Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[gslack]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

And we already know why it's so hot on venus, and it is NOT becuase it has similarities to earth, but because it has somany differences..

Differences including; it's lack of an effective megnetic field leaving much much more open to cosmic and well as solar raidiation. But here take wikki's account of it..

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere, while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometre under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³, 6.5% that of water. The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C (864 °F).[11][42] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's, which has a minimum surface temperature of −220 °C (−364.0 °F) and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C (788 °F),[43] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often described as hellish.[44] This temperature is higher than temperatures used to achieve sterilization.

And that's just the start.. want more? fine...

Thermal inertia and the transfer of heat by winds in the lower atmosphere mean that the temperature of the Venusian surface does not vary significantly between the night and day sides, despite the planet's extremely slow rotation. Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometres per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at the Venusian surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface. This alone would make it difficult for a human to walk through, even if the heat, pressure and lack of oxygen were not a problem.[50]
Above the dense CO2 layer are thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets.[51][52] These clouds reflect and scatter about 90% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space, and prevent visual observation of the Venusian surface. The permanent cloud cover means that although Venus is closer than Earth to the Sun, the Venusian surface is not as well lit. Strong 300 km/h (190 mph) winds at the cloud tops circle the planet about every four to five earth days.[53] Venusian winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 10–20% rotation speed.[54]
The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; it retains a constant temperature not only between day and night but between the equator and the poles.[2][55] The planet's minute axial tilt—less than 3°, compared to 23° on Earth—also minimizes seasonal temperature variation.[56] The only appreciable variation in temperature occurs with altitude. In 1995, the Magellan probe imaged a highly reflective substance at the tops of the highest mountain peaks that bore a strong resemblance to terrestrial snow. This substance arguably formed from a similar process to snow, albeit at a far higher temperature. Too volatile to condense on the surface, it rose in gas form to cooler higher elevations, where it then fell as precipitation. The identity of this substance is not known with certainty, but speculation has ranged from elemental tellurium to lead sulfide (galena).[57]
The clouds of Venus are capable of producing lightning much like the clouds on Earth.[58] The existence of lightning had been controversial since the first suspected bursts were detected by the Soviet Venera probes. In 2006–07 Venus Express clearly detected whistler mode waves, the signatures of lightning. Their intermittent appearance indicates a pattern associated with weather activity. The lightning rate is at least half of that on Earth.[58] In 2007 the Venus Express probe discovered that a huge double atmospheric vortex exists at the south pole of the planet.[59][60]
Another discovery made by the Venus Express probe in 2011 is that an ozone layer exists high in the atmosphere of Venus.[61]
On January 29, 2013, ESA scientists reported that the ionosphere of the planet Venus streams outwards in a manner similar to "the ion tail seen streaming from a comet under similar conditions."[62][63]

Need more reasons? Fine..

Magnetic field and core


Size comparison of terrestrial planets (left to right): Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars in true colour.
In 1967, Venera 4 found the Venusian magnetic field to be much weaker than that of Earth. This magnetic field is induced by an interaction between the ionosphere and the solar wind,[64][65] rather than by an internal dynamo in the core like the one inside the Earth. Venus's small induced magnetosphere provides negligible protection to the atmosphere against cosmic radiation. This radiation may result in cloud-to-cloud lightning discharges.[66]
The lack of an intrinsic magnetic field at Venus was surprising given it is similar to Earth in size, and was expected also to contain a dynamo at its core. A dynamo requires three things: a conducting liquid, rotation, and convection. The core is thought to be electrically conductive and, while its rotation is often thought to be too slow, simulations show it is adequate to produce a dynamo.[67][68] This implies the dynamo is missing because of a lack of convection in the Venusian core. On Earth, convection occurs in the liquid outer layer of the core because the bottom of the liquid layer is much hotter than the top. On Venus, a global resurfacing event may have shut down plate tectonics and led to a reduced heat flux through the crust. This caused the mantle temperature to increase, thereby reducing the heat flux out of the core. As a result, no internal geodynamo is available to drive a magnetic field. Instead, the heat energy from the core is being used to reheat the crust.[69]
One possibility is Venus has no solid inner core,[70] or its core is not currently cooling, so the entire liquid part of the core is at approximately the same temperature. Another possibility is its core has already completely solidified. The state of the core is highly dependent on the concentration of sulfur, which is unknown at present.[69]
The weak magnetosphere around Venus means the solar wind is interacting directly with the outer atmosphere of the planet. Here, ions of hydrogen and oxygen are being created by the dissociation of neutral molecules from ultraviolet radiation. The solar wind then supplies energy that gives some of these ions sufficient velocity to escape the planet's gravity field. This erosion process results in a steady loss of low-mass hydrogen, helium, and oxygen ions, while higher-mass molecules, such as carbon dioxide, are more likely to be retained. Atmospheric erosion by the solar wind probably led to the loss of most of the planet's water during the first billion years after it formed. The erosion has increased the ratio of higher-mass deuterium to lower-mass hydrogen in the upper atmosphere by 150 times compared to the ratio in the lower atmosphere.[71]
Orbit and rotation



Venus orbits the Sun at an average distance of about 108 million kilometres (about 0.7 AU) and completes an orbit every 224.65 days. Venus is the second planet from the Sun and it revolves round the Sun approximately 1.6 times (yellow trail) in Earth's 365 days (blue trail)
Venus orbits the Sun at an average distance of about 0.72 AU (108,000,000 km; 67,000,000 mi), and completes an orbit every 224.65 days. Although all planetary orbits are elliptical, Venus's orbit is the closest to circular, with an eccentricity of less than 0.01.[2] When Venus lies between the Earth and the Sun, a position known as inferior conjunction, it makes the closest approach to Earth of any planet at an average distance of 41 million km.[2] The planet reaches inferior conjunction every 584 days, on average.[2] Owing to the decreasing eccentricity of Earth's orbit, the minimum distances will become greater over tens of thousands of years. From the year 1 to 5383, there are 526 approaches less than 40 million km; then there are none for about 60,158 years.[72] During periods of greater eccentricity, Venus can come as close as 38.2 million km.[2]
All the planets of the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction as viewed from above the Sun's north pole. Most planets also rotate on their axis in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise (called "retrograde" rotation) once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation period of any planet. A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). The equator of the Venusian surface rotates at 6.5 km/h (4.0 mph), while on Earth rotation speed at the equator is about 1,670 km/h (1,040 mph).[73] Venus's rotation has slowed down by 6.5 min per Venusian sidereal day since the Magellan spacecraft visited it 16 years ago.[74] Because of the retrograde rotation, the length of a solar day on Venus is significantly shorter than the sidereal day, at 116.75 Earth days (making the Venusian solar day shorter than Mercury's 176 Earth days); one Venusian year is about 1.92 Venusian (solar) days long.[12] To an observer on the surface of Venus, the Sun would rise in the west and set in the east.[12]
Venus may have formed from the solar nebula with a different rotation period and obliquity, reaching to its current state because of chaotic spin changes caused by planetary perturbations and tidal effects on its dense atmosphere, a change that would have occurred over the course of billions of years. The rotation period of Venus may represent an equilibrium state between tidal locking to the Sun's gravitation, which tends to slow rotation, and an atmospheric tide created by solar heating of the thick Venusian atmosphere.[75][76] The 584-day average interval between successive close approaches to the Earth is almost exactly equal to 5 Venusian solar days,[77] but the hypothesis of a spin–orbit resonance with Earth has been discounted.[78]
Venus has no natural satellites,[79] though the asteroid 2002 VE68 presently maintains a quasi-orbital relationship with it.[80][81] Besides this quasi-satellite, it has two other temporary co-orbitals, 2001 CK32 and 2012 XE133.[82] In the 17th century, Giovanni Cassini reported a moon orbiting Venus, which was named Neith and numerous sightings were reported over the following 200 years, but most were determined to be stars in the vicinity. Alex Alemi's and David Stevenson's 2006 study of models of the early Solar System at the California Institute of Technology shows Venus likely had at least one moon created by a huge impact event billions of years ago.[83] About 10 million years later, according to the study, another impact reversed the planet's spin direction and caused the Venusian moon gradually to spiral inward until it collided and merged with Venus.[84] If later impacts created moons, these were absorbed in the same way. An alternative explanation for the lack of satellites is the effect of strong solar tides, which can destabilize large satellites orbiting the inner terrestrial planets.[79]

Wow, thats alot of diffrences isn't it...

But I'm sure your excuse about it having a lot of CO2 is the only reason.... IDiot...

 

[Abraham3]

We don't make that claim. We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong.... That's what we have been pointing out with these observations. That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap. That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

So in your "expert" opinion based on all of your claimed credentials and climate science educational clout. You have assumed that because he mentioned we had similar situations in the past regarding climate, that he is stating it was CO2 induced??????

Complete and utter BS from you fraud.. Such credentials and you resort to childish behavior like this???

Up yours you fraud...

Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..

Have a nice day sock number whatever you are up to now..

There are extremely few "events" cited by climate scientists as evidence of AGW. The primary evidence is basic chemistry, the Greenhouse Effect and the temperature and GHG level records of the last 150 years. None of those qualify as events.

The purpose of denialists talking about periods of temperature extremes and high GHG levels is disingenuous. You are trying to sell us the idea that these things can only happen one way - however it happened in the past must be how it is happening now. That is absolute poppycock. You all seem bright enough. I do not understand how you can continue to make this argument with a straight face. That the Earth has warmed from reasons other than CO2 has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether or not it is happening now. The logic behind your idea is complete and utter nonsense.

Neither the IPCC nor anyone I've ever spoken to on the topic has ever suggested that the Earth would warm from added CO2 "no matter what". It has been the position of climate scientists from the get-go that the Greenhouse Effect of added CO2 is of small magnitude and that the direction of the climate's temperature trend is the algebraic sum of a number of different factors. The effect of GHGs has simply been consistently growing over time and that consistent growth not only appears to be logarithmic but the science behind the processes tells us it will be just that. It has happened at numerous times in the past century and a half that OTHER effects have overcome the warming signal and dropped temperatures. The only people who have ever claimed otherwise are the straw dogs denialists fantasize about when they wish to attempt to make a point.

Orogenicman makes an excellent and fundamental point when he asks if the added GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are not anthropogenic, where are they from AND what has happened to all the GHG's that humans have produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Where is your answer?

The term "climate change" did not arise because of any failure in the theory of AGW. And if you think it effective to make such vapid arguments, your judgement in that regard is lacking.

Orogenicman's geological comments clearly show him to be well-educated on the topic. If you have trouble seeing that, I suggest the poor acuity is local to you.

 

[skookerasbil]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

nobody cares s0n.

 

[Abraham3]

The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C (864 °F).[11][42] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's, which has a minimum surface temperature of −220 °C (−364.0 °F) and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C (788 °F),[43] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. The surface of Venus is often described as hellish.[44] This temperature is higher than temperatures used to achieve sterilization.

Need more reasons?

No, this'll do just fine.

 

[Abraham3]

nobody cares s0n.

You're the most useless poster I've ever seen. Why do you bother?

 

[Abraham3]

Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..

I would have just called it "being an asshole". Posts like this have only enhanced that assessment.

 

[flacaltenn]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

Don't know how could mistake what I was saying about the AUDIENCE for this AGW road show being composed of political scientists. And that the story had to be simple enough for their consumption.. Lemme be specific here. It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages. It would complete nincompoops like Henry Waxman and Barb Boxer and Barack Obama. The latter of whom are out in full campaign mode stepping up the lying with dousys like we're "warming quicker than ever predicted". It would be Senate Panels composed of con artist scientists bought by government money that makes claims like AGW killed 19 firefighters in Arizona..

THOSE political scientists.. And a public and media who now feels justified blaming every storm and weather event on the bastard child of your AGW --- "climate change"..

We can start and end our agreement on CO2 as a mere TRIGGER for events that you fully believe will destroy a very fragile Earth. A warming of about 1.1degC for the current doubling is the first pass at CO2 consequences. Everything ELSE exists only in the Matrix of BAD science. Where models BUILT on a CO2 thesis predict horrendous consequences BEYOND the ability of CO2 to warm the atmos..

That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"...

We have the daily Vegas Sport Bets desk at GISS where they are still hacking away to hide the warming in the 1930s and the MWPeriod.

And all YOU want to talk about is a couple bloggers and the oil companies. And pretend that the story of Venus is all about CO2 also..

We're just pawns in the plans of the UN and some of YOUR politicians who are riding this jackass all the way to the end..

 

[westwall]

I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.

We don't make that claim. We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong.... That's what we have been pointing out with these observations. That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap. That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

No, man hasn't ever done that before. Now, can you point to a time when the weather we are experiencing today has NEVER HAPPENED before? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You have now made a claim.

Back it up....

 

[westwall]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

I thought you were a scientist. Please explain how Venus is even remotely similar to Earth. You might as well compare Earth to Jupiter.

 

[westwall]

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

So in your "expert" opinion based on all of your claimed credentials and climate science educational clout. You have assumed that because he mentioned we had similar situations in the past regarding climate, that he is stating it was CO2 induced??????

Complete and utter BS from you fraud.. Such credentials and you resort to childish behavior like this???

Up yours you fraud...

Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..

Have a nice day sock number whatever you are up to now..

There are extremely few "events" cited by climate scientists as evidence of AGW. The primary evidence is basic chemistry, the Greenhouse Effect and the temperature and GHG level records of the last 150 years. None of those qualify as events.

The purpose of denialists talking about periods of temperature extremes and high GHG levels is disingenuous. You are trying to sell us the idea that these things can only happen one way - however it happened in the past must be how it is happening now. That is absolute poppycock. You all seem bright enough. I do not understand how you can continue to make this argument with a straight face. That the Earth has warmed from reasons other than CO2 has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether or not it is happening now. The logic behind your idea is complete and utter nonsense.

Neither the IPCC nor anyone I've ever spoken to on the topic has ever suggested that the Earth would warm from added CO2 "no matter what". It has been the position of climate scientists from the get-go that the Greenhouse Effect of added CO2 is of small magnitude and that the direction of the climate's temperature trend is the algebraic sum of a number of different factors. The effect of GHGs has simply been consistently growing over time and that consistent growth not only appears to be logarithmic but the science behind the processes tells us it will be just that. It has happened at numerous times in the past century and a half that OTHER effects have overcome the warming signal and dropped temperatures. The only people who have ever claimed otherwise are the straw dogs denialists fantasize about when they wish to attempt to make a point.

Orogenicman makes an excellent and fundamental point when he asks if the added GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are not anthropogenic, where are they from AND what has happened to all the GHG's that humans have produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Where is your answer?

The term "climate change" did not arise because of any failure in the theory of AGW. And if you think it effective to make such vapid arguments, your judgement in that regard is lacking.

Orogenicman's geological comments clearly show him to be well-educated on the topic. If you have trouble seeing that, I suggest the poor acuity is local to you.

What geological comments? I must have missed those...

 

[Oddball]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.

 

[gslack]

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

So in your "expert" opinion based on all of your claimed credentials and climate science educational clout. You have assumed that because he mentioned we had similar situations in the past regarding climate, that he is stating it was CO2 induced??????

Complete and utter BS from you fraud.. Such credentials and you resort to childish behavior like this???

Up yours you fraud...

Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..

Have a nice day sock number whatever you are up to now..

There are extremely few "events" cited by climate scientists as evidence of AGW. The primary evidence is basic chemistry, the Greenhouse Effect and the temperature and GHG level records of the last 150 years. None of those qualify as events.

The purpose of denialists talking about periods of temperature extremes and high GHG levels is disingenuous. You are trying to sell us the idea that these things can only happen one way - however it happened in the past must be how it is happening now. That is absolute poppycock. You all seem bright enough. I do not understand how you can continue to make this argument with a straight face. That the Earth has warmed from reasons other than CO2 has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether or not it is happening now. The logic behind your idea is complete and utter nonsense.

Neither the IPCC nor anyone I've ever spoken to on the topic has ever suggested that the Earth would warm from added CO2 "no matter what". It has been the position of climate scientists from the get-go that the Greenhouse Effect of added CO2 is of small magnitude and that the direction of the climate's temperature trend is the algebraic sum of a number of different factors. The effect of GHGs has simply been consistently growing over time and that consistent growth not only appears to be logarithmic but the science behind the processes tells us it will be just that. It has happened at numerous times in the past century and a half that OTHER effects have overcome the warming signal and dropped temperatures. The only people who have ever claimed otherwise are the straw dogs denialists fantasize about when they wish to attempt to make a point.

Orogenicman makes an excellent and fundamental point when he asks if the added GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are not anthropogenic, where are they from AND what has happened to all the GHG's that humans have produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Where is your answer?

The term "climate change" did not arise because of any failure in the theory of AGW. And if you think it effective to make such vapid arguments, your judgement in that regard is lacking.

Orogenicman's geological comments clearly show him to be well-educated on the topic. If you have trouble seeing that, I suggest the poor acuity is local to you.

No you have it twisted.. The reality is they have happened in the past, and YOU WARMERS assume since they are happening now (or could be) it MUST be due to something we did..And you speak of "disingenuous" matters... You are the one assuming if something happens like it happened in the past it MUST be some other reason now..

And organman is a BS toting asshat, with no more credentials then the last several clones spouting the same nonsense. And your praising him doesn't help matters. You have shown yourself tobe in the very least dishonest and not at all genuine in your postings here.. Your diversionary nonsense in that post shows it...

 

[gslack]

LOL, you all knew it was coming....


I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

YEP, I called it.. ME..I said it.. I said organman was a clone and he would show it soon enough and over the last few days he not only showed it, but did so in record time.. Another one of those "I'm a climate science expert here are my credentials now you must be quiet while I speak" socks...

It's okay, no apologies necessary.. ROFL

 

[orogenicman]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

nobody cares s0n.

Somebody cares.

 

[orogenicman]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

Don't know how could mistake what I was saying about the AUDIENCE for this AGW road show being composed of political scientists. And that the story had to be simple enough for their consumption.. Lemme be specific here. It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages. It would complete nincompoops like Henry Waxman and Barb Boxer and Barack Obama. The latter of whom are out in full campaign mode stepping up the lying with dousys like we're "warming quicker than ever predicted". It would be Senate Panels composed of con artist scientists bought by government money that makes claims like AGW killed 19 firefighters in Arizona..

THOSE political scientists.. And a public and media who now feels justified blaming every storm and weather event on the bastard child of your AGW --- "climate change"..

We can start and end our agreement on CO2 as a mere TRIGGER for events that you fully believe will destroy a very fragile Earth. A warming of about 1.1degC for the current doubling is the first pass at CO2 consequences. Everything ELSE exists only in the Matrix of BAD science. Where models BUILT on a CO2 thesis predict horrendous consequences BEYOND the ability of CO2 to warm the atmos..

That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"...

We have the daily Vegas Sport Bets desk at GISS where they are still hacking away to hide the warming in the 1930s and the MWPeriod.

And all YOU want to talk about is a couple bloggers and the oil companies. And pretend that the story of Venus is all about CO2 also..

We're just pawns in the plans of the UN and some of YOUR politicians who are riding this jackass all the way to the end..

When you decide to start having a coherent discussion on the science again, do let me know.

 

[orogenicman]

We don't make that claim. We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong.... That's what we have been pointing out with these observations. That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap. That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

No, man hasn't ever done that before. Now, can you point to a time when the weather we are experiencing today has NEVER HAPPENED before? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You have now made a claim.

Back it up....

So you are not going to answer any of my questions? Did you gloss over them? Were the words too complicated for you to understand? Let me repeat them, in case you somehow missed them:

You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

Do you really want to stick with "No, man hasn't ever done that before" as your response to all of those questions? Think it through before you respond.

 

[orogenicman]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

I thought you were a scientist. Please explain how Venus is even remotely similar to Earth. You might as well compare Earth to Jupiter.

Same size, same density, similar orbit - within the goldilocks zone. The difference is that something catastrophic apparently happened there that led to a runaway greenhouse effect. Can you say what caused this runaway effect? At what level of CO2 concentrations in our own atmosphere can this happen to us? I'm not suggesting that there is enough CO2 on the Earth to cause the Earth to fry the way Venus has. I'm also not saying that there isn't. And we certainly don't need for the Earth to become another Venus for a runaway greenhouse effect to occur and be catastrophic, certainly for civilization, and likely for life here as well. There is a lot of CO2 on this planet. A lot! How much are you willing to release into the atmosphere before you decide enough is enough? How much can we release before we really fuck things up?

 

[orogenicman]

So in your "expert" opinion based on all of your claimed credentials and climate science educational clout. You have assumed that because he mentioned we had similar situations in the past regarding climate, that he is stating it was CO2 induced??????

Complete and utter BS from you fraud.. Such credentials and you resort to childish behavior like this???

Up yours you fraud...

Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..

Have a nice day sock number whatever you are up to now..

There are extremely few "events" cited by climate scientists as evidence of AGW. The primary evidence is basic chemistry, the Greenhouse Effect and the temperature and GHG level records of the last 150 years. None of those qualify as events.

The purpose of denialists talking about periods of temperature extremes and high GHG levels is disingenuous. You are trying to sell us the idea that these things can only happen one way - however it happened in the past must be how it is happening now. That is absolute poppycock. You all seem bright enough. I do not understand how you can continue to make this argument with a straight face. That the Earth has warmed from reasons other than CO2 has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether or not it is happening now. The logic behind your idea is complete and utter nonsense.

Neither the IPCC nor anyone I've ever spoken to on the topic has ever suggested that the Earth would warm from added CO2 "no matter what". It has been the position of climate scientists from the get-go that the Greenhouse Effect of added CO2 is of small magnitude and that the direction of the climate's temperature trend is the algebraic sum of a number of different factors. The effect of GHGs has simply been consistently growing over time and that consistent growth not only appears to be logarithmic but the science behind the processes tells us it will be just that. It has happened at numerous times in the past century and a half that OTHER effects have overcome the warming signal and dropped temperatures. The only people who have ever claimed otherwise are the straw dogs denialists fantasize about when they wish to attempt to make a point.

Orogenicman makes an excellent and fundamental point when he asks if the added GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are not anthropogenic, where are they from AND what has happened to all the GHG's that humans have produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Where is your answer?

The term "climate change" did not arise because of any failure in the theory of AGW. And if you think it effective to make such vapid arguments, your judgement in that regard is lacking.

Orogenicman's geological comments clearly show him to be well-educated on the topic. If you have trouble seeing that, I suggest the poor acuity is local to you.

What geological comments? I must have missed those...

Of course you did. How convenient of you.

 

[orogenicman]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.

And let's just ignore the fact that Venus is about 26 million miles closer to the sun.

Every planetary scientist will tell you that Venus being slightly closer to the sun than the Earth is did not cause its runaway greenhouse effect. Something catastrophic happened to that planet, something that caused it to have a retrograde rotation about its axis that is slow in the extreme, something that melted the entire surface 500 million years ago, something that released virtually all of the CO2 on and in the planet into its atmosphere. Now, none of that has to do with the point I am trying to make. The point is that at some point, the concentration of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere made it not only uninhabitable by virtue of it becoming toxic to life, but at some point, the surface temperature simply became too hot to support life, or to support the ocean of water that is believed to have once existed there. There is no evidence that Venus started out this way. But it certainly is this way today. So my question is how much CO2 does it take for the greenhouse effect to become a runaway process on a planet like ours? How much CO2 are you willing to allow to be released into our atmosphere before you decide that enough is enough? And when you finally do come to that decision, will it be too late for our children, and their children?

 

[Abraham3]

Don't know how could mistake what I was saying about the AUDIENCE for this AGW road show being composed of political scientists.

I do, but the issue is irrelevant

It would be all the National delegations to the UN who have hijacked the science lead on this circus. All their heads of state waiting for me to cut them a check for their fair redistribution of damages.

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger. That is why with the exception of the unpredictable current hiatus, the IPCC's predictions to date have all erred on the side of conservatism. Politicans are not telling the IPCC to be alarmist. Quite the opposite. And this has been WIDELY reported.

It would complete nincompoops like Henry Waxman and Barb Boxer and Barack Obama. The latter of whom are out in full campaign mode stepping up the lying with dousys like we're "warming quicker than ever predicted". It would be Senate Panels composed of con artist scientists bought by government money that makes claims like AGW killed 19 firefighters in Arizona..

Our representatives - even some republican reps - have exercised the unmitigated gall of accepting what an overwhelming majority of the world's experts are telling them is the case. Even were you absolutely correct, given the ratio of scientists accepting AGW to those rejecting it would lead me to absolutely believe that our politicians should accept AGW as a fact. If you think our elected reps should reject the word of the world's experts arguing that we face a danger and need to take action and instead take the word of tiny minorities not only poo-poohing the dangers but insisting that the experts are ignorant, greedy fools running a enormous scam on the world - then I truly hope you will find some other democracy to inhabit, as such a point of view is a real and present danger to this nation and the rest of the world.

We can start and end our agreement on CO2 as a mere TRIGGER for events that you fully believe will destroy a very fragile Earth.

No one has suggested that warming will destroy the Earth. These conversations would run more smoothly if you could hold down the hyperbole. The suggestion is and has been for many years, that a temperature change of 2C or less by 2100 may be coped with. Greater changes or changes arriving faster, will have enormous costs as has been detailed to you on numerous occasions. The Earth couldn't care less. It's the humans we're actually worried about, at least on this side of the argument.

A warming of about 1.1degC for the current doubling is the first pass at CO2 consequences. Everything ELSE exists only in the Matrix of BAD science.

Saying it doesn't make it so. When you say it's bad science, you are putting yourself in disagreement with a great many PhDs who have been studying this issue every day of their professional lives. A thousand pardons if I take their word over yours. Besides, where is the "BAD science"? Have these data been falsified? Has flawed reasoning been published unchecked? Have multiple lines of investigation failed to draw and support the same conclusions? No, no and no.

Where models BUILT on a CO2 thesis predict horrendous consequences BEYOND the ability of CO2 to warm the atmos..

Of what models do you speak? If you want to toss out all models that accept AGW as a real and valid process, you will toss out EVERY model that has ever been able to reproduce the actual climate behavior of the last 150 years. Does that seem like GOOD science to you?

That's where we part ways. I don't even like the accounting for "man's contributions" to CO2 since they are rigged by including herds of domestic cattle and forest fires.
The rigging doesn't stop there. We have IPCC reports that misrepresent the 1.2W/m2 solar forcing that's occurred in the past 200 yrs in a DESPARATE attempt to keep the AGW for Morons theory uncomplicated. And a range of projected Climate Sensitivities so wide -- you just have to chuckle when you hear the "science is settled"...

Do you believe herds of domestic cattle would exist without our presence? You'll have to explain that to us someday. And while you're at it, you might want to brush up on accuracy and resolution. If someone - say the IPCC - wanted to quote a single value for solar forcing to the nearest tenth of a W/m*2, where would they take into account the standard cyclical change on the order of a few hundredths of a W/m*2? Eh?

And all YOU want to talk about is a couple bloggers and the oil companies. And pretend that the story of Venus is all about CO2 also..

Please try to explain why Venus would be hotter than Mercury without using the Greenhouse Effect. I really want to see that.