. personally I think the CO2 factor is mitigated by other factors but it still needs to be taken into consideration.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Hi!  King of density here.
> 
> I didn't get the answer from what you said.  Is IR radiation and IR Photons the same thing?



Let me simply give you the definition of "photon" from the science dictionary:

_photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force *and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation*. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle._

Just to make sure that this is perfectly clear, I will also provide, from the same dictionary, the definition of quantum.

_quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; *for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon*, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles. _

There is no doubt that IR radiation is Electromagnetic radiation.  The IR that radiates away from the earth constitutes an EM field.  The smallest bit of the IR that radiates away from the earth and makes up the massive EM field radiating away from the surface of the earth is the photon.  A photon isn't, as some like to believe, a free particle that goes zipping around the universe without regard to the EM fields it is a part of, and not being matter, they don't have to have matter in order to interact.

Photons and IR are one and the same.  The photon is nothing more than the smallest possible bit of IR radiation and is constrained by the same physical laws as the EM field that it helps to make up.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> American Institute of Physics
> 
> ...




Always with the scripture there rocks.  Aren't you aware by now that there isn't a shred of proof of anything in that particular bit of dogma?  There is no proof in the whole link or any of the links it provides.  It is no more than a baseless proclamation without even the smallest bit of observed, repeatable evidence for support.  It is made of the same fabric as the emperor's new clothes.

Your dogma goes off the deep end with the very first sentence.  Name a period when the earth's climate was not either warming or cooling?  Name a period when the climate of the earth was in perfect balance. Are you not aware that a perfect, or even slight balance of the various systems that make up the earth's climate would go against the law of conservation of energy?  Entropy rocks.  Entropy and balance are working at odds rocks and have been forever.  Balance in any of the earth's systems is a myth.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

IanC said:


> do you ever re-read what you write? is it not torturing and distorting the laws of physics to claim that clothing cools a person down? sometimes you focus on a particular local temp, sometimes you focus on the overall heat content of a particular area, sometimes you are just full of shit.



And once again, you demonstrate that this topic is over your head.  You operate on intuition rather than the math and the laws of physics that support the math.  As I have said, the fact that clothing cools down the skin it comes into contact with is an observable, repeatable fact that is predicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  The fact the math has been done for you and you still don't believe brings you right into rock's back yard with all the other dogmatists.



IanC said:


> with the earth/atmosphere system we care about the surface temp. it doesnt matter to us that the sun's input is matched to the TOA output. we care about the surface boundary where we live. when the concentration of CO2 affects the equilibrium temp we notice. personally I think the CO2 factor is mitigated by other factors but it still needs to be taken into consideration.



CO2 is not your culprit ian.   You don't need a greenhouse effect to keep the temperature of a planet higher than the level it would achieve from blackbody radiation alone.  Adiabatic compression alone accounts for the temperature of the earth.  All you need do is look about the solar system ian and consider the fact that the physics that form the basis of the ad hoc model of the earth energy budget used to explain our temperature don't even come close to predicting the temperatures of the various planets.

Look at jupiter with a hydrogen helium atmosphere as opposed to so called GHG's.  Certainly above blackbody but no greenhouse effect to be found.  The temperature of venus is easily predicted via adiabatic pressure and ideal gas laws, no greenhouse effect needed.

The greenhouse effect is a myth ian.  An ad hoc explanation custom tailored for earth.  Plug the parameters of other planets into the model used for earth and you don't even get close to the reality of the other planets.  The fact that the model explains the temperature of earth is sheer coincidence.  In fact, adiabatic hypotheses dealing with the earth's atmosphere predict some slight cooling as a result of additional CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of thermal expansion when IR is absorbed and re emitted by so called greehouse gasses.

Your belief in the power of CO2 is misplaced ian.  Eventually you will come to see it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Now Ian, just call it like it is. Bent is completely full of shit all of the time.


----------



## konradv (Dec 15, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



It will accelerate, when natural fluctuations aren't blunting the effect.  What happens when we come out of the current solar minimum?  What happens when CO2 continues to rise, more IR is absorbed and then re-emitted towards earth?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.


----------



## Meister (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;
> 
> Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011
> 
> and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.



AGU sessions in San Francisco?  Sure, no bias there.  Good grief!


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;
> 
> Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011
> 
> and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.



And you and yours completely ignore the fact that nothing that is going on in the climate today even approaches the boundries of natural variability.  You also fail to note the fact that the warming simply isn't increasing despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.  Your dogma simply does not support the climate as it is.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Ian, just call it like it is. Bent is completely full of shit all of the time.



Says the man to whom even basic mathematics is a mystery.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;
> ...



Another complete lie from someone that does not read or understand science. The Shnieder lecture answers your point in full concerning natural variability. Not that you will ever diegn to read what a real scientist states.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;
> ...



Is that the best you can do? About third grade reasoning there.


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Another complete lie from someone that does not read or understand science. The Shnieder lecture answers your point in full concerning natural variability. Not that you will ever diegn to read what a real scientist states.



No he doesn't.  He tiptoes by the topic with terror in his eyes.  The amount of climate change we are seeing and have been seing for the past 200 years hardly amounts to even a small bit of noise when compared with natural variability.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




How many times do i need to post the same information?  Here is still another of the many links that say the same thing.

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

<snip>

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day  it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades cant make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

<snip>


----------



## code1211 (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Real fucking dumb, old boy. We are speaking of scientists from every nation and political system in the world. A consensus on AGW so strong that there is not a scientific society in the world, not even in Outer Slobovia, that states that AGW is not real.
> 
> All you have is denigration of good men and women doing a job for which many of them recieve less income than I do as a millwright in a steel mill.





We are talking about a matter of scale though, are we not?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi!  King of density here.
> ...





Thank you.  Einstein said that you never really understand anything until you can explain it to your grandmother.

My ability to understand science and math makes most grandmothers look like prodigies.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 15, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





How much IR is there?

What is the top end end possibility of the CO2 to absorb The IR and retain it close to the surface?

If all of the IR is retained, is there any more to be retained?  Is it possible to retain all of it?  Is there a maximum that can be retained?

How much does the GHG effect of CO2 diminish as the ppm increase?  How much will we need to increase the CO2 to effect another degree of increase?

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

<snip>

Here is how Thomas Nelson describes it in &#8220;Cold Facts on Global Warming&#8221;:

It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb virtually all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of less than one km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.

<snip>


----------



## code1211 (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;
> 
> Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011
> 
> and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.





Not ignoring anything.  It is you that asserts that the CO2 is prime driver of climate.

You also seem to assert that CO2 is a weak constituent cause that can be and is overpowered by almost anything from TSI to La Nina.

So, according to you, controlling CO2 equates to controlling climate.   Also according to you, CO2 is constantly overpowered by anything and everything else in the climate system.  Interesting theory that adjusts to accommodate any set of facts without ever being able to make an accurate prediction.

No amount of rationalization will change the fact that the rate of warming is slowing and the panic you seek is not justified.

Any progress in rationalizing away the work of the scientists at CERN?

CERN Experiment Finds Possible Link Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change | Popular Science

<snip>

Naturally, different scientists are reaching different conclusions, but all seem to think this experiment is a worthwhile idea, even if it basically asks more questions than it answers. So, just to recap, the whole climate change argument has not been put to rest. Maybe I shouldve noted that at the beginning of the post.

<snip>


----------



## westwall (Dec 15, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;
> ...






Pretty much sums up their argument.  Now what was that about non-falsifiability?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Code and the rest completely ignore the fact that the average temperature for the period 2000 to present is higher than the previous averaged highest points. One only has to look at Spencer's graphs on the UAH site to see that. And a ten year period where the line is flat is not that unuasal. Go to the Shnieder lecture here;
> 
> Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011
> 
> and you can see that the fallacy of cooling for the past ten years is exactly that.



A 20 year period where temperature is increasing is also not unusual, and that's all you got to make your case for AGW.

The fact remains that the ave. global temperature has not increased since 1998.  That's 14 years.  It's really getting embarrassing for all you warmist kookburgers, isn't it?


----------



## wirebender (Dec 15, 2011)

code1211 said:


> How much IR is there?



You might ask them to explain the temperature of a planet like jupiter which has an atmosphere composed mainly of hydrogen and helium and hardly a breath of any of the so called greenhouse gasses.  Ask them why it is that if you plug the parameters of the atmosphere of jupiter, or saturn, or any of the other planets in our atmosphere into the models that supposedly account for the temperature of the earth by use of the mythical greenhouse effect, the models don't even come close to predicting the actual temperatures of those planets.

The models that are used to predict the temperature of the earth are, in fact, nothing more than ad hoc constructs that have little, if anything to do with the actual physical laws at work in the atmosphere.


----------



## Meister (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



At least your not arguing the main issue of bias in the so called AGW research.
Face it, rockhead, it's political....just as simple as that, but you're a denier.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 15, 2011)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And you are full of shit.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 15, 2011)

wirebender said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > How much IR is there?
> ...



More ignorant, clueless, anti-science drivel from wiredwrong. He is so confused and misled that he imagines that there is some single calculated figure for "_the temperature of a planet like Jupiter_" and that those calculations would or even could be done using atmospheric models designed for Earth conditions. On Jupiter, temperature increases with atmospheric pressure so the astronomers and astrophysicists say that temperatures on Jupiter vary from about minus 145 degrees C at the edge of the atmosphere to as much as 35,000 degrees C at the planet's core. 

Just more denier cult BS from another clueless dupe and ignorant retard.


----------



## Meister (Dec 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Looking in the mirror again, are ya?


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 15, 2011)

*Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B*

My subsequent responses, of which were never answered.

----- Original Message -----
From: *****
To: monckton@mail.com
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories.  To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following: 



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.*

You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment&#8230;.which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen&#8230;trees.  All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant&#8217;s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point.  Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.
2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.*

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon.  But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year &#8211; 1.6 billion tonnes &#8211; is caused by deforestation.  According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2.  *

 In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe&#8230;.less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature&#8217;s ability to convert it to oxygen.  
And that is not good for all air breathing.  And as you know, it wouldn&#8217;t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what &#8220;unseasonable&#8221; weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do.   My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.

4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.*

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere?  The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance.  Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean&#8217;s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air.  And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective&#8230;..just look at the current 2 term American President&#8217;s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article. *

 If you damage the ocean&#8217;s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen.  Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America&#8230;.and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors).  The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases


----------



## wirebender (Dec 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> More ignorant, clueless, anti-science drivel from wiredwrong. He is so confused and misled that he imagines that there is some single calculated figure for "_the temperature of a planet like Jupiter_"



Hell, you believe that there is a single calculated figure for a planet like earth.  What would lead you to believe that there is any such thing as a global mean temperature?  




RollingThunder said:


> and that those calculations would or even could be done using atmospheric models designed for Earth conditions.



That is precisely the point thunder.  The models upon which AGW alarmism are based are tailor made for earth.  They don't reflect any actual physics, they are simply ad hoc constructs that work nowhere else.  

Astrophysicists on the other hand use models based on actual physics that can predict the temperatures found on practically any planet with any atmosphere.  One need only plug the atmospheric composition and amount of incoming energy and based on the actual laws of physics, you get a fairly accurate prediction of the temperature of the planet and guess what, those models don't incorporate a fabricated, unphysical greenhouse effect.



RollingThunder said:


> On Jupiter, temperature increases with atmospheric pressure so the astronomers and astrophysicists say that temperatures on Jupiter vary from about minus 145 degrees C at the edge of the atmosphere to as much as 35,000 degrees C at the planet's core.



Funny thing, the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well and ranges from near absolute zero at the edge of the atmosphere to nearly 13,000 degrees F at the core of the planet.  

The temperature can be explained on either planet, without a fictitional greenhouse effect by adiabatic pressure and the ideal gas laws.  

Interesting that you are completely unaware of that.  That fact says a great deal about how much actual scientific knowledge that you posess.  As we all already knew, you are no more than a cut and paste clone who understands very little of what you post.


----------



## konradv (Dec 16, 2011)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Of course it's political.  The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning.  Then, when climatologists discuss how to combat the politicization of science, the skeptics act as if it were the scientists doing the politicizing with phony "Climategate" accusations.  It's hypocrisy at its highest level!!!


----------



## wirebender (Dec 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> Of course it's political.  The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning.



Tell me that you really aren't this clueless?  Climate change alarmism is in, and of itself, a political issue.  It is, and always has been about socialist goals of controlling and socializing industry and redistuributing wealth.


----------



## Meister (Dec 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sheesh you people get busted with your hand in the jar, and act like it didn't really happen.  That's special, it really is.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Ummmm, not to belabor the point konny old boy.  But we don't want laws to be passed screwing poor people over unless there is true compelling evidence that those laws are neccessary.  Your side on the other hand is ALL about passing laws.  Laws that will affect every aspect of human life.

So...which side is the political one?  This is a test.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...






Well, you know, they are a "special" bunch.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > More ignorant, clueless, anti-science drivel from wiredwrong. He is so confused and misled that he imagines that there is some single calculated figure for "_the temperature of a planet like Jupiter_"
> ...


Another amusing demonstration of your profound ignorance, wiredwrong. Scientists use the 'global mean temperature' to refer to temperatures at the surface of the Earth. Jupiter has no detectable surface, it is a gas giant planet with a diameter of about 143,000 miles compared to the Earth's diameter of 8000 miles. On Earth, 99.99997% of the atmosphere by mass is below 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) but Jupiter's atmosphere just keeps going down. Five thousand miles deep the pressure is ten times Earth's surface pressure.  




wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > and that those calculations would or even could be done using atmospheric models designed for Earth conditions.
> ...


Total bullshit, wiredwrong. Climate models are very much based on the laws of physics but you're just too ignorant and retarded to understand that. 






wirebender said:


> Astrophysicists on the other hand use models based on actual physics that can predict the temperatures found on practically any planet with any atmosphere.  One need only plug the atmospheric composition and amount of incoming energy and based on the actual laws of physics, you get a fairly accurate prediction of the temperature of the planet and guess what, those models don't incorporate a fabricated, unphysical greenhouse effect.


More total bullshit based only on your denier cult myths. Astrophysicists studying exoplanets use the same General Climate Models as on Earth and they definitely do incorporate the very real and well verified greenhouse effect. The main difference is that scientists have enormously more direct measurements of conditions on Earth to work with than the very limited measurements they can get for other planets at astronomical distances.

*Climate modelling of an Earth-like extrasolar planet orbiting a K-type star* (pdf)
(excerpts)

*Modelling details

To improve the understanding of the interaction between stellar radiation characteristics, atmospheric dynamics and local planetary conditions, we make use of the 3D general circulation model EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry model, [1]), which has been developed for Earth climate studies, to calculate the climate of an Earth-like extrasolar planet around a K-type star.
*





wirebender said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > On Jupiter, temperature increases with atmospheric pressure so the astronomers and astrophysicists say that temperatures on Jupiter vary from about minus 145 degrees C at the edge of the atmosphere to as much as 35,000 degrees C at the planet's core.
> ...


LOLOLOL....jeez, are you really _that_ stupid? LOL. You talk about "_the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure as well_", which is wrong to begin with, and then cite an upper figure based on the core temperature of the planet. LOL. That's not "_atmospheric pressure_", dimwit, it is the pressure of 4000 miles of solid (or molten) rock, not gas.

Atmospheric pressure on Earth has very little to do with the temperature at the surface, nor does ""_the temperature on earth increases with atmospheric pressure_" in some linear fashion. Your knowledge of the atmosphere is as minimal and deficient as your knowledge of most everything else, you poor retard. Let me educate you.

*Atmosphere of Earth*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

*Structure of the atmosphere
Principal layers

In general, air pressure and density decrease in the atmosphere as height increases. However, temperature has a more complicated profile with altitude. Because the general pattern of this profile is constant and recognizable through means such as balloon soundings, temperature provides a useful metric to distinguish between atmospheric layers. In this way, Earth's atmosphere can be divided into five main layers. From highest to lowest, these layers are:

Exosphere

The outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere extends from the exobase upward. It is mainly composed of hydrogen and helium. The particles are so far apart that they can travel hundreds of kilometers without colliding with one another. Since the particles rarely collide, the atmosphere no longer behaves like a fluid. These free-moving particles follow ballistic trajectories and may migrate into and out of the magnetosphere or the solar wind.

Thermosphere

Temperature increases with height in the thermosphere from the mesopause up to the thermopause, then is constant with height. Unlike in the stratosphere, where the inversion is caused by absorption of radiation by ozone, in the thermosphere the inversion is a result of the extremely low density of molecules. The temperature of this layer can rise to 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), though the gas molecules are so far apart that temperature in the usual sense is not well defined. The air is so rarefied, that an individual molecule (of oxygen, for example) travels an average of 1 kilometer between collisions with other molecules.[3] The International Space Station orbits in this layer, between 320 and 380 km (200 and 240 mi). Because of the relative infrequency of molecular collisions, air above the mesopause is poorly mixed compared to air below. While the composition from the troposphere to the mesosphere is fairly constant, above a certain point, air is poorly mixed and becomes compositionally stratified. The point dividing these two regions is known as the turbopause. The region below is the homosphere, and the region above is the heterosphere. The top of the thermosphere is the bottom of the exosphere, called the exobase. Its height varies with solar activity and ranges from about 350800 km (220500 mi; 1,100,0002,600,000 ft).

Mesosphere

The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 8085 km (5053 mi; 260,000280,000 ft). It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the atmosphere. Temperature decreases with height in the mesosphere. The mesopause, the temperature minimum that marks the top of the mesosphere, is the coldest place on Earth and has an average temperature around &#8722;85 °C (&#8722;120 °F; 190 K).[4] At the mesopause, temperatures may drop to &#8722;100 °C (&#8722;150 °F; 170 K).[5] Due to the cold temperature of the mesosphere, water vapor is frozen, forming ice clouds (or Noctilucent clouds). A type of lightning referred to as either sprites or ELVES, form many miles above thunderclouds in the troposphere.

Stratosphere

The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 51 km (32 mi; 170,000 ft). Temperature increases with height due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. While the temperature may be &#8722;60 °C (&#8722;76 °F; 210 K) at the tropopause, the top of the stratosphere is much warmer, and may be near freezing. The stratopause, which is the boundary between the stratosphere and mesosphere, typically is at 50 to 55 km (31 to 34 mi; 160,000 to 180,000 ft). The pressure here is 1/1000 sea level.

Troposphere

The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km (30,000 ft) at the poles and 17 km (56,000 ft) at the equator,[6] with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. This promotes vertical mixing (hence the origin of its name in the Greek word "&#964;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#942;", trope, meaning turn or overturn). The troposphere contains roughly 80% of the mass of the atmosphere.[7] The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.
*






wirebender said:


> The temperature can be explained on either planet, without a fictitional(sic) greenhouse effect by adiabatic pressure and the ideal gas laws.


More nonsense based only on your own abject ignorance of physics (and everything else, for that matter). Repeating your denier cult myths over and over won't make them become real.







wirebender said:


> Interesting that you are completely unaware of that.  That fact says a great deal about how much actual scientific knowledge that you posess(sic).  As we all already knew, you are no more than a cut and paste clone who understands very little of what you post.


So speaks the ignorant retard who denies the basic laws of science and foolishly imagines that he understands climate science better than the actual climate scientists. You are a silly and very sad joke, wiredwrong, and you'll probably never get your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...










General Climate Models   Nothing else need be said!


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Watching ignorant retards like you laugh at things you don't (and can't) understand is itself rather amusing although also a bit sad. It is rather telling that after getting your clock cleaned like that, your only response is this pathetic non-response.

Denier cult myths - *Climate models are unprovenActually, GCMs have many confirmed successes under their belts*
(excerpts)

*...in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

    * models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
    * models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
    * models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
    * models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
    * models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
    * models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
    * and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.*


----------



## konradv (Dec 16, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it's political.  The skeptics have made it a political issue from the beginning.
> ...



Only because the skeptics/deniers say so.  I don't see any independent verification of that fact.  I guess levees shouldn't be built because flood warnings are "alarmist" and building them IS a poltical question.  *After all, water is required for life.  What?  Are we supposed to just quit drinking?* (Sample of denier logic)


----------



## code1211 (Dec 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





Actually, your example of what you call "Denier Logic" is too complicated to be denier logic.  Denier logic goes like like this:

"Prove the warming is caused by CO2."  That's it.  That's the whole she-bang.

Let's apply the debating techniques from the respective sides to a guy who is a golf devotee.  The example guy dresses great, has this year's fashionable clubs, the best shoes, has a membership in the best club, has a swing that is text book and has a diploma from the highly respected College of Golf.  

An Anthropogenic Golf Proponent would say this guy is the best golfer on the planet.  There is no need to watch him actually play or to find out what his scores have been in the past or if he has ever won a game or ever played a game.

A person that you would call a "denier" would ask to see the score card which reveals a handicap of 23.  The guy is a well dressed joke.

That is the case with AGW.  Everything makes perfect sense and is logical unless you check the results.  If you do, then you find it is a well dressed joke.

Some people appreciate a good joke and some people don't.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 16, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Actually, it is your pathetic excuse for a brain that is the joke here.

In your demented and extremely retarded way, you must assume that every national science institute, scientific society and organization, and university on the planet somehow failed to "_check the results_". 

Do you have to take stupid pills or were you born this way?


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Sure they do.  Then how come they can't recreate what occured yesterday?  Here's a peer reviewed study for you.  I highlighted the relevent part for you.


"Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Rice University | News & Media


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

konradv said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Yes, the sooner you quit drinking the sooner you will no longer be a drain on the Earths resources.  There is a Desert Pupfish that will happily use all the water you would otherwise waste.


----------



## westwall (Dec 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







We were born with the ability to think critically.  Your skills stop at juvenile insults.  Hows that working for ya?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



How dumb do you think others are, Code? See the highlight in red? What that is telling us is that there are factors which may make the worst alarmist predictions look positively Pollyanna. And we are seeing that right now. The emission of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates has far exceeded anyones predictions this years. An order of magnitude greater than last year. 

And then there are the weather disasters of the last two years. In just 2011 alone, 12 disasters that cost more than 1 billion dollars. Unprecedented.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Go back and read some history some time then get back to us.  None of what happened last year was unprecedented.  And in point of fact the death tolls are tiny compared to what occured in the past.  The monetary cost being so high is due to the simple fact that our dollars aren't worth crap thanks to inflation.  And it's the blue highlighted section that is most pertinent.  But then you'd have to not be a denier to see that.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


But they can, as you might know if you just weren't so brainwashed and fundamentally ignorant about science.

*Climate Models: How Good Are They?*
By Lisa Moore
EDF
Published: July 18, 2007
(excerpts)

*Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future.

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.*





_Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]_







westwall said:


> Here's a peer reviewed study for you.  I highlighted the relevent(sic) part for you.
> 
> "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
> Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell
> ...


Well, ROTFLMAO once again! You are just too too funny, you poor pathetic numbskull. I'm going to bookmark this one to demonstrate in future debates just how little comprehension you have when you read scientific information. 

The article you quoted is specifically saying that global warming is probably going to be much worse than the current climate models have predicted. It is saying that the current models have either underestimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels or they are overlooking some as yet unknown feedback factor that made the CO2 caused warming during the PETM to be even more intense. Talk about arguing against yourself...you take the cake.

You quoted these excerpts from that article but apparently without any understanding of their meaning....

"*During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.*"​
...and you conveniently left out some other important parts....

"*Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."*"​
source: Rice University | News & Media
(excerpts)

So, CO2 levels only went up by 70% during the PETM but the average world temperatures went up 13° F and we've already raised CO2 levels by about 40% over per-industrial levels and we're still pumping about 30 billion tons more fossil carbon into the air every year. But you denier cult nutjobs tell us that there's no real problem and we certainly shouldn't upset the oil and coal industry gravy trains for the sake of the environment or the survival of future generations as well as the Earth's biosphere. You'd be funny if this situation wasn't so tragic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


So far you've shown no evidence of being able to think at all, let alone "_critically_".


----------



## code1211 (Dec 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





Oh, snap!

Well, that's it then, isn't it?

Provide no proof and call the other guy stupid.

You're brilliant.

Highest CO2 within this interglacial.  Mid range temps for this interglacial.  No warming for ten years.

You need to prove that the CO2 is the cause of the warming and have not.

You are free to do so and yet refrain.

Do you have a reason to withhold the evidence or is there no evidence to present?

All I'm asking is that you explain and prove why the CO2 has not done what you say it should have done and then why I should believe that it will do what you say it should have done.

If what you are saying is true, it should not be hard to produce proof.  You are welcome to begin.  You might want to start with the predictions of Dr. Hansen from 1988 and proceed from there.  

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## code1211 (Dec 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...






I had the same question.  He, apparently, has no ability to question.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## code1211 (Dec 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Wasn't me who posted that.

If it was me, though, I would have pointed out that the temperatures rose quickly and the CO2 rose quickly.

Historically, in natural occurrences such as this, the temperature leads the CO2 by less than a millennium.

Looking back into history 55.8 million years and trying to determine which came first is a little sketchy in my mind.  Stating without reservation that the soaring CO2 caused the soaring temps seems a little strong to me.  

When 4 and a half billion years of performance shows the opposite correlation, why do we think that CO2 caused that temps to rise in opposition to all of the other examples of this same natural correlation?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 17, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## konradv (Dec 17, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Who says CO2 isn't doing what we say?  It's a trivial lab expt to show that it absorbs IR.  Given the principle of Conservation of Energy, YOU must prove that it isn't.  YOU'RE the one claiming that basic principle of science is wrong!!!


----------



## konradv (Dec 17, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## code1211 (Dec 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## code1211 (Dec 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2011)

code1211 said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



wirebender has over simplified things with one size fits all definitions. photons have two main uses; 1. to shed excess energy and become closer to groundstate, 2. to pass electric or magnetic force between two capable particles.

in the first case, energy is expelled as a photon that may or may not interact with another particle but the purpose is to get rid of energy.

in the second case, a charged particle sends out vast amounts of virtual photons that are bought on credit (via the uncertainty principle) which simply disappear if they dont find a particle capable of interacting. if they do find a partner to transfer electric or magnetic force to, they become a real photon and the energy bill becomes payable. these photons have a separate quality that allows them to become either attractive or repulsive depending on the type of particle they interact with. the purpose is to transfer force rather than just shed energy.

wirebender has confused the properties of the two types of fields, radiative to shed energy and reactive to transfer force. he thinks radiation photons cancel out when they are travelling in opposite directions, rather than just passing through each other unchanged as wave theory states.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



konradv- why do you keep saying the principle of conservation of energy is being broken? CO2 scatters certain bands of IR but all that does is change the equilibrium temperature at the surface, the input and output of the earth always coincide to each other to a close degree. if the output is slowed then the surface heats up a little and the extra radiation re-establishes the output necessary to balance the input. the amount actually absorbed by CO2 at any particular moment is trivial compared to the overall figures.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 18, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > So, CO2 levels only went up by 70% during the PETM but the average world temperatures went up 13° F and we've already raised CO2 levels by about 40% over per-industrial levels and we're still pumping about 30 billion tons more fossil carbon into the air every year. But you denier cult nutjobs tell us that there's no real problem and we certainly shouldn't upset the oil and coal industry gravy trains for the sake of the environment or the survival of future generations as well as the Earth's biosphere. You'd be funny if this situation wasn't so tragic.
> ...


Is your ability to comprehend what you read really that low? Do you really think idiotic verbal tricks like that fool anybody but your fellow denier cult dingbats? No, dumbass, we have actually witnessed a temperature increase of about *1.4° F in a little over a century*, not 0.7° F in 2000 years. Are you really that ignorant or are you a paid troll here to spread misinformation, lies and bullshit?

"*Measurements show a global temperature increase of 1.4 °F (0.78 °C) between the years 1900 and 2005.*"






code1211 said:


> You imply that the PETM is the blueprint for the present and that we may expect a similar increase in temperatures.
> 
> When might we expect the other 6.3 degrees C of increase to occur?
> 
> If it is impolite of me to ask you to think, I apologize.


LOL. As if you ever"_think_" before spouting some idiotic nonsense like this.

You really must have a major comprehension problem, code4BS. You're responding to some quotes from an article that I posted so you must have seen this even if you couldn't understand it. Try again, numbnuts. I'll even highlight the part you missed.

*"In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."*

It took ten thousand years for that 13° F temperature increase to occur during the PETM and our anthropogenic CO2 surge only started in the 19th century and only really got going in the latter part of the 20th century but you think the temperature increase this time should have been happening even faster than it has been. LOL. Mankind's carbon emissions are driving these changes far faster than natural forces ever have but it is still not instantaneous. It took ten thousand years for a 13° F rise in temperature then but we've managed to achieve about a degree and a half rise in only 105 years but you imagine that since it wasn't even faster, it must not be real. LOL. You are such a confused loon.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






My father always told me that profanity is how the uneducated express themselves.

The warming trend that we currently enjoy started between about 1550 to 1650.  Due to the sudden drop of temperatures during the Little Ice Age which was caused by the Sun, not terrestrial factors, the recovery to more normal temperatures seems like a rise in temperatures.

The actual baseline, though, is not the downward valley of the LIA, it is the gradual rise continuing for the previous 3000 years.

The net increase in world climate between the years 1000 and 2000 was less than the increase between the years 0 and 1000.  We are cooler today than we were 8000 years ago and your cherry picking is less evidence of any natural occurrence than it is of your own limited understanding of the history of the climate.

It could be an intentional effort to deceive, but that is only known in your heart.

The Industrial Revolution started in about  1780 with the spreading use of the coal fired steam engine.

Is the impact of CO2 that you cite so strong that it can cause the temperature to rise before the additional and offending CO2 was even present?

What other examples can you present of the future causing the past?

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art
File:Global Carbon Emission by Type.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 18, 2011)

It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that. 

Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.
> 
> Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.
> 
> But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.







Actually Code did address that cooling.  Quite correctly ascribing it to a large decrease in solar activity.  Or did you miss that part?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 18, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


Well, apparently your father was as given to idiotic over-generalizations as you are. Actually, posting clueless drivel on internet forums like you do is how the uneducated express themselves.






code1211 said:


> The warming trend that we currently enjoy started between about 1550 to 1650.


LOL. Another one of your denier cult myths based on your misunderstanding of the science.






code1211 said:


> Due to the sudden drop of temperatures during the Little Ice Age which was caused by the Sun, not terrestrial factors, the recovery to more normal temperatures seems like a rise in temperatures.
> 
> The actual baseline, though, is not the downward valley of the LIA, it is the gradual rise continuing for the previous 3000 years.
> 
> The net increase in world climate between the years 1000 and 2000 was less than the increase between the years 0 and 1000.  We are cooler today than we were 8000 years ago and your cherry picking is less evidence of any natural occurrence than it is of your own limited understanding of the history of the climate.


Actually it is you who has no understanding of the history of the Earth's climate. Your drivel has very little connection to the facts.






The evidence studied by the climate scientists indicates that over the past 10,000 years during the period known as the Holocene, temperatures and sea levels, which have a close connection, have been remarkable stable. Temperatures over this period have have only varied by about 0.5° C up or down. The "Holocene maximum" or the warmest part of this period, was about 8,000 years ago, and according to climate scientists, todays temperature is about, or slightly above, the Holocene maximum. Global temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the past three decades until they are now at least equal to the prior Holocene maximum, or a few tenths of a degree higher. The Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica have been fairly stable during the Holocene until now, when the Arctic ice cap has diminished by over a third and the ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates. Sea levels did not change significantly over the last 3000 years until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Over the last 25 years, the rate of sea level rise has doubled.








code1211 said:


> The Industrial Revolution started in about  1780 with the spreading use of the coal fired steam engine.
> 
> Is the impact of CO2 that you cite so strong that it can cause the temperature to rise before the additional and offending CO2 was even present?


Technically and historically, the Industrial Revolution may have started back then but it is only over the last century or so that mankind has added significant quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The current very abrupt warming trend, contrary to your moronic denier cult myths, is clearly linked to the rise in CO2 levels.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Nobody cares about "the facts" except the OCD environmental nutters on the internet..................


Prevent Disease.com - Global Warming Alarmists Are Losing Their Case


Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation | Joss Garman | Environment | guardian.co.uk



LOL.......even the hard left group "Democracy Now" says last week's climate summit in South Africa was a disaster.................Climate Activists: Durban Deal is "Very Weak" Agreement, Lacks "Ambition, Equity, Justice"



Even the noted and famous warming big Robert Socolow said recently, *'Warmists' lost the 'argument' because their claims were proven to be sub-prime science. The public knew instinctively they were being conned by global warming fear activists. 'Losing the argument' is not a result of bad communication -- but a result of bad science'*



Warmist Robert Socolow laments: 'We are losing the argument with the general public, big time...I think the climate change activists, myself included, have lost the American middle' | Climate Depot





Meanwhile, the evidence mounts that the climate k00ks on this forum are beyond fcukking naive as they think their BS rhetoric matters..............here is an update on the current market for carbon in the EU ( hint: Its at an all time low)

Celebrate Failing Sub-Prime Economics! EU carbon price hits all-time low: 'I still don't see any bottom to this market' | Climate Depot




Indeed..........if you are a skeptic, it is a wonderful holiday season!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 18, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Nobody cares about "the facts" except the...


...intelligent people of the world. We already know that category doesn't include you, kookster. You reinforce that fact every time you post.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody cares about "the facts" except the...
> ...





still waitin' for that link s0n............you know.......the one that is showing the "the consensus" mattering one iota with its positive effect on the public policy desires of the bomb throwers?

Whats it now? 5 months?


Gassing Up: Why America's Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries | Newgeography.com










Like Ive been saying for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. The science matters...........but only to the internet OCD fringe!!


----------



## code1211 (Dec 18, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





You confirm what i say and yet deny that it means what it means.

The CO2 was not sufficient in your opinion to change climate until 100 years ago and yet the temperature started rising before that by a pretty good amount of time.

Future causes the past?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.
> 
> Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.
> 
> But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.





When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.


----------



## konradv (Dec 18, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.
> ...



You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case.  We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid.  The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2.  Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher then they are now....how did they get that way?


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 18, 2011)

*Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B* (Lord Monckton, former advisor to PM Margaret Thatcher)

My responses colored as such----- Original Message -----
From: ******
To: monckton@mail.com
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories.  To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following: 



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.*

You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment.which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygentrees.  All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plants smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point.  Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.*

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon.  But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year  1.6 billion tonnes  is caused by deforestation.  According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2.* 
  In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe.less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without natures ability to convert it to oxygen.  And that is not good for all air breathing.  And as you know, it wouldnt take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what unseasonable weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do.   My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.

4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.*

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere?  The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance.  Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the oceans ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air.  And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective..just look at the current 2 term American Presidents environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

*Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.  *

If you damage the oceans ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen.  Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America.and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors).  The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases


TO DATE, THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER RESPONSE FROM LORD MONCKTON'S OFFICE DESPITE MY REPEATED REQUESTS TO RESPOND TO MY REBUTTALS.


----------



## konradv (Dec 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Once again that may be an interesting natural history question, but it's hardly relevant to what's happening today.  We know where the CO2 is coming from, so that's the concern, NOT what happened in the past.  That info doesn't really get us any answers, since underlying conditions have changed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2011)

"Watch me make a hockey stick from there tree rings....look at the rings, you are getting sleepy, so sleepy, you are seeing the manmade global warming in the rings..."


----------



## konradv (Dec 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



There could be all sorts of reasons, e.g. volcanism, but since I'm more concerned about what's happening NOW and determining THOSE reasons, I really don't have time to do your natural history homework for you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





yeah but nobody else is concerned s0n!!!

A week ago, the UN Climate Summit ended in South Africa. There was a 70% drop in attendance as compared to 2009. There was zero representation from the Obama administration and not a single American Democrat attended. Canada dropped out. Even the far left group Demcracy Now proclaimed it a total disaster.

_*Some prominent U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, celebrated recent developments. U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a fierce critic of UN climate alarmism, sent a video to be presented at the global body&#8217;s climate summit that all but officially pronounces the death of the alarmist movement.[/B]*_*

Some prominent U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, celebrated recent developments. U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a fierce critic of UN climate alarmism, sent a video to be presented at the global body&#8217;s climate summit that all but officially pronounces the death of the alarmist movement.




The alarmist k00ks still dont get it..........their shit is as dead as a doornail, yet they are still posting up dinosaur links on global warming as if they matter. They may as well call a navel contemplation summit as nobody is caring about the science and even some of the warmer bigs have come out and stated that they fcukked up the science. The important thing is that if you look at any poll of Americans and the issues they are most concerned about, global warming ISNT EVEN ON THE LIST

Americans' Worries About Economy, Budget Top Other Issues



I suggest guys like Rolling Thunder, Konrad, Chris, et. al. would be more productive using this forum to coordinate a navel contemplation summit where they can sit in a big circle and deliberate on CO2 levels!!!




*


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






The world operates on natural laws konrad.  We _may_ know where the CO2 is coming from in this day and age, one thing we do KNOW is that mankinds contribution is 4% of the entire CO2 budget of the world.  4% is BTW within the statistical error boundaries of the scientists who calculate that budget...so once again we *MAY*
know how much we are contributing...or we may not.

One thing is certain however.  CO2 levels were vastly higher in the past and no catastrophes occured.  That much we KNOW for certain.  The PETM that olfraud and the rest of the AGW supporters love to trot out as a bad, bad time because of rapid heating was quite the opposite.  

The paleo record shows quite clearly that the PETM was a veritable Garden of Eden.  The massive creation of species and their thriving worldwide is well documented.


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Your problem of course is that if you ignore the past history you will make faulty determinations now.  And all empirical evidence says that that is exactly what has happened to your AGW theories.


----------



## konradv (Dec 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Don't care a bit about your constant dredging up of ancient history.  I'm concerned about what's happening NOW and wondering why you keep avoiding the Conservation of Energy question.  Now you're "lying with statistics" in putting forth this number of a 4% contribution by man by only giving us the annual figure and ignoring the 30-40% CUMULATIVE EFFECT, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





So past experience, current evidence and observed trends mean nothing.

Only the predictions of dire consequence are to be believed?

It's been my experience that finding a credible comparator is a very good indicator of what might happen in similar circumstances and that seems to work pretty well in almost every case.

Adjusting the historic implication to fit fashion rarely creates the highest probablity outcome.

Does CO2 created from the burning of Fossil Fuels have completely a different effect on IR than CO2 from other sources?


----------



## code1211 (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





Volcanoes are a pretty weak source of CO2.  A great one for Sulfur, however.

Sulfur actually works against the GH Effect.

The question, though, relates not to a specific source but rather to a specific non-source.  When CO2 was higher in the past, Man was NOT the source.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





To what temperature should the world have risen already with the CO2 as high as it is given your understanding of the Conservation of Energy?

Here's a better way to do this:

Tell us how warm is should have become 10 years hence and then tell us warm it actually was ten years ago.

This should demonstrate with ample certitude the impact of the Conservation of Energy Theory and how it relates to Global Warming.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





You are saying that something will happen that is not happening.  You say that the cause can be proven by the Conservation of Energy Theory.

Use your theory to prove that what is not happening is happening.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Dec 19, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Yes we KNOW you don't care about scientific exploration.  You have made that ABUNDANTLY clear along with all of your other parrots.  We know.  I am not avoiding the conservation of energy question in the slightest.  You don't understand it one bit.   Tell me what "Conservation of Energy" means to you.

CO2 is used and sequestered every milisecond of every day.  How does CO2 accumulate?
Tell us in the simplest way you know how.  Realise also that the residence time of CO2 is less then 15 years as documented repeatedly in the peer reviewed literature.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


----------



## konradv (Dec 20, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You going from skeptic to denier?  You seem to be denying that CO2 has risen 30-40%, since the I.R.!!!  If you don't deny the rise, I insist you tackle the Conservation of Energy question.


----------

