13 agency report says humans are the dominant cause for climate change

[Old Rocks]

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. -Mark Twain

This is the problem. Two 'experts' look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Which one is right? The truth is that both are almost certainly wrong.

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

You cannot just look back in time for an era with similar CO2 levels because the extra CO2 is mostly human caused, not the result of natural equilibrium.

The Earth has gone through many disturbances to equilibrium and shown itself to be resilient. We are not dangling on the precipice, no tipping point is imminent.

The extra warmth and plant food will help us feed the billions of people here now, with more coming. It is much easier to make the case that over population is a clearer problem than AGW. But that would be politically incorrect. There is no moral high ground to be found there. Or massive funding and political power.

"You cannot just look back in time for an era with similar CO2 levels because the extra CO2 is mostly human caused, not the result of natural equilibrium."

Goddamn, that is a totally brainless statement. CO2 is CO2, whether created by intrusion of a plume on coal beds, or by mankind burning coal. The physics for CO2 do not change simply because it is created by our burning of fossil fuels.

As far as the rest of your post goes, so you are going to go on the political side, which is where you have been all along.

 

[Old Rocks]

Next time this report comes out it'll be 2 dozen agencies. Maybe more!! But could somebody tell me who is actually caring?

And your background in science is what? How many 200 level courses have you taken in any discipline in science?

Typical leftist response, attack the speaker not the point being made. By all means find me a credible source that will state the percentage of global warming that is manmade and the percentage that is natural variation. The fact is there aren't any, period.

Happens all the time in here.......the sourcing could be right there in your face when you click on the link but it NEVER matters to these people. IDK.....not the way I operate and anybody who is in a message board isn't going to fall for the fakery. Might work on the dumbass uninformed of society, but not in here. For example, I'll post up an article from Breitbart on peer reviewed science that doesn't fit the narrative and the only response I get is, "Oh well.......good try, its Breitbart!". But anybody who is paying attention in here can see that the skeptics dominate the information landscape! How does one know? Because every regular alarmist in this forum is perpetually angry and miserable in their posts while the skeptics are always laughing their asses off!!

To me science is all about being a skeptic. People just can't seem to comprehend that science is supposed to be held to a higher standard than "I believe" or "that makes sense". I'm listening to scientists who are studying the sun that openly state that they are barely in the infancy of their studies, meanwhile climatologists act as if they know exactly how solar cycles affect the climate. I'm also listening to physicists and planetary scientists that are saying that from what they understand about the properties of CO2, CO2 can't be the primary culprit. And yet this is supposed to be "settled science"?

I always go back to my favorite quote about science, "What do scientists know? More than you do and less than they think".

Ah yes, a skeptic. LOL A skeptic without any knowledge of the subject about which they are expressing skepticism. That is not a skeptic, that is an ignorant blowhard.

If I'm a blowhard, at least I have good company including former IPCC climatologists and nobel laureates.

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report

"Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions."

Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Measured tropospheric temperatures. Difference between the highest and lowest 1.13, and that is in less than forty years. Lowest points all on the left, highest all on the right. And this is Dr. Christy's graph, who is considered a skeptic. Almost all the alpine glaciers in the world are in rapid recession, the sea ice at both poles are now in decline, both Antarctica and Greenland losing ice. Real time observations show that the world is warming, and doing so at an accelerating rate.

 

[Muhammed]

Apparently Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and The Mango Mussolini himself were just too tired from defending themselves and one another to fight it.

WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”​

Continued:

U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

More of the same pseudoscience bullshit.

The climategate emails proved it was all bullshit a long time ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

'Climategate' merely proved how ignorant you fuckers that kiss the ass of the treasonous fat senile old orange clown are.

 

[elektra]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

 

[elektra]

'Climategate' merely proved how ignorant you fuckers that kiss the ass of the treasonous fat senile old orange clown are.

Yes, and that "treasonous fat senile old orange clown", shows us "fuckers that kiss the ass" that you are the guys that would push the baby's legs into the oven while the NAZI's closed the door.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. -Mark Twain

This is the problem. Two 'experts' look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Which one is right? The truth is that both are almost certainly wrong.

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

You cannot just look back in time for an era with similar CO2 levels because the extra CO2 is mostly human caused, not the result of natural equilibrium.

The Earth has gone through many disturbances to equilibrium and shown itself to be resilient. We are not dangling on the precipice, no tipping point is imminent.

The extra warmth and plant food will help us feed the billions of people here now, with more coming. It is much easier to make the case that over population is a clearer problem than AGW. But that would be politically incorrect. There is no moral high ground to be found there. Or massive funding and political power.

"You cannot just look back in time for an era with similar CO2 levels because the extra CO2 is mostly human caused, not the result of natural equilibrium."

Goddamn, that is a totally brainless statement. CO2 is CO2, whether created by intrusion of a plume on coal beds, or by mankind burning coal. The physics for CO2 do not change simply because it is created by our burning of fossil fuels.

As far as the rest of your post goes, so you are going to go on the political side, which is where you have been all along.

Goldie Crock doesn't have dam clue... Tell me, as temp rises so does biomass and water creation/release of CO2 does as well. Our paltry out put is greatly exaggerated because idiots like you wont take into account NATURAL FACTORS! 4 hundredths of one percent means that man is incapable of creating the rise you keep spouting off about... But hey, your math ability sucks and we know it...

 

[Billy_Bob]

'Climategate' merely proved how ignorant you fuckers that kiss the ass of the treasonous fat senile old orange clown are.

Poor little ass clown crock is butt hurt.. Speaking of ignorant, do you have one piece of quantifiable, repeatable, empirical evidence that shows the linkage of CO2 to any atmospheric warming? (models are not physical evidence, they are fantasy derived fiction because the system they are supposed to model doesn't react like the model showing the model a failure)

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

You are unaware of much of anything, stupid ass. CO2 does not create heat, it absorbs outgoing radiative heat from the Earth. Demonstrated by Tyndall in 1859. Absorption spectra of CO2.

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?
Contents

• CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue
• CO2 sticks around
• What about water vapor?
• Too much of a good thing: the carbon overload
• Long-term perspective

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?

 

[elektra]

You are unaware of much of anything, stupid ass. CO2 does not create heat, it absorbs outgoing radiative heat from the Earth. Demonstrated by Tyndall in 1859. Absorption spectra of CO2.

Nice, CO2 absorbs the heat, which means that if we have more CO2 absorbing heat, the planet cools. Nice, thanks for confirming CO2 is not a problem.

 

[IanC]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

 

[elektra]

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

Nope, I did not miss a thing, no fact has shown that CO2 warms the atmosphere. If you got one, go ahead and post it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

You are unaware of much of anything, stupid ass. CO2 does not create heat, it absorbs outgoing radiative heat from the Earth. Demonstrated by Tyndall in 1859. Absorption spectra of CO2.

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?
Contents

• CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue
• CO2 sticks around
• What about water vapor?
• Too much of a good thing: the carbon overload
• Long-term perspective

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?

This article violates Known Physics of the gas.... Tell me old Crock what is the residency time of the energy in a CO2 molecule? Further, What is the real residency time of this trace gas in our atmosphere? What fraction of the atmosphere is capable of making the earths atmosphere "run away"?

Please provide the links to your work or their quantifiable, repeatable science...

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?

 

[IanC]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?

Non sequitur. The hotspot is a prediction based on faulty understanding of water feedbacks.

I am stating that CO2 warms the atmosphere at the boundary, which returns energy to the surface by various means and causes the equilibrium surface temperature to increase.

Discuss CO2 and stop trying to change the subject.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?

Non sequitur. The hotspot is a prediction based on faulty understanding of water feedbacks.

I am stating that CO2 warms the atmosphere at the boundary, which returns energy to the surface by various means and causes the equilibrium surface temperature to increase.

Discuss CO2 and stop trying to change the subject.

To change temperature at the boundary you must have competing mass/mass knowledge(atmosphere components and their respective responses). How can you determine CO2's capability if you do not have the mass/mass break down and physical evidence of reaction to prove it?

 

[elektra]

CO2 has zero effect on warming.

The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.

It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.

Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.

 

[IanC]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

Do you really not know the simple mechanism that causes the surface and atmosphere to warm up at the boundary?

It's been explained many times, how could you have missed it?

Tell me again, where the atmospheric hot spot is? I have access to satellite data and I cant find it... What are you using as proof of your assertion?

Non sequitur. The hotspot is a prediction based on faulty understanding of water feedbacks.

I am stating that CO2 warms the atmosphere at the boundary, which returns energy to the surface by various means and causes the equilibrium surface temperature to increase.

Discuss CO2 and stop trying to change the subject.

To change temperature at he boundary you must have competing mass/mass knowledge(atmosphere components and their respective responses). How can you determine CO2's capability if you do not have the mass/mass break down and physical evidence of reaction to prove it?

Gobbledygook. CO2 absorbs surface radiation centred on 15 microns that otherwise would escape directly to space if CO2 wasn't there.

 

[IanC]

CO2 has zero effect on warming.

The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.

It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.

Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.

What a naive statement. Water ice can cool things, water steam can heat them. You are confusing the conditions with the substance. Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has zero effect on warming.

The reason there is no proof is simple, the proof does not exist.

It is simple as billiards, when one ball hits the other, there is less energy, not more, not equal.

Either way, CO2 is used to cool stuff. CO2 is technically, great as a replacement for ice.

I wouldn't say zero as mass always has an effect. Dry Ice is good example of barrier/barrier interactions that can be proved. Heat allows the expansion of the Carbon dioxide liquid that is frozen. The chemical reaction of the change from solid->liquid->gas expends energy and thus heat causing cooling. What we don't know is how, CO2 with a very low energy residency time, is able to effect the surrounding mass with such a low atmospheric ratio when solar energy or Black Body energy is applied.