2009 second warmest year on record

[Chris]

It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie. Liars figure. AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt. That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement. Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

A simpleton sees people and CO2, so they jump to the conclusion there is a realtionship. No Chris, the largest ice cap in the world is growing. 72% of the total ice caps on the planet are in growth mode. 89% of data sites in the US don't meet standards set by the agency in charge of gathering the information. Inconvenient facts I am sure, but facts in the less.

Making up "facts" is what you do best.

I really feel bad for you having to lie like that.

 

[Chris]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

The syllogism and some of the premises.

I realize that to you this is no big deal, but your simplistic effort to dumb it down to suit your petty needs is an obvious ploy.

You again cite "data" but in light of the deliberate manipulation of and suppression of data by the AGW Fiather scientists, the data is in doubt.

CO2, by the way, may contribute to warming, but there is no concrete proof that it causes warming. In fact, it has also been scientifically suggested that when we see increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we are witnessing a RESULT of heating, not a cause of heating. Thus, we may see heat and CO2 increasing (apparently) in tandem, but there is reason to doubt a causal connection along the simplistiic lines you always claim. (That's just an article of Faith for your AGW Faithers.)

Interestingly, if there even has been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 (another bit of data which is suspect because of the fact that AGW Faithers have screwed with the data), you have yet to establish that the alleged increase is the result of human activity.

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

No, it has not been scientifically suggested that the CO2 that we are seeing at present in the atmosphere is the result of heating. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that the increase in the CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels. This was done through isotopic studies in the late 1950s. Scripps Institute of Oceanagraphy.

You are presenting yourself as one truly dumb ass. Where in the hell do you think the CO2 goes when you burn a ton of coal for power? The burning of one ton of coal creates 2 1/2 tons of CO2. It goes out the smoke stack into the atmosphere. We know, from power plant records around the world, how much coal we are burning. So we know how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere from that source. Same for oil and natural gas. We know how much we use, and that the results of that use are vented into the atmosphere.

 

[saveliberty]

The ice is melting. That is without question.

All the scientists in the world are not involved is a giant conspiracy.

It is certainly NOT the case that "all the scientists in the world" agree with your fruadulent contention.

Figures lie. Liars figure. AGW Faither "scientists" lie and use cooked figures.

When the temperature in an area climbs above 32 degrees F., ice does melt. That much is true.

As for anything else claimed by the likes of Chrissy, solid proof is now an absolute requirement. Citation to the "data" used by a bunch of AGW Faither/"scientists" is suspect in all cases.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have increased the temperature of the earth.

What part of this is untrue?

The we parts for starters. Actually gravity retains pretty much everything. The earth is the same temperature, the atmosphere may or may not be warmer.

 

[Oddball]

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

In a closed controlled environment, not a dynamic one.

This very relevant detail has been pointed out to you uncounted times, but since it contravenes your warmist religion it just bounces off your pointy little head.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Well, let's assume that warming increases CO2 and cooling decreases CO2 rather than CO2 being the causal agent. Denier whackos claim we have been COOLING for the last 11 years.
So why has CO2 continued to increase during these last 11 years of global cooling??????????????

Warming does release CO2, so I will "assume" that fact.

Cooling may decrease the release of CO2 and it ight also assist in the process(es) of reabsorption of CO2. So, I will assume THAT, too.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you say silly shit about denier wackos or you suggest that "they" maintain we have been cooling for 11 years. So I will make no such "assumption."

Now, then, let's see if we can address your final "question."

Nope. It would require accepting your stupid final "premise."

CO2 has continued to be released, however, by human-kind during the past 11 years. However, we do not know all the variables associated with reabosrption of CO2 nor can we make a good guess as to the time-lag associated with increased natural release of CO2 OR its reabsorption.

I am sorry to step on the big toe of your Faith.

As I have said, when CON$ get caught lying they play dumb and just keep on lying.

Deniers have been claiming for years that global warming stopped since 1998.

I simply put you on the horns of a dilemma, do you admit you are lying about CO2 or do you admit the deniers are lying about cooling.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph

Prepare for Cooling, not Warming
By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris Friday, October 5, 2007
The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030.

Global Climate Chaos: Climate cooling since 1998
"The Earth is not warming. The 28-year period of warming between 1970 and 1998 stopped dead in its tracks, and the climate has been cooling ever since.

Meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman put it this way: In the face of a rapidly cooling planet, all the proponents of global warming can do is to lamely suggest that global warming has gone on vacation and is taking a 10-year hiatus on account of the absence of sun spots.

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

Is there global cooling.com - Home
1998 was a warm year but the eleven years since have each been cooler, global temperatures have dropped an average of .6 degrees C in this period (according to UAH)

FNC?s Pinkerton Corrects FNC?s Kennedy on Global Warming: ?Cooling Since 1998' | NewsBusters.org
On Saturday’s Fox News Watch on FNC, regular panel member Jim Pinkerton of the conservative New America Foundation corrected fellow panel member Douglas Kennedy – an FNC correspondent and son of former New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy – as Kennedy asserted that "you don't have to be a scientist to know that the world is getting hotter," and that "that's objective reporting to say that the world is getting hotter."

Pinkerton responded: "Actually, it’s inaccurate reporting to say that. The world has been cooling since 1998."

The World Has Been Cooling Since 1998 AConservativeEdge
Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate. Official government measurements show that the world’s temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998. That’s given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change.

Scientic data collected since 1998 - the Earth is Cooling, not Warming inspite of rising CO2 levels. Go figure.
Carbon Dioxide or Carbon is not the culprit, Global Warming is a misnomer, the Earth has been cooling since 1998 as is the Pacific Ocean and evidence of 24% rise in the extent of summer Polar ice since 1998.

Maybe it has been getting cooler. One thing we know for sure: we can't rely on the AGW Faither tampered-with "data."

That's one of the major problems with your AGW Faithers. You lie and lie and lie, and then you rely on fraudulent "data" to make it appear that you are being the objective ones.

But your credibility in general is long since gone.

Not yours in particular, edthesickdick. You never had any to begin with.

 

[Toronado3800]

Just wanted you all to know I haven't changed my opinion that dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into a dynamic environment most likely has the same effect as increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in a controlled environment.

Seems like a wishful thinking jump of logic that it doesn't.

So until I feel a need to warm the planet to stall another ice age or something ridiculous like that I'm for not being lazy and forcing some emissions controls on folks. Just like big government stepped in and made people in St. Louis stop heating their homes with dirty coal for the best.

When I have new info or see new info I'll comment more. Sometimes it seems like we'd have one heck of a party if we put a quarter in the beer fund every time we rehashed the same points on this topic lol

 

[Charles Stucker]

Just wanted you all to know I haven't changed my opinion that dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into a dynamic environment most likely has the same effect as increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in a controlled environment.

Seems like a wishful thinking jump of logic that it doesn't.

So until I feel a need to warm the planet to stall another ice age or something ridiculous like that I'm for not being lazy and forcing some emissions controls on folks.

Then why not mandate smaller vehicles?
Why not enforce a 55mph speed limit with vehicles optimised for fuel efficiency at said limit?
Why not tell people that they cannot set their thermostats above 60 when heating or below 80 when cooling?
Why not ration Gasoline, Electricity, and everything else.
At some point you would effectively start limitting emissions.

The current steps are hapazard and ineffective, but one must expect that because politicians are renowned for their lack of scientific understanding.
Unfortunately for AGW folks the data is moderately inconclusive.

As to why the icecaps might melt - particulate carbon trapped in the icesheets exacerbated by a slight rise in temperatures, raised the surface temperature of the ice. As the ice melted the carbon, accumulated over the century of the early industrial revolution, kept sinking lower and foming a sunlight trap on ethe ice itself. Now witht he ice melted, the caps can form again without so many the carbon particles. Which is exactly what seems to be happening.

 

[Big Fitz]

Zander, your poetic abilities are just as great as your abilities to back up your nonsense with facts.

Poetry Reading????????

Well, this is at least better than the third worst poetry in the galaxy. No organs will burst.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

In a closed controlled environment, not a dynamic one.

This very relevant detail has been pointed out to you uncounted times, but since it contravenes your warmist religion it just bounces off your pointy little head.

OK, I apologize. I did not realize the depths of your ignorance.

The absorbtion spectra of a gas does not change, whether it is in a tube, a box, or the open atmosphere.

I can plainly see that you have not even had high school physics or chemistry.

 

[Big Fitz]

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

In a closed controlled environment, not a dynamic one.

This very relevant detail has been pointed out to you uncounted times, but since it contravenes your warmist religion it just bounces off your pointy little head.

OK, I apologize. I did not realize the depths of your ignorance.

The absorbtion spectra of a gas does not change, whether it is in a tube, a box, or the open atmosphere.

I can plainly see that you have not even had high school physics or chemistry.

Would this be the same data where they made the mistake of making it an infinitely deep atmosphere?

Then upon realization, they corrected the error, and warming did not occur?

 

[saveliberty]

Are you working at being stupid? The absorbtion spectra of CO2 was defined by Tyndal in 1858.

In a closed controlled environment, not a dynamic one.

This very relevant detail has been pointed out to you uncounted times, but since it contravenes your warmist religion it just bounces off your pointy little head.

OK, I apologize. I did not realize the depths of your ignorance.

The absorbtion spectra of a gas does not change, whether it is in a tube, a box, or the open atmosphere.

I can plainly see that you have not even had high school physics or chemistry.

Why here's an interesting little article for you Old Rocks:

Explanations of the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.

CO2 Absorption Spectrum

There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.

What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.

It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.

Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.


Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.



A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug's paper.

Heinz Hug* showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.

The outer edges of the shoulders of the absorption peaks are said to be unsaturated, because they don't absorb all radiation available to them. The unsaturated area is virtually nonexistent. The image at right shows how the distance of absorption increases as shoulder molecules get thinner. Where the molecules are one tenth the density, the distance is ten times as much, which is 100 meters. Where the density of one hundredth, the distance is 1,000 meters. Where is the unsaturation supposed to be? Fake equations are contrived to show a result in contradiction to the obvious logic.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just wanted you all to know I haven't changed my opinion that dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into a dynamic environment most likely has the same effect as increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in a controlled environment.

Seems like a wishful thinking jump of logic that it doesn't.

So until I feel a need to warm the planet to stall another ice age or something ridiculous like that I'm for not being lazy and forcing some emissions controls on folks.

Then why not mandate smaller vehicles?

Because there are people that need larger vehicles.

Why not enforce a 55mph speed limit with vehicles optimised for fuel efficiency at said limit?

Ever drive from Oregon the North Dakota?

Why not tell people that they cannot set their thermostats above 60 when heating or below 80 when cooling?

Why not charge the real price of the coal? The cost of the environmental pollution. The medical cost of the asthma and other respitory illnesses? Then ecourage people the generate their own power.

Why not ration Gasoline, Electricity, and everything else.

We do that already. It is called market pricing.

At some point you would effectively start limitting emissions.

Why not an effective energy policy like Germany? Why should we have the most advanced solar manufacturer, First Solar, building their biggest and most modern plants in Germany because we have no real energy policy?

The current steps are hapazard and ineffective, but one must expect that because politicians are renowned for their lack of scientific understanding.

Now, unfortunetly, that is true. And true of the average American.

Unfortunately for AGW folks the data is moderately inconclusive.

What is inconclusive about the data? That CO2 is a major greenhouse gas? That was established in 1858.

The scientific community established that we are the cause of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere in 1957.

What is inconclusive about the fact that the ice caps are melting? What is inconclusive about the alpine glaciers melting? What is inconclusive in the melting of the Permafrost?

And what is inconclusive about the fact that the worst predictions of the real climatologists were far too optimistic? Nobody predicted the outgassing of the clathrates would begin in 2008. No one predicted the loss in volume and area of North Polar Ice Cap in the last 5 years.


As to why the icecaps might melt - particulate carbon trapped in the icesheets exacerbated by a slight rise in temperatures, raised the surface temperature of the ice.

Slight rise in temperature? 2 to 5 degrees over the area of the Arctic is not a slight rise in temperature.
As the ice melted the carbon, accumulated over the century of the early industrial revolution, kept sinking lower and foming a sunlight trap on ethe ice itself. Now witht he ice melted, the caps can form again without so many the carbon particles. Which is exactly what seems to be happening.

No, that is not at all what is happening. Right now, the area of the North Polar Ice Cap is right now 12% lower than it was last year at this time.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

 

[Old Rocks]

Explanations of the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.

Gary Novak. A microbiologist with no experiance or peer reviewed publication in the field of climatology.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.

Simple Models of Climate

Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.

 

[saveliberty]

Explanations of the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.

Gary Novak. A microbiologist with no experiance or peer reviewed publication in the field of climatology.

Finally, someone who is actually qualified! Of course, you require someone to be in climatology to be an expert on CO2 gas. Did you give that a lot of thought?

 

[Oddball]

Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.

Simple Models of Climate

Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.

STFU and watch yo daddy on the teevee, you heathen!

 

[saveliberty]

Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.

Simple Models of Climate

Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.

Interesting how CO2 gas has different properties when your physicist uses it and when the rest of us observe it.

 

[Old Rocks]

In a closed controlled environment, not a dynamic one.

This very relevant detail has been pointed out to you uncounted times, but since it contravenes your warmist religion it just bounces off your pointy little head.

OK, I apologize. I did not realize the depths of your ignorance.

The absorbtion spectra of a gas does not change, whether it is in a tube, a box, or the open atmosphere.

I can plainly see that you have not even had high school physics or chemistry.

Would this be the same data where they made the mistake of making it an infinitely deep atmosphere?

Then upon realization, they corrected the error, and warming did not occur?

Damn. Another grade school dropout!

How about the very finate atmosphere of Venus? I realize that all that CO2 in that atmosphere only affected the temperature a little. After all, we can all live in an environment that lead melts in, right?

Once again. Basic science from the physicists. American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The physicists are the ones that write this article. Their scientific society, and that of all the rest of the scientific societies around the world state unequivecoly that GHGs are the primary driver of the warming that we are seeing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.

Simple Models of Climate

Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.

Interesting how CO2 gas has different properties when your physicist uses it and when the rest of us observe it.

You are observing it how? Have you done an absorbtion spectra of it? Have you measured a beam of infrared in and out of an atmosphere that contains CO2?

No, the fact is that you are simply doing yap-yap. You have not even done the most basic research to see what the facts are. And you will not do that research, ever!

 

[Old Rocks]

Rather than a man with no credentials in the fields of either physics or climatology, here is an article from the American Institute of physics.

Simple Models of Climate

Now I know that it absolutely is against your religion of denial to actually listen to physicist on physics. Because absorbtion spectra and the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases lies in the realms of physics, not microbiology.

STFU and watch yo daddy on the teevee, you heathen!

Doodeee....., you have already shown yourself to be an absolute scientific ignoramous.

So go back to mindlessly repeating the rantings of drugged out radio jocks. It is all one can expect of you.