2015, yes, the warmest on record.

[Crick]

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.

View attachment 59591

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...

No warming?

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenber...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/noaa-science-pas-de-hiatus.pdf

Arctic Report Card

 

[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... 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!

I know what it is Billy Boy. Please explain why you think a measure of absorbed energy has no relevance here. Please explain what changes OTHER than temperature are likely to occur from the absorption indicated. Please explain why you seem to believe that temperature WON'T be changed by the absorption of energy.

Here is another bandpass graph...

View attachment 59593

Showing almost identically the same data my graph displayed. What was your point? To indicate that there is no question whatsoever among people who actually understand atmospheric physics that the absorption spectra of CO2 demonstrate without question that it will absorb IR radiation coming from the warmed Earth. Good.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

9, you have been making a lot of stupid statements with absolutely nothing to back them up. Guess you are just another knownothing flap yapper. Welcome to the jc, Silly Billy, and Frankie boy club.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

OK, you like to throw a lot of epoch names around like you actually know something. Ever hear of the Younger Dryas? Very rapid cooling going into that period, very rapid warming coming out. And we lost large mammals to extinction both going into the period, and coming out of it. Worse, from the point of view of agriculture, the period marked a very rapid climate change that persisted for about a thousand years. And we still don't understand what tipped the climate into that change.

As for other times, there were extinction periods throughout history. Marked by excursions of GHGs rapidly up and down. Whenever there has been a very rapid change in temperature, there has been a period of extinction. How much change does that take? We don't know. How much warning will we get if we get near that point? We don't know. And silly ignorant people like you are betting the farm on what we don't know.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

You have never once given evidence that you look at data. Post what you say you are looking at. Something other than the rantings of an obese junkie on the AM radio, or the prattle of a fake British Lord.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's the "evidence" as presented by the Warmers:

• Chart with no temperature axis
• Blah blah Rush Limbaugh
• Fudged data showing temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880

 

[Old Rocks]

Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pleistocene or Ice Age extinction event[edit]
The Late Pleistocene extinction event saw the extinction of many mammals weighing more than 40 kg.

• In North America around 33 of 45 genera of large mammals became extinct.
• In South America 46 of 58
• In Australia 15 of 16
• In Europe 7 of 23
• In Subsaharan Africa only 2 of 44

The extinctions in the Americas entailed the elimination of all the larger (over 100 kg) mammalian species of South American origin, including those that had migrated north in theGreat American Interchange. Only in North America, South America, and Australia, did the extinction occur at family taxonomic levels or higher.

There are three main hypotheses concerning the Pleistocene extinction:

• The animals died off due to climate change associated with the advance and retreat of major ice caps or ice sheets.
• The animals were exterminated by humans: the "prehistoric overkill hypothesis" (Martin, 1967).[3]
• The extinction of the woolly mammoth (by whatever cause, perhaps by humans) changed the extensive grasslands to birch forests, and subsequent forest fires then changed the climate.[4] We now know that immediately after the extinction of the mammoth that birch forests replaced the grasslands and that an era of significant fire began.[5]

Yet each and everyone of these mammals survived the glacial and interglacial periods previous to this one. And the Younger Dryas event is unique to this period. Yes, things can change adruptly, and make a huge differance to those existing at that time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pleistocene or Ice Age extinction event[edit]
The Late Pleistocene extinction event saw the extinction of many mammals weighing more than 40 kg.

• In North America around 33 of 45 genera of large mammals became extinct.
• In South America 46 of 58
• In Australia 15 of 16
• In Europe 7 of 23
• In Subsaharan Africa only 2 of 44

The extinctions in the Americas entailed the elimination of all the larger (over 100 kg) mammalian species of South American origin, including those that had migrated north in theGreat American Interchange. Only in North America, South America, and Australia, did the extinction occur at family taxonomic levels or higher.

There are three main hypotheses concerning the Pleistocene extinction:

• The animals died off due to climate change associated with the advance and retreat of major ice caps or ice sheets.
• The animals were exterminated by humans: the "prehistoric overkill hypothesis" (Martin, 1967).[3]
• The extinction of the woolly mammoth (by whatever cause, perhaps by humans) changed the extensive grasslands to birch forests, and subsequent forest fires then changed the climate.[4] We now know that immediately after the extinction of the mammoth that birch forests replaced the grasslands and that an era of significant fire began.[5]

Yet each and everyone of these mammals survived the glacial and interglacial periods previous to this one. And the Younger Dryas event is unique to this period. Yes, things can change adruptly, and make a huge differance to those existing at that time.

So the internal combustion engine is far older than anyone ever suspected.

I heard they were mammoths freeze dried in place as they ate. That sounds more like a cataclysmic event occurred

 

[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.

View attachment 59591

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...

No warming?

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenber...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/noaa-science-pas-de-hiatus.pdf

Arctic Report Card

LOL
Karl Et Al.... CRAP!

 

[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?

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..

dude,

Again, I live this yearly every winter in Chicago. there's friggn 120 PPm of CO2 added in the atmosphere today and the temps still go to zero in chicago before and after the winter solstice. We added it and it didn't heat up. I have my proof, it's why I ask for the experiment. you can't tell me that the earth warmed up and then the temps are the same every year. you can't. either CO2 causes added warming or it doesn't and in the northern hemisphere in the US and Canada, it still drops below zero degrees as it always has on either side of that there solstice event on 12/21. 3 Degrees at my house today, lucky I have a furnace to warm us up so we don't freeze thanks to that there 120 PPM of CO2. had two inches of snow as well, you know that stuff that falls from the sky that wasn't expected after 120 PPM of CO2 went up into the atmosphere. what the fk, I'd call the experiment a failure and start over with a new idea on why climates change. Although, I do know that the less sunlight in an area, the cooler it gets, not warmer. And until that fact changes, your experiment offer is useless to me.

 

[jc456]

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.

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

Where? Name a place big guy!!! name a place.

 

[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.

OK, you like to throw a lot of epoch names around like you actually know something. Ever hear of the Younger Dryas? Very rapid cooling going into that period, very rapid warming coming out. And we lost large mammals to extinction both going into the period, and coming out of it. Worse, from the point of view of agriculture, the period marked a very rapid climate change that persisted for about a thousand years. And we still don't understand what tipped the climate into that change.

As for other times, there were extinction periods throughout history. Marked by excursions of GHGs rapidly up and down. Whenever there has been a very rapid change in temperature, there has been a period of extinction. How much change does that take? We don't know. How much warning will we get if we get near that point? We don't know. And silly ignorant people like you are betting the farm on what we don't know.

Excellent. You agree with me

Didn't even realize you did it I'm sure. I'm glad you brought up the Younger Dryas. I first learned about that when I was learning about Folsom points and how they're made. You're exactly correct about mass extinctions on both sides of the line, the Dryas almost wiped out mankind and appears to have pretty much eradicated Clovis culture from what I remember.

You say I'm betting the farm on what I don't know, when you're betting the farm on....what you don't know. You're projecting a small window of time forward, without looking backward and man's ability to comprehend the complexity of the climate system is rudimentary at best currently.

It's good you're acknowledging the limits on what you don't know. Admitting it is the first step on the road to wisdom.

 

[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.

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

Where? Name a place big guy!!! name a place.

Place called Earth you might have heard of. I tend to think long term, not something most folks seem capable of.

 

[mudwhistle]

LOL

Seriously. So what? So it's the warmest on record?

Democrats want their children and so forth stuck with plenty of national debt, rotten jobs, no food, dependent on government but be slightly cooler I guess.

Democrats don't want children. Children are killing the planet. Accord to Democrats, the less children that leave the birth canal alive the better.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

View attachment 59591

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...

No warming?

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenber...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/noaa-science-pas-de-hiatus.pdf

Arctic Report Card

WTF was THAT MESS? Anomaly of WHAT? And what the hell are the pink bars and the crazy dot pattern? Does NOAA not have a better graphing method?

 

[jc456]

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.

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

Where? Name a place big guy!!! name a place.

Place called Earth you might have heard of. I tend to think long term, not something most folks seem capable of.

did you mean to post that at me??????????

 

[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.

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

Where? Name a place big guy!!! name a place.

Place called Earth you might have heard of. I tend to think long term, not something most folks seem capable of.

did you mean to post that at me??????????

Mark it down to being sick and on meds

 

[Crick]

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.

View attachment 59591

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...

No warming?

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenber...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/noaa-science-pas-de-hiatus.pdf

Arctic Report Card

WTF was THAT MESS? Anomaly of WHAT? And what the hell are the pink bars and the crazy dot pattern? Does NOAA not have a better graphing method?

Ah... are you having trouble reading a graph? The blue dots are a scatter diagram of the annual values of the Global Mean Temperature's Anomaly (C) relative to the 1880-1900 average global temperature. That information was found on the top and left sides. The pink bars are the average of every ten years (ie, decades) of those values. Versteht?

BTW, did you happen to have a look at the three papers linked above the graphic?

 

[Old Rocks]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Temperatures[/FONT]

Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much.
The 2015 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP). NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2015 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data. Because weather station locations and measurements change over time, there is some uncertainty in the individual values in the GISTEMP index. Taking this into account, NASA analysis estimates 2015 was the warmest year with 94 percent certainty.
“Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and NASA’s vital work on this important issue affects every person on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “Today’s announcement not only underscores how critical NASA’s Earth observation program is, it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice - now is the time to act on climate.”
The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degree Celsius) since the late-19th century, a change largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Well, the people that actually do the science are starting to weigh in on 2015.

 

[jc456]

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Temperatures[/FONT]

Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much.
The 2015 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP). NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2015 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data. Because weather station locations and measurements change over time, there is some uncertainty in the individual values in the GISTEMP index. Taking this into account, NASA analysis estimates 2015 was the warmest year with 94 percent certainty.
“Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and NASA’s vital work on this important issue affects every person on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “Today’s announcement not only underscores how critical NASA’s Earth observation program is, it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice - now is the time to act on climate.”
The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degree Celsius) since the late-19th century, a change largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Well, the people that actually do the science are starting to weigh in on 2015.

the wrong two groups to post up as legitimate for turning out surface temps. Funny though old socks, funny though. those that admit fudging data