2015, yes, the warmest on record.

[flacaltenn]

CO2 back radiation is there 24 hours a day. If it wasn't -- you wouldn't just have a frozen ass, you'd be missing fingers and toes. IIRC -- CO2 accounts for something like 12degC in the nominal surface temperatures.
(Could be wrong -- look it up)..

sure, just post up that experiment that proves back radiation. Oh that's right you ain't got one. Tell me how warm it is at about 30 thousand feet? And what is the pressure, can you breath there?

Edit, why is there moisture in a greenhouse? And why doesn't the temperatures continue to climb with CO2 added?

I don't need an experiment -- I measure IR photon energy constantly in my work. I know that materials eject IR photons in all directions as a function of their temperature. That's how an IR thermometer works. And the basis for CO2 back radiation is covered in every textbook on Atmos Physics. Furthermore the backradiation HAS been measured reliably and repeatedly for over 60 years.

And the Earth is not literally a GreenHouse. It's just a convienent analogy for folks that don't want to take 4 or 6 semesters of specialized physics. The Earth surface temperatures are NOT just a function of added CO2. That's where the simplistic GW models went off the rails in PREDICTING short term surface warming. But that does not mean that CO2 has NO effect on the general surface temperature of the planet.. It DOES..

Have you SEEN a paper measuring back radiation? I'll certainly provide some for you if you promise to never state you've that it hasn't been done..

sure post up a paper? is it in laymens terms or full of math that I haven't used in my life before and therefore can't understand anyway? I'm open to the challenge.

you act like me being a non scientist I am somehow off base, and yet there are scientist who don't believe. You agree?

Not poking at atcha. Just would like to help you understand how well understood IR radiation is understood. Maybe you should go first with all the "scientists" who don't believe that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas..

So you go me the BEST denier of the GHouse and I'll give you a start on ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of back radiation from the atmosphere..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

REFERENCE NUMBERS 7,8,9 & 14 would probably be the next stuff for you to read..
ENJOY !!!

here's the link!!

Back Radiation | Co2 Insanity

There's a LOT of crap on the Internet. Keying on the phrase "well-mixed gas" is a red herring. Especially when the proof is the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of CO2 from satellite. To wit ---

From the NASA graph below (verify with link here) we can discern distinct and measurable regional variations in CO2 ppmv. So even NASA data itself further puts paid to the bizarre notion that this benign trace gas is “well-mixed” around the globe.

"puts paid to the bizarre notion?"" Hardly son.. Somebody can't read a pseudocolor graph. Take a look at the numeric range of the color chart under the graph. THE ENTIRE COLOR RANGE covers only about 25 or 30ppm.. For a gas whose average concentration is 400ppm. And it's SEASONAL.. It is definitely "well mixed enough" to be a GreenHouse gas. With that pseudo-science outlook on atmos mixing -- you could blame the recent Helium shortage on the fact that it all simply floated off into space -- because it was too light to be captured at the surface.

Nonsense..

 

[flacaltenn]

sure, just post up that experiment that proves back radiation. Oh that's right you ain't got one. Tell me how warm it is at about 30 thousand feet? And what is the pressure, can you breath there?

Edit, why is there moisture in a greenhouse? And why doesn't the temperatures continue to climb with CO2 added?

I don't need an experiment -- I measure IR photon energy constantly in my work. I know that materials eject IR photons in all directions as a function of their temperature. That's how an IR thermometer works. And the basis for CO2 back radiation is covered in every textbook on Atmos Physics. Furthermore the backradiation HAS been measured reliably and repeatedly for over 60 years.

And the Earth is not literally a GreenHouse. It's just a convienent analogy for folks that don't want to take 4 or 6 semesters of specialized physics. The Earth surface temperatures are NOT just a function of added CO2. That's where the simplistic GW models went off the rails in PREDICTING short term surface warming. But that does not mean that CO2 has NO effect on the general surface temperature of the planet.. It DOES..

Have you SEEN a paper measuring back radiation? I'll certainly provide some for you if you promise to never state you've that it hasn't been done..

sure post up a paper? is it in laymens terms or full of math that I haven't used in my life before and therefore can't understand anyway? I'm open to the challenge.

you act like me being a non scientist I am somehow off base, and yet there are scientist who don't believe. You agree?

Not poking at atcha. Just would like to help you understand how well understood IR radiation is understood. Maybe you should go first with all the "scientists" who don't believe that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas..

So you go me the BEST denier of the GHouse and I'll give you a start on ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of back radiation from the atmosphere..

Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer

The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.

1.Aldos-Arboledas, L., Vida, J., Jiménez, J. I., 1988: Effects of solar radiation on the performance of pyrgeometers with silicon domes.J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,5, 666–670.
2.Albrecht, B., Cox, S. K., 1977: Procedures for improving pyrgeometer performance.J. Appl. Meteor.,16, 188–197.
3.Albrecht, B., Poellot, M., Cox, S. K., 1974: Pyrgeometer measurements from aircraft.Rev. Sci. Instrum.,45, 33–38.
4.Anderson, E. R., 1952: Energy budget studies,U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ.,229, 138–144.
5.Bauer, P., Schlüssel, P., 1993: Rainfall, total water, ice water and water vapour over sea from polarized microwave simulations and SSM/I data.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20737–20760.
6.Berdahl, P., Fromberg, R., 1982: The thermal radiance of clear skies,Solar Energy,29, 299–314.
7.Brutsaert, W., 1975: On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies.Water Resour. Res.,11, 742–744.
8.Darnell, W. L., Gupta, S. K., Staylor, W. F., 1983: Downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,22, 1956–1960.
9.Frouin, R., Gautier, C., Morcrette, J. J., 1988: Downward longwave irradiance at the ocean surface from satellite data: Methodology and in situ validation.J. Geophys. Res.,93, 597–619.
10.Gupta, S. K., Darnell, W. L., Staylor, W. F., 1983: A parameterization for downward longwave radiation from satellite meteorological data, Preprints, Fifth Conf. on Atmospheric Radiation, Baltimore, 436–439.
11.Hinzpeter, H., 1977: Atmospheric radiation instruments.Atmospheric Radiation, 491–507.
12.Hollweg, H. D., 1993: A k distribution method considering centres and wings of atmospheric absorption lines.J. Geophys. Res.,98, 2747–2756.
13.Idso, S. B., 1981: A set of equations for the full spectrum and 8–14 micron and 10.5–12.5 micron thermal radiation from cloudless skies.Water Resour. Res.,17, 295–304.
14.Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., 1969: Thermal radiation from the atmosphere.J. Geophys. Res.,74, 5397–5403.
15.Lind, R. J., Katsaros, K. B., 1982: A model of longwave irradiance for use with surface observations.J. Appl. Meteor.,2, 1015–1023.
16.Martin, M., Berdahl, P., 1984: characteristics of infrared sky radiation in the United States.Solar Energy,33, 321–336.
17.McClatchey, R. A., Fenn, R. W., Selby, J. E. A., Volz, F. E., Garing, J. S., 1972: Optical properties of the atmosphere, AFCRL-Report 72-0497.
18.Morcrette, J. J., Deschamps, P. Y., 1986: Downward longwave radiation at the surface in clear-sky atmosphere: comparison of measured, satellite-derived and calculated fluxes, ISLSCP Conference, Rome, Italy, ESA SP-248, 257–261.
19.Ramanathan, V., Subasilar, B., Zhang, G. J., Conant, W., Cess, R. D., Kiehl, J. T., Grassl, H., Shi, L., 1995: Warm pool heat budget and shortwave cloud forcing: A missing physics?Science,267, 499–503.
20.Schlüssel, P., Emery, W. J., 1990: Atmospheric water vapour over oceans from SSM/I measurements.Int. J. Remote Sens.,11, 705–721.
21.Schlüssel, P., Schanz, L., Englisch, G., 1995: Retrieval of latent heat flux and longwave irradiance at the sea surface from SSM/I and AVHRR measurements.Adv. Space Res., (10)107–(10)116.
22.Schmetz, J., 1989: Towards a surface radiation climatology: Retrieval of downward irradiances from satellites.Atmos. Res.,23, 287–321.
23.Schmetz, J., 1991: Retrieval of radiation fluxes from satellite data.Dynam. Atmosph. Oceans,16, 61–72.
24.Schmetz, P., Schmetz, J., Raschke, E., 1986: Estimation of daytime downward longwave radiation at the surface from satellite and grid point data.Theor. Appl. Climatol.,37, 136–149.
25.Smith, W. L., Woolf, H. M., 1983: Geostationary satellite sounder (VAS) observations of longwave radiation flux. Conf. on Satellite Systems to Measure Radiation Budget Parameters and Climate Change Signal, International Radiation Commission, Igls, Austria.
26.Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., 1991: Free software helps map and display data.Trans. Am. Geophys. U.,72, 441 and 445–446.

REFERENCE NUMBERS 7,8,9 & 14 would probably be the next stuff for you to read..
ENJOY !!!

here's the link!!

Back Radiation | Co2 Insanity

There's a LOT of crap on the Internet. Keying on the phrase "well-mixed gas" is a red herring. Especially when the proof is the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of CO2 from satellite. To wit ---

From the NASA graph below (verify with link here) we can discern distinct and measurable regional variations in CO2 ppmv. So even NASA data itself further puts paid to the bizarre notion that this benign trace gas is “well-mixed” around the globe.

"puts paid to the bizarre notion?"" Hardly son.. Somebody can't read a pseudocolor graph. Take a look at the numeric range of the color chart under the graph. THE ENTIRE COLOR RANGE covers only about 25 or 30ppm.. For a gas whose average concentration is 400ppm. And it's SEASONAL.. It is definitely "well mixed enough" to be a GreenHouse gas. With that pseudo-science outlook on atmos mixing -- you could blame the recent Helium shortage on the fact that it all simply floated off into space -- because it was too light to be captured at the surface.

Nonsense..

The IPCC argument over a "well mixed gas" has nothing to do with the GROSS Worldwide distribution in the atmos.. It's a finer argument over measuring CO2 concentrations in places like Mauna Loa which is an island with an active freaking VOLCANO on it.. Or in general, measuring it in the presence of water vapor.

Conspiracy theories always start with some fact that is then misinterpreted, redefined and worked into a frenzy. And THIS is a conspiracy theory..

 

[flacaltenn]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID, NON-SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE WAS THAT???????

Oh, the AGWCult is happy, hmmmkap

If your so certain that CO2 will not impede IR heat loss --- will ya volunteer for MY experiment at Post 46.. I want to put you and SSDD and Jc into a well insulated and mirrored room exposed to a frigid night sky with a couple yards of transparent ceiling in it. We'll pump just outside air into the ceiling until your teeth chatter and then start increasing the CO2 concentrations until you stop turning blue..

You game??

 

[jc456]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID, NON-SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE WAS THAT???????

Oh, the AGWCult is happy, hmmmkap

If your so certain that CO2 will not impede IR heat loss --- will ya volunteer for MY experiment at Post 46.. I want to put you and SSDD and Jc into a well insulated and mirrored room exposed to a frigid night sky with a couple yards of transparent ceiling in it. We'll pump just outside air into the ceiling until your teeth chatter and then start increasing the CO2 concentrations until you stop turning blue..

You game??

not to be a smart ass, but why wouldn't we use CO2 rather than have furnaces? Why argon gas in window panes and not CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID, NON-SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE WAS THAT???????

Oh, the AGWCult is happy, hmmmkap

If your so certain that CO2 will not impede IR heat loss --- will ya volunteer for MY experiment at Post 46.. I want to put you and SSDD and Jc into a well insulated and mirrored room exposed to a frigid night sky with a couple yards of transparent ceiling in it. We'll pump just outside air into the ceiling until your teeth chatter and then start increasing the CO2 concentrations until you stop turning blue..

You game??

Not interesed. Going from 280 to 400 ppm will have effect on temperature.

 

[9aces]

Hmm. So you say that the earth has been cooling for 6 to 8,000 years? OK. So that means that 8,000 years ago, the earth was warmer than it is now. Now tell me, was the earth of 8,000 years ago(and according to you, warmer) an inhospitable place?

No, because it was less than 0.5C warmer.

The amount of warming matters. We're already at around 0.9C, and that's causing problems. 2.0C is unavoidable, and that will be painful. 4.0C would be catastrophic. That's what we're trying to avoid.

Odd, it's been much higher than 4.0C higher than now, wasn't catastrophic then, and man didn't cause it, just like he's not causing it now.

 

[flacaltenn]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID, NON-SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE WAS THAT???????

Oh, the AGWCult is happy, hmmmkap

If your so certain that CO2 will not impede IR heat loss --- will ya volunteer for MY experiment at Post 46.. I want to put you and SSDD and Jc into a well insulated and mirrored room exposed to a frigid night sky with a couple yards of transparent ceiling in it. We'll pump just outside air into the ceiling until your teeth chatter and then start increasing the CO2 concentrations until you stop turning blue..

You game??

Not interesed. Going from 280 to 400 ppm will have effect on temperature.

You're chicken.. That's your experiment.. Gonna get funding from NOAA.. Your chance to BE the experiment..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID, NON-SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE WAS THAT???????

Oh, the AGWCult is happy, hmmmkap

If your so certain that CO2 will not impede IR heat loss --- will ya volunteer for MY experiment at Post 46.. I want to put you and SSDD and Jc into a well insulated and mirrored room exposed to a frigid night sky with a couple yards of transparent ceiling in it. We'll pump just outside air into the ceiling until your teeth chatter and then start increasing the CO2 concentrations until you stop turning blue..

You game??

Not interesed. Going from 280 to 400 ppm will have effect on temperature.

You're chicken.. That's your experiment.. Gonna get funding from NOAA.. Your chance to BE the experiment..

Yeah right. I'm terrified of the Cat 5 hurricanes you'll create with the 120 ppn of CO2.

 

[flacaltenn]

We've conducted experiments to demonstrate magnetism can create an electric current, we've conducted countless experiments to demonstrate anti-particles, but none can show a single experiment demonstrating how 120ppm of CO2 will increase temperature or change the climate of planet Earth.

AGW: It just's not science, folks

As I said before the AGW community is satisfied that CO2 has an effect. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong; they have the world under their thumb now. They have no motivation to prove to the world or prove to themselves AGW is right or wrong. So who is going to do your particular experiment? Try whining at the NIPCC or Heritage foundation or some such organization to do the experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

WHAT KIND OF STUPID, NON-SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE WAS THAT???????

Oh, the AGWCult is happy, hmmmkap

If your so certain that CO2 will not impede IR heat loss --- will ya volunteer for MY experiment at Post 46.. I want to put you and SSDD and Jc into a well insulated and mirrored room exposed to a frigid night sky with a couple yards of transparent ceiling in it. We'll pump just outside air into the ceiling until your teeth chatter and then start increasing the CO2 concentrations until you stop turning blue..

You game??

not to be a smart ass, but why wouldn't we use CO2 rather than have furnaces? Why argon gas in window panes and not CO2?

U want an experiment to prove the CO2 can retain IR radiative heat. There it is. Wanna be famous? All I need is few volunteers to strip their undies to make them better IR black body radiators.

Argon is not reactive with anything. You blow out the moisture and air in a window pane with CO2 and it will eventually turn to a mild acid.. And I doubt they use a lot of Argon in commercial panes. More likely Nitrogen or some other primary gas..

 

[mamooth]

Odd, it's been much higher than 4.0C higher than now,

Not since humans have been around. Where are you getting this nonsense?

wasn't catastrophic then,

So the destruction of agriculture and the inundation of the living area of billions of people wouldn't be a problem? Interesting.

and man didn't cause it, just like he's not causing it now.

"Because I say so!" is not going to convince anyone outside of your cult.

 

[flacaltenn]

Odd, it's been much higher than 4.0C higher than now,

Not since humans have been around. Where are you getting this nonsense?

wasn't catastrophic then,

So the destruction of agriculture and the inundation of the living area of billions of people wouldn't be a problem? Interesting.

and man didn't cause it, just like he's not causing it now.

"Because I say so!" is not going to convince anyone outside of your cult.

Well maybe not 4degC -- but certainly 1 or 2degC.. You can see that is in the range of variance of numerous SINGLE proxy studies globally.

 

[9aces]

Odd, it's been much higher than 4.0C higher than now,

Not since humans have been around. Where are you getting this nonsense?

wasn't catastrophic then,

So the destruction of agriculture and the inundation of the living area of billions of people wouldn't be a problem? Interesting.

and man didn't cause it, just like he's not causing it now.

"Because I say so!" is not going to convince anyone outside of your cult.

The earth existed long before humans walked the planet. Despite what you seem to think, it managed to do pretty much the same thing as far as temperature variations throughout its history. As to the last time, ever hear of something called the Eocene Epoch? Wasn't that long ago.

It'd be a problem to the people living on coastlines, assuming they're dumb enough to stay there when the planet does warm up consistent with its previous warming cycles. If they're dumb enough to stay there...drown, I care not saving people too stupid to save themselves. Hint: The planet doesn't care either. Every so often you might have noticed it kills off a bunch to weed out the stupid. Since we're well supplied with the stupid, bout time for her to hit the reset button again.

Global climate history indicates warming/cooling cycles remarkably similar to what we see today are the norm for the planet. Your problem is you're taking the short view based off a fraction of the data available. Expand your horizons to millions of years, and you'll see the picture changes.

 

[mamooth]

The earth existed long before humans walked the planet. Despite what you seem to think, it managed to do pretty much the same thing as far as temperature variations throughout its history.

No, never before in planetary history has the earth seen a rate of warming like this.

As to the last time, ever hear of something called the Eocene Epoch? Wasn't that long ago.

Were humans engaged in agriculture during the Eocene Epoch? No? Then it doesn't seem relevant to the issue that a 4.0C increase would devastate human agriculture and cause mass starvation.

It'd be a problem to the people living on coastlines, assuming they're dumb enough to stay there when the planet does warm up consistent with its previous warming cycles. If they're dumb enough to stay there...drown, I care not saving people too stupid to save themselves.

So take it you're volunteering to let them move in with you? If you won't, it would seem smart of those people to take your property by force. After all, the alternative for them would be death. Rational people, of course, want to avoid creating such a situation in the first place.

Hint: The planet doesn't care either. Every so often you might have noticed it kills off a bunch to weed out the stupid.

I know this will upset you because it contradicts the Gaian cult that you're obviously a member of, but the earth is not a sentient entity.

Since we're well supplied with the stupid, bout time for her to hit the reset button again.

Oh, so you're genocidal. Why didn't you just say so? Everyone would have known to shun you earlier. "Tralala, let's just kill a few billion!".

Global climate history indicates warming/cooling cycles remarkably similar to what we see today are the norm for the planet. Your problem is you're taking the short view based off a fraction of the data available. Expand your horizons to millions of years, and you'll see the picture changes.

Your problem is that you don't know the history of earth's climate, so you make incorrect conclusions based on your ignorance. You also fail at logic, not being able to comprehend that when human civilization has grown up around a rather stable climate, suddenly changing that climate disrupts human civilization. This is not a world of hunter-gatherers who can just move. All the habitable land on earth is already claimed by someone, and the possessors won't allow newcomers to just move in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The earth existed long before humans walked the planet. Despite what you seem to think, it managed to do pretty much the same thing as far as temperature variations throughout its history.

No, never before in planetary history has the earth seen a rate of warming like this.

As to the last time, ever hear of something called the Eocene Epoch? Wasn't that long ago.

Were humans engaged in agriculture during the Eocene Epoch? No? Then it doesn't seem relevant to the issue that a 4.0C increase would devastate human agriculture and cause mass starvation.

It'd be a problem to the people living on coastlines, assuming they're dumb enough to stay there when the planet does warm up consistent with its previous warming cycles. If they're dumb enough to stay there...drown, I care not saving people too stupid to save themselves.

So take it you're volunteering to let them move in with you? If you won't, it would seem smart of those people to take your property by force. After all, the alternative for them would be death. Rational people, of course, want to avoid creating such a situation in the first place.

Hint: The planet doesn't care either. Every so often you might have noticed it kills off a bunch to weed out the stupid.

I know this will upset you because it contradicts the Gaian cult that you're obviously a member of, but the earth is not a sentient entity.

Since we're well supplied with the stupid, bout time for her to hit the reset button again.

Oh, so you're genocidal. Why didn't you just say so? Everyone would have known to shun you earlier. "Tralala, let's just kill a few billion!".

Global climate history indicates warming/cooling cycles remarkably similar to what we see today are the norm for the planet. Your problem is you're taking the short view based off a fraction of the data available. Expand your horizons to millions of years, and you'll see the picture changes.

Your problem is that you don't know the history of earth's climate, so you make incorrect conclusions based on your ignorance. You also fail at logic, not being able to comprehend that when human civilization has grown up around a rather stable climate, suddenly changing that climate disrupts human civilization. This is not a world of hunter-gatherers who can just move. All the habitable land on earth is already claimed by someone, and the possessors won't allow newcomers to just move in.

LOL@ "No, never before in planetary history has the earth seen a rate of warming like this."

 

[9aces]

The earth existed long before humans walked the planet. Despite what you seem to think, it managed to do pretty much the same thing as far as temperature variations throughout its history.

No, never before in planetary history has the earth seen a rate of warming like this.

As to the last time, ever hear of something called the Eocene Epoch? Wasn't that long ago.

Were humans engaged in agriculture during the Eocene Epoch? No? Then it doesn't seem relevant to the issue that a 4.0C increase would devastate human agriculture and cause mass starvation.

It'd be a problem to the people living on coastlines, assuming they're dumb enough to stay there when the planet does warm up consistent with its previous warming cycles. If they're dumb enough to stay there...drown, I care not saving people too stupid to save themselves.

So take it you're volunteering to let them move in with you? If you won't, it would seem smart of those people to take your property by force. After all, the alternative for them would be death. Rational people, of course, want to avoid creating such a situation in the first place.

Hint: The planet doesn't care either. Every so often you might have noticed it kills off a bunch to weed out the stupid.

I know this will upset you because it contradicts the Gaian cult that you're obviously a member of, but the earth is not a sentient entity.

Since we're well supplied with the stupid, bout time for her to hit the reset button again.

Oh, so you're genocidal. Why didn't you just say so? Everyone would have known to shun you earlier. "Tralala, let's just kill a few billion!".

Global climate history indicates warming/cooling cycles remarkably similar to what we see today are the norm for the planet. Your problem is you're taking the short view based off a fraction of the data available. Expand your horizons to millions of years, and you'll see the picture changes.

Your problem is that you don't know the history of earth's climate, so you make incorrect conclusions based on your ignorance. You also fail at logic, not being able to comprehend that when human civilization has grown up around a rather stable climate, suddenly changing that climate disrupts human civilization. This is not a world of hunter-gatherers who can just move. All the habitable land on earth is already claimed by someone, and the possessors won't allow newcomers to just move in.

We have at least 4 that aren't just worse, they're a lot worse.

The Pre-Cambrian Era
The Silurian Epoch
The Permian Epoch
The Eocene Epoch

As for mass starvation. Again, man can't start a trend, can't stop one. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. At best man speeds it or slows it fractionally. Better off spending the treasure of nations on something useful. This also is a trend that will take millions of years. You act like Denver's going to be a new beach resort next week.

I'm not arguing to kill a few billion, I just know everyone walking this planet now will be long dead before that could even become a possibility...and there's nothing man could do to stop it.

You seem to think human civilization trumps all. It doesn't. Earth is our home, but its an environment that changes, and has changed throughout its history. Those who can adapt have thrived. Those who can't...don't.

 

[Wuwei]

f your so certain that CO2 will not impede IR heat loss --- will ya volunteer for MY experiment at Post 46.. I want to put you and SSDD and Jc into a well insulated and mirrored room exposed to a frigid night sky with a couple yards of transparent ceiling in it. We'll pump just outside air into the ceiling until your teeth chatter and then start increasing the CO2 concentrations until you stop turning blue..

I think those three aren't the best choice. SSDD will deny that he is hot or cold, and the others will give him a "Winner" rating. But I guess if we gag them and tape thermistors to their foreheads it would work. Don't forget billy bob.

 

[Crick]

Why do you folks (deniers) have such apparent difficulty comprehending the relative irrelevance of conditions that occurred millions of years before the rise of homo sapiens and took hundreds of thousands of years or more to come about?

 

[9aces]

Why do you folks (deniers) have such apparent difficulty comprehending the relative irrelevance of conditions that occurred millions of years before the rise of homo sapiens and took hundreds of thousands of years or more to come about?

Mostly because we look at the data. You should try it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frank, I have two cars: a Mercedes Benz C-240 and a Mercedes Benz C-6.3 AMG. I'm just making these numbers up but let's say the former has 200 horsepower while the latter has 450. If I tell you only this and never actually give you any speed data, would you argue that you cannot tell which of the two is capable of greater acceleration? That is, can you or can you not tell me which will win a quarter-mile drag race?

Until you define what each of those are YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE WHICH ONE IS FASTER..

That's the problem with alarmists and anti-science idiots. they dont want to do the work to figure out that one car is only 4,200 lbs, the other 6,900lbs and how the motor/trans combinations might propel them. For all I know your other car is a dam rock, but this is like saying CO2 will do X and have no empirical evidence to show it.

 

[Crick]

Why would you argue - as many of you have - that we should not worry about any climate change that can be shown to have occurred at any time in the Earth's past? Particularly, why would you make such an argument when conditions are changing many, many TIMES faster than they did in the past. The last time the ocean acidified at the rate its currently experiencing, the Earth suffered the worst mass extinction in the history of life on this planet. The reason that is so is clearly understood. All the arguments one hears about high CO2 in the past not causing problem refer to instances when such a rise to hundreds or thousands of centuries to take place. When it happens as fast as it is happening NOW, there is nowhere near enough time for aragonite and limestone weathering in the world's mountains to buffer the oceans.

But, hey, nothing to concern yourself about. You've read the data. Yeah... uhh... what data, exactly, would that be?