2015, yes, the warmest on record.

[Billy_Bob]

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.

I doubt you would get 0.5 deg C with your box stacked with people. (most of that heat change would be from their breath of a warmer black body.) SO called "Back Radiation" is severely over hyped and at the levels of CO2 were talking (up to 6,000ppm) is a non-issue. The returned to surface photons have little to no impact as saturation above 400ppm is nearly a flat line for temperature influence.. And water vapor will not be your friend.

 

[Crick]

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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let's see if Billy or any of the deniers can answer this extremely basic statistics problem.

You have the following data set of independent temperature readings.

13, 15, 10, 14, 12

The error on each reading is 0.50

What's the average temperature, and what's the error of the average?

GO For it.. Show me how stupid you really are.. I'll wait!

 

[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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

Moron.. YOU DIDN'T DEFINE THEM! That is POOR SCIENCE! You made assumptions that everyone knows how you think and what you think you know.

This is why science MUST be repeated and verifiable. And you have yet to prove CO2 raises temperature in earths atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

If it works as you propose, why don't you have any lab experiments?

 

[Crick]

Science neither requires, nor allows omniscience. There are always limits on what you know. There are always things that would be truly helpful to know that you'll never be able to determine. If you can't pick the car most likely to win that drag race, don't bother telling us ANYTHING you ever think you've figured out on ANY topic because every time we're simply going to say you don't have enough information to come to a conclusion.

Moron

 

[Crick]

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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

If it works as you propose, why don't you have any lab experiments?

That's the point, Frank. We do. They're right here where they've always been.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

If it works as you propose, why don't you have any lab experiments?

That's the point, Frank. We do. They're right here where they've always been.

LOL!!!!

A chart with no temperature axis "Proving" that a 120ppm increase in CO2 raises temperature!

That's fucking hilarious! You're a trained monkey!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I hear the AGW Cult pays people to post their stupid stuff on Internet Boards.

 

[Crick]

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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

If it works as you propose, why don't you have any lab experiments?

That's the point, Frank. We do. They're right here where they've always been.

LOL!!!!

A chart with no temperature axis "Proving" that a 120ppm increase in CO2 raises temperature!

That's fucking hilarious! You're a trained monkey!!

And you seem resolutely determined to remain an ignorant fool.

 

[Crick]

I hear the AGW Cult pays people to post their stupid stuff on Internet Boards.

Where did you hear that Frank and who do you believe might be paid to post here? You bring that up in a non sequitur fashion, while debating with me. Are you attempting to suggest that I am paid to post here Frank?

 

[9aces]

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?

Well...#1 you haven't shown...at all where this rise is faster than any time in history. You have from extremely short time frame in extremely recent history, whoopie. When you scale it out to millions of years...it looks a whole lot like all the rest.

That's your problem. You look at recent data like it's the ONLY data. Which it isn't.

 

[Crick]

1) It is not the absolute temperature or the absolute CO2 level that will hurt us. It is the rate at which those parameters are changing. The work of Marcotte and Shakun clearly show that those two rates are unprecedented in the Holocene. The Vostok, Core and Law Dome ice cores shown that it is unprecedented over a span four times that of human history. THAT is what matters.
2) There have been times in the Earth's history when those parameters changed as fast as they are now and they mark mass extinctions.

 

[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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

If it works as you propose, why don't you have any lab experiments?

That's the point, Frank. We do. They're right here where they've always been.

That is A BANDPASS GRAPH you moron. In other words it is a graph showing how a gas responded to broad spectrum light and IR. It does not prove causation of anything. You dont have a dam clue do you!

Here is another bandpass graph...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is a narrow spectrum analysis of just one gas, CO2.

It is a tube 1 meter in diameter and 4 meters tall. It is filled with argon gas and CO2 to differing levels. The light source was a broad spectrum source at 1 meter from the tube. This graph does not extrapolate for heat loss due to convection, pressures and altitude.

If you read this graph correctly, you will note that 95% of all warming that CO2 is capable of is done at 280ppm. beyond that about 1 deg C per doubling is what is capable. but this was a lab environment which did not include water vapor and convection..

At 400ppm, where we are today, there has been no warming for over 18 years 11 months. NO RISE.. Why? zero warming now means that the next doubling to 800ppm will be far less than the 1 dec C (about 0.5 or less) and our previous warming of just 0.61 deg C over the last 160 years is but 35% of what we expected from CO2 alone.

The numbers dont add up. As your incapable of understanding the graphings you post I know this is going over your head...

 

[Billy_Bob]

1) It is not the absolute temperature or the absolute CO2 level that will hurt us. It is the rate at which those parameters are changing. The work of Marcotte and Shakun clearly show that those two rates are unprecedented in the Holocene. The Vostok, Core and Law Dome ice cores shown that it is unprecedented over a span four times that of human history. THAT is what matters.
2) There have been times in the Earth's history when those parameters changed as fast as they are now and they mark mass extinctions.

Marcott and Shakun have both admitted they dont have a clue about today's comparison to previous warming periods. You keep throwing this out when you have been shown over and over again that their approximations are averages of 300-500 years in length. Average the last three hundred years and tell me where that data point will reside! They even admitted they do not have the spatial resolution to make those claims and that they could not rule out similar rises and falls of short duration equal to today's.. At least when they were cornered on their assumptions they took the high road and admitted their findings were crap.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Because we're interested in climate --- not weather?? And we don't HAVE to go back millions of years. Plenty of evidence that there's been natural variation in temperature over the last 50,000 years..

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is a properly averaged graph to keep the proper perspective.

Below, This is a political whores graph... where an improperly attached and unaveraged point is placed on the end of the graph.

People just dont seem to get it...

Source

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Really? They're both Mercedes C-class sedans. One has their smallest, least powerful engine. The other has one more than THREE TIMES as large; their most powerful engine and the engine has been worked on by the wizards at Affalterbach to achieve an even higher output/displacement ratio. Yet you believe that you haven't enough information to pick which one you'd bet on in a drag race.

This tells me you don't understand the function of evidence in science.

Of course, the reason for this question - to which I guess Frank never responded - was to try to get him to understand that data showing the atmosphere's absorption of IR energy by CO2 DOES inform us that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will increase its temperature; that it is not necessary to somehow perfectly recreate the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere, surface and ocean in a laboratory, raise it's CO2 level from 280 to 400 ppm and then measure the precise temperature increase before one can conclude that increasing GHGs raise temperatures.

If it works as you propose, why don't you have any lab experiments?

That's the point, Frank. We do. They're right here where they've always been.

Graph quiz wiz.. How many of the 4 absorption lines of CO2 are not fully or mostly covered by water vapor and actually OVERLAP the black body spectrum of the Earth --- Mr. CantReadAGraph?

BTW -- I think this graph is wrong. Not a SkepShitScience crayon job --- is it?

 

[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.

I doubt you would get 0.5 deg C with your box stacked with people. (most of that heat change would be from their breath of a warmer black body.) SO called "Back Radiation" is severely over hyped and at the levels of CO2 were talking (up to 6,000ppm) is a non-issue. The returned to surface photons have little to no impact as saturation above 400ppm is nearly a flat line for temperature influence.. And water vapor will not be your friend.

There's enough IR radiation from the bodies (or the breath) to lose to space thru the transparent ceiling. With no other real heat source and nothing in the mirrored room to ABSORB and store heat -- it becomes mostly a RADIATIVE equation.

So if you SLOW the loss to space by a couple degrees with 200ppm CO2 (or higher if neccessary) You've pretty much proved the back-radiation objective. I like it.. Really would like to take it to a college and get it funded thru the unlimited GW federal money. Would be a blast -- and both warmers and skeptics would love the results. Especially Dr Roy Spencer down in Huntsville.

He's only 70 miles away and I'd like to get another degree down there when I retire. Maybe I'll contact him..