Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[nodoginnafight]

Obama's birth certificate was frozen in the polar ice caps and in an effort to prevent having it made public, a drone with a heater was sent in to destroy the evidence.

 

[saveliberty]

Mustang's confusion is a perfect example of how climate change doesn't belong in the classroom. Just more terms for the left to get wrong.

 

[Mustang]

ecosystem: organisms and their environment: a localized group of interdependent organisms together with the environment that they inhabit and depend on.


define ecosystem - Bing DICTIONARY

We are discussing climate moron.

If you can't keep up in this thread, just go to another one. Perhaps a birther thread is more your speed.

You're the one who can't distinguish between climate and an ecosystem moron.

I hate having to spell out the obvious.

All animals interact with the ecosystem. The question is whether or not humans can alter the climate. Conservatives state that it's not possible. The contention of climate change scientists is that humans are, in fact, altering the natural environment (and hence, our ecosystem) by introducing extremely large quantities of greenhouse gases into the air which would otherwise still be buried in what are commonly referred to as sinks. To continue, these greenhouse gases are interacting with solar radiation to increase the temperature of the planet, thereby changing the climate in the process as more heat is generated than is allowed to escape into space. Climate scientists believe that the human-driven process of burning fossil fuels changes the previous balance of the ecosystem.

 

[Dubya]

If you can't keep up in this thread, just go to another one. Perhaps a birther thread is more your speed.

You're the one who can't distinguish between climate and an ecosystem moron.

I hate having to spell out the obvious.

All animals interact with the ecosystem. The question is whether or not humans can alter the climate. Conservatives state that it's not possible. The contention of climate change scientists is that humans are, in fact, altering the natural environment (and hence, our ecosystem) by introducing extremely large quantities of greenhouse gases into the air which would otherwise still be buried in what are commonly referred to as sinks. To continue, these greenhouse gases are interacting with solar radiation to increase the temperature of the planet, thereby changing the climate in the process as more heat is generated than is allowed to escape into space. Climate scientists believe that the human-driven process of burning fossil fuels changes the previous balance of the ecosystem.

The surface of the Earth absorbs radiation from direct sunlight and back radiation from the atmosphere. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere change the back radiation, which is nearly twice as much as radiation from direct sunlight. The amount of back radiation is going to raise and fall with the changes in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

[saveliberty]

Water vapor and methane change temperatures more than CO2.

An ecosystem is not climate, climate is not an ecosystem. Learn terms moron.

 

[Dubya]

Water vapor and methane change temperatures more than CO2.

An ecosystem is not climate, climate is not an ecosystem. Learn terms moron.

You are talking about the amount of temperature that can be changed and not the amount that is changed. There isn't enough methane in the atmosphere to change temperatures more than the amount of CO2 does. This is the second time you have posted this nonsense that I recall. If the amount of methane starts increasing due to global warming, it could become a significant contributor to global warming. Here are the contributions of greenhouse gases to radiative forcing and the range of that contribution is rather narrow:

CO2 is giving a value of 1.66 and methane is given a value of 0.48. You will also notice aerosols have a very wide range of values, so cleaning up the air could produce unexpected results. It doesn't take long for aerosols to leave the atmosphere, if they aren't being continually replaced. You will also notice there is no value included for increases in water vapor which would accompany warming. It's hard to say how much contribution all those cooling towers have added to warming.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Mustang - don't bother explaining.
Those who need it, won't accept it.
Those who don't need it ... well, they don't need it.

 

[pjnlsn]

Then a scientific model should be able to predict the exact result of increases or decreases in CO2 output, which they have been unable to do with their flawed hypothesis. Certainly we should not see a cooling, which it appears has started.

Global average temperature anomalies that jumped almost three tenths of a degree Celsius from December 2013 to January 2013, fell by more than three tenths through February, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. The cooling was especially pronounced in the Southern hemisphere, where temperatures dropped from 0.45 C (0.81 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms in January to 0.02 C (about 0.036 F) cooler than seasonal norms in February.

Global Temperature Trend Update: February 2013 - Rapid Cooling - Hit & Run : Reason.com

And?

I understand you need an interpretation Faither, but I'm not one of your high priests.

Your quasi-political views are irrelevant, and the the other post is made no more pertinent by the above.

And...does this contradict something i've written? Am I intended to take a contrary position to whatever it is you write?

The most likely interpretation of the second sentence is that you do, but I ask, do you actually think the following is an accurate (even as it's incredibly, almost unbelievably simplified) distillation of those relevant aspects of science? : "Certainly we should not see a cooling" (specifically month to month, as is obviously the likely interpretation, in conjunction, of the following paragraph)

 

[pjnlsn]

Mustang's confusion is a perfect example of how climate change doesn't belong in the classroom. Just more terms for the left to get wrong.

One's political views are irrelevant to whether some aspect of scientific work is valid or not. To say the least.

 

[Redfish]

You're the one who can't distinguish between climate and an ecosystem moron.

I hate having to spell out the obvious.

All animals interact with the ecosystem. The question is whether or not humans can alter the climate. Conservatives state that it's not possible. The contention of climate change scientists is that humans are, in fact, altering the natural environment (and hence, our ecosystem) by introducing extremely large quantities of greenhouse gases into the air which would otherwise still be buried in what are commonly referred to as sinks. To continue, these greenhouse gases are interacting with solar radiation to increase the temperature of the planet, thereby changing the climate in the process as more heat is generated than is allowed to escape into space. Climate scientists believe that the human-driven process of burning fossil fuels changes the previous balance of the ecosystem.

The surface of the Earth absorbs radiation from direct sunlight and back radiation from the atmosphere. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere change the back radiation, which is nearly twice as much as radiation from direct sunlight. The amount of back radiation is going to raise and fall with the changes in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

are water and cowfarts greenhouse gases?

 

[Mustang]

Now have a look at this graph. It is by a climate skeptic, Dr. Roy Spencer;

UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2013: +0.18 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Note that the previous times that natural variation has resulted in a temporary drop in temperature. But it has always come back higher, and will again.

Bullshit... The US for the year 2013 is BELOW normal temps for Jan and Feb..Northern Europe has just experienced ANOTHER large snowstorm.
For the last few days while the world awaited the election of a new Pontiff, people in St Peter's Square froze their Rosary Beads off with temps in the 40's and rain.
For Christ's sake last month a professional golf tournament in Tucson AZ was SNOWED OUT. In the God damned desert....During the 5 day event, the high temp never got over 50 degrees. The normal high is in the low 70's...

You're confusing weather with climate.

 

[Redfish]

Now have a look at this graph. It is by a climate skeptic, Dr. Roy Spencer;

UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2013: +0.18 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Note that the previous times that natural variation has resulted in a temporary drop in temperature. But it has always come back higher, and will again.

Bullshit... The US for the year 2013 is BELOW normal temps for Jan and Feb..Northern Europe has just experienced ANOTHER large snowstorm.
For the last few days while the world awaited the election of a new Pontiff, people in St Peter's Square froze their Rosary Beads off with temps in the 40's and rain.
For Christ's sake last month a professional golf tournament in Tucson AZ was SNOWED OUT. In the God damned desert....During the 5 day event, the high temp never got over 50 degrees. The normal high is in the low 70's...

You're confusing weather with climate.

Wrong, you and the AGW fools are confusing weather and climate. Man is not affecting either the weather or the climate.

 

[Mustang]

Bullshit... The US for the year 2013 is BELOW normal temps for Jan and Feb..Northern Europe has just experienced ANOTHER large snowstorm.
For the last few days while the world awaited the election of a new Pontiff, people in St Peter's Square froze their Rosary Beads off with temps in the 40's and rain.
For Christ's sake last month a professional golf tournament in Tucson AZ was SNOWED OUT. In the God damned desert....During the 5 day event, the high temp never got over 50 degrees. The normal high is in the low 70's...

You're confusing weather with climate.

Wrong, you and the AGW fools are confusing weather and climate. Man is not affecting either the weather or the climate.

Historically, it's been quite common for conservatives to be on the opposite side of the acceptance of new scientific discoveries if and when those discoveries challenged previously long-held (some might call them traditional) beliefs. Why should this be any different?

Well, I do see something a little different about it. Part of it seems to be an automatic reaction to the fact that liberals believe it. It's almost as if that's all it takes, really. Just let liberals embrace a new idea or discovery, and conservatives will flock to the opposite side as if on cue.

Of course, academia and scientific research organizations are overwhelmingly comprised of people who readily admit to being open to new ideas. <shudder> I think they're mostly on the liberal end of the political spectrum, as well. So, what do conservatives conclude from that? They decide that since scientists are more likely to be liberal in their political views, there scientific findings MUST automatically be suspect, as well.

Talk about specious reasoning!

Under normal conditions, I don't care about conservative sophistry as long as conservatives are only misleading their own flock of believers while leaving the rest of us to pursue objective truth regardless of where it leads. So, if you want to build a Creation Museum? Go for it! I don't care. But something as important as climate change is TOO important to the collective future of humanity (YES, I said collective future) to allow science deniers the leverage to prevent our country and our institutions from rising to the challenge while there's still time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

this should be put in the classrooms......but they'd probably fire the guy that did...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE]The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mustang]

this should be put in the classrooms......but they'd probably fire the guy that did...

The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
10.14.10


&#8250; View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

&#8250; View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISS Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth&#8217;s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth&#8217;s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth&#8217;s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.


NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, China is at present the biggest offender. However, we own the largest share of the anthropogenic CO2 that is presently in the atmosphere.

total horseshit! CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

Man is not changing the climate of the planet. Man may be polluting the planet, but not changing its climate

Do not know who is feeding you wrong data but here are the facts:
Just from 2009 to the present the rise has been from .0386% of the atmosphere to .0397.
Within another year it will be .040% and rising.
1960 it was .032%

Go to NOAA site and see for yourself.

Growth has been 1 % a year on average since 1959.

But he will not go to a scientific site to check on the true data. What he will do is post the same drivel again, and claim that he is telling the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

total horseshit! CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

Man is not changing the climate of the planet. Man may be polluting the planet, but not changing its climate

Do not know who is feeding you wrong data but here are the facts:
Just from 2009 to the present the rise has been from .0386% of the atmosphere to .0397.
Within another year it will be .040% and rising.
1960 it was .032%

Go to NOAA site and see for yourself.

Growth has been 1 % a year on average since 1959.

But he will not go to a scientific site to check on the true data. What he will do is post the same drivel again, and claim that he is telling the truth.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
scientific site - one run by a toady on the government payroll.

 

[Saigon]

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
scientific site - one run by a toady on the government payroll.

So BriPat runs away.

I was interested to hear why "toadies" working for conservative governments such as those in the UK, New Zealand and Germany were faking data contrary to what conservatives might have wanted to see.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
scientific site - one run by a toady on the government payroll.

So BriPat runs away.

I was interested to hear why "toadies" working for conservative governments such as those in the UK, New Zealand and Germany were faking data contrary to what conservatives might have wanted to see.

The UK has a "conservative government?" Who knew? I thought Cameron was a liberal.

Be that as it may, politicians come and go, but the bureaucrats who dish out the money are there for life, and they are almost entirely on the left. When the conservatives are "in power," the bureaucrats fight and sabotage everything they try to do. When the liberals are in power, the floodgates open for whatever the bureaucrats want.

 

[saveliberty]

total horseshit! CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

Man is not changing the climate of the planet. Man may be polluting the planet, but not changing its climate

Do not know who is feeding you wrong data but here are the facts:
Just from 2009 to the present the rise has been from .0386% of the atmosphere to .0397.
Within another year it will be .040% and rising.
1960 it was .032%

Go to NOAA site and see for yourself.

Growth has been 1 % a year on average since 1959.

But he will not go to a scientific site to check on the true data. What he will do is post the same drivel again, and claim that he is telling the truth.

True data? You mean that recycled crap the Faithers made? How about a new independent collection of data? Even so, you still can't prove humans have any influence on climate OR. You're a fraud.