Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[skookerasbil]

In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models

In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.

but not losing.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models

In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.

when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens.

Well, actually, ToadsterPatsy, "that" happened a long time ago, but, as usual, you are far too brainwashed, scientifically ignorant and tragically retarded to comprehend that fact.

Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
NOAA
July 28, 2010
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming.”

Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at Science & Services for Society | NOAA Climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: BAMS State of the Climate.

 

[flacaltenn]

In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models

In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.

I think I have the answer: GW/CC is not based in as certain or indisputable systemic understanding than more rigorous scientific disciplines. This is not to say that current knowledge of GW/CC is a myth, but that it is objectively more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain. Correspondingly, the way in which the scientific method is applied is deliberately more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain because you are dealing with the understanding of systems that are disproportionately more dynamic and complex than, say, those of the atom. As a result, we are not going to get as timeless a theory as that of relativity in theoretical physics in the field of climatology. And, oh, just for everyone's benefit, scientific models are tweaked in a variety of disciplines. The Standard Model of particle physics is undergoing a major tweaking with increased understanding of the Higgs Boson.

No sir.. There are the AGW "project mgrs" (like NOAA, NASA, numerous alarmist blogging heroes, IPCC, and others) who CONSTANTLY LIE and mislead the public with unfounded speculation based solely on simple ass models and misusing trees as thermometers.... Go see the NOAA lie TinkerBelle (ooops i'm sorry) RoolingTHUNDER convieniently promulgated HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7493863-post53.html

It is a coordinated propaganda campaign. Complete with "enforcers" issuing compliance with the AGW gospel...

OR -- just reference the propaganda piece in the previous post.. Where the "project mgrs" have the BALLS to assert everything is "warming over 50 years".. Even tho the for the past 15 years --- ALL of their projections are headed off the rails..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models

In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.

when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens. Dummy.

 

[RollingThunder]

In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.

I think I have the answer: GW/CC is not based in as certain or indisputable systemic understanding than more rigorous scientific disciplines. This is not to say that current knowledge of GW/CC is a myth, but that it is objectively more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain. Correspondingly, the way in which the scientific method is applied is deliberately more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain because you are dealing with the understanding of systems that are disproportionately more dynamic and complex than, say, those of the atom. As a result, we are not going to get as timeless a theory as that of relativity in theoretical physics in the field of climatology. And, oh, just for everyone's benefit, scientific models are tweaked in a variety of disciplines. The Standard Model of particle physics is undergoing a major tweaking with increased understanding of the Higgs Boson.

No sir.. There are the AGW "project mgrs" (like NOAA, NASA, numerous alarmist blogging heroes, IPCC, and others) who CONSTANTLY LIE and mislead the public with unfounded speculation based solely on simple ass models and misusing trees as thermometers.... Go see the NOAA lie TinkerBelle (ooops i'm sorry) RoolingTHUNDER convieniently promulgated HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7493863-post53.html

It is a coordinated propaganda campaign. Complete with "enforcers" issuing compliance with the AGW gospel...

OR -- just reference the propaganda piece in the previous post.. Where the "project mgrs" have the BALLS to assert everything is "warming over 50 years".. Even tho the for the past 15 years --- ALL of their projections are headed off the rails..

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO.....here fecalbrain goes off the rails on the crazytrain again with the massive world wide conspiracy theories involving tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of countries.....so insane and yet so typical of these crackpot denier cultists.....I'm pretty sure he'll come back and explain how this study is also another conspiracy against him and all the rest of his dimwitted denier cult butt-buddies....

Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
LiveScience
Stephanie Pappas
07 September 2012
(excerpts)
A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs. The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up. Now, climate-skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact "real skeptics" for the study and then lied about it.

Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to "believe in" global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper. Conspiracy theory beliefs are known to come in clusters — someone who thinks NASA faked the moon landing is more likely to accept the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. Of 1,145 usable survey responses, the researchers found that support for free-market, laissez-faire economics was linked to a rejection of climate change. A tendency to believe other conspiracy theories was also linked to denial of climate change. Finally, climate-change deniers were more likely than others to say that other environmental problems have been solved, indicating a dismissive attitude toward "green" causes. "To our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science," Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded.

 

[skookerasbil]

I think I have the answer: GW/CC is not based in as certain or indisputable systemic understanding than more rigorous scientific disciplines. This is not to say that current knowledge of GW/CC is a myth, but that it is objectively more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain. Correspondingly, the way in which the scientific method is applied is deliberately more nuanced, fragile, and uncertain because you are dealing with the understanding of systems that are disproportionately more dynamic and complex than, say, those of the atom. As a result, we are not going to get as timeless a theory as that of relativity in theoretical physics in the field of climatology. And, oh, just for everyone's benefit, scientific models are tweaked in a variety of disciplines. The Standard Model of particle physics is undergoing a major tweaking with increased understanding of the Higgs Boson.

No sir.. There are the AGW "project mgrs" (like NOAA, NASA, numerous alarmist blogging heroes, IPCC, and others) who CONSTANTLY LIE and mislead the public with unfounded speculation based solely on simple ass models and misusing trees as thermometers.... Go see the NOAA lie TinkerBelle (ooops i'm sorry) RoolingTHUNDER convieniently promulgated HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7493863-post53.html

It is a coordinated propaganda campaign. Complete with "enforcers" issuing compliance with the AGW gospel...

OR -- just reference the propaganda piece in the previous post.. Where the "project mgrs" have the BALLS to assert everything is "warming over 50 years".. Even tho the for the past 15 years --- ALL of their projections are headed off the rails..

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO.....here fecalbrain goes off the rails on the crazytrain again with the massive world wide conspiracy theories involving tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of countries.....so insane and yet so typical of these crackpot denier cultists.....I'm pretty sure he'll come back and explain how this study is also another conspiracy against him and all the rest of his dimwitted denier cult butt-buddies....

Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
LiveScience
Stephanie Pappas
07 September 2012
(excerpts)
A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs. The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up. Now, climate-skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact "real skeptics" for the study and then lied about it.

Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to "believe in" global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper. Conspiracy theory beliefs are known to come in clusters — someone who thinks NASA faked the moon landing is more likely to accept the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. Of 1,145 usable survey responses, the researchers found that support for free-market, laissez-faire economics was linked to a rejection of climate change. A tendency to believe other conspiracy theories was also linked to denial of climate change. Finally, climate-change deniers were more likely than others to say that other environmental problems have been solved, indicating a dismissive attitude toward "green" causes. "To our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science," Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded.

Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


Oooooops.........well, looks like the crackpot cult butt buddies are winning!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

not to mention...........






Of course.......the climate nutters don't connect the dots well enough to get this part!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

And the forum troll, the uber-retarded kookster, spams the thread with his usual pointless moronic nonsense once again.....ho-hum....you kind of have to pity someone who is that confused and clueless, not to mention completely braindead....

 

[RollingThunder]

In real science, when real life observations falsify the theory, you get a new theory. The AGWCult just tweaks their models

In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.

[post #64]

when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens. Dummy.

Geez, Toadthepatsy, you posted the exact same thing in your post #58 and I answered you in post #62. Are you so completely braindead and forgetful that you can't even remember what you just posted the day before? Obviously, the answer is yes.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's some recently published research from more scientists in Europe who have been studying the way the "missing" heat has been going into the oceans.

Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study
Reuters
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
Apr 7, 2013
(excerpts)
(Reuters) - Climate change could get worse quickly if huge amounts of extra heat absorbed by the oceans are released back into the air, scientists said after unveiling new research showing that oceans have helped mitigate the effects of warming since 2000. Heat-trapping gases are being emitted into the atmosphere faster than ever, and the 10 hottest years since records began have all taken place since 1998. But the rate at which the earth's surface is heating up has slowed somewhat since 2000, causing scientists to search for an explanation for the pause. Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief. "Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 meters (2,300 ft) of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65 percent of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans," they wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Lead author Virginie Guemas of the Catalan Institute of Climate Sciences in Barcelona said the hidden heat may return to the atmosphere in the next decade, stoking warming again. "If it is only related to natural variability then the rate of warming will increase soon," she told Reuters. Caroline Katsman of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, an expert who was not involved in the latest study, said heat absorbed by the ocean will come back into the atmosphere if it is part of an ocean cycle such as the "El Nino" warming and "La Nina" cooling events in the Pacific. Surface temperatures have already risen by 0.8 C. Two degrees is widely seen as a threshold for dangerous changes such as more droughts, mudslides, floods and rising sea levels. Last year was ninth warmest since records began in the 1850s, according to the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, and 2010 was the warmest, just ahead of 1998. Apart from 1998, the 10 hottest years have all been since 2000. "Global warming is continuing but it's being manifested in somewhat different ways," said Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Warming can go, for instance, to the air, water, land or to melting ice and snow. Warmth is spreading to ever deeper ocean levels, he said, adding that pauses in surface warming could last 15-20 years. "Recent warming rates of the waters below 700 meters appear to be unprecedented," he and colleagues wrote in a study last month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial, when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, you just brainlessly deny it anyway and cling to your debunked myths, dogmas and massive conspiracy theories, like the duped, deluded and very clueless retards that you are.

[post #64]

when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens. Dummy.

Geez, Toadthepatsy, you posted the exact same thing in your post #58 and I answered you in post #62. Are you so completely braindead and forgetful that you can't even remember what you just posted the day before? Obviously, the answer is yes.

There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?

 

[flacaltenn]

[post #64]

when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens. Dummy.

Geez, Toadthepatsy, you posted the exact same thing in your post #58 and I answered you in post #62. Are you so completely braindead and forgetful that you can't even remember what you just posted the day before? Obviously, the answer is yes.

There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?

What we see in post #62 is frantic handwaving trying to infer (without admitting it) that the effects of MAN and CO2 have been over-rated and NATURAL variabilities have been under-rated or completely ignored.. Hey !! That's my position.. They can't have it...

 

[RollingThunder]

[post #64]

when real world observations and evidence completely support the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming

You be sure to let us know when that finally happens. Dummy.

Geez, Toadthepatsy, you posted the exact same thing in your post #58 and I answered you in post #62. Are you so completely braindead and forgetful that you can't even remember what you just posted the day before? Obviously, the answer is yes.

There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?

OK. I'll give you a short introduction to the topic and then quote some climate scientists.

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth ordinarily radiates enough of this heat energy back into outer space to stay in thermal equilibrium. Direct measurements show that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased by over 40% in the last 150 years. Isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The laws of physics and numerous scientific studies and experiments have shown that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that has the quality of absorbing and re-radiating the infrared radiation coming from the Earth's surface, thus keeping more of the sun's energy trapped in the Earth's atmosphere rather than being radiated away into space.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere. The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

Source - Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

 

[westwall]

Geez, Toadthepatsy, you posted the exact same thing in your post #58 and I answered you in post #62. Are you so completely braindead and forgetful that you can't even remember what you just posted the day before? Obviously, the answer is yes.

There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?

OK. I'll give you a short introduction to the topic and then quote some climate scientists.

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth ordinarily radiates enough of this heat energy back into outer space to stay in thermal equilibrium. Direct measurements show that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased by over 40% in the last 150 years. Isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The laws of physics and numerous scientific studies and experiments have shown that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that has the quality of absorbing and re-radiating the infrared radiation coming from the Earth's surface, thus keeping more of the sun's energy trapped in the Earth's atmosphere rather than being radiated away into space.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere. The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

Source - Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Wow. The global warmers standards for science are astonishingly low. A PhD (well a climatology PhD...which really ain't much) actually wrote that crap...

 

[flacaltenn]

Geez, Toadthepatsy, you posted the exact same thing in your post #58 and I answered you in post #62. Are you so completely braindead and forgetful that you can't even remember what you just posted the day before? Obviously, the answer is yes.

There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?

OK. I'll give you a short introduction to the topic and then quote some climate scientists.

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth ordinarily radiates enough of this heat energy back into outer space to stay in thermal equilibrium. Direct measurements show that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased by over 40% in the last 150 years. Isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The laws of physics and numerous scientific studies and experiments have shown that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that has the quality of absorbing and re-radiating the infrared radiation coming from the Earth's surface, thus keeping more of the sun's energy trapped in the Earth's atmosphere rather than being radiated away into space.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere. The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

Source - Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Bravo. What a show... Except for the mental midget conclusion about about CO2 "dwarfing" everything else..

Common knowledge pal that methane (pound for pound) and MANY of those compounds in your chart EXCEED the "warming power" of CO2 by orders of magnitude.. So there is more to the story.. In fact water vapor is 60% of the radiative energy of Greenhouse and methane is 20 to 30 times MORE POWERFUL as CO2. You expect crappy science from skepticalscience.com every time..

But that aside --- Let's assume that CO2 is altering the climate. How much is CO2 alone CAUSING? It's commonly accepted by warmers and skeptics alike that if you DOUBLED the CO2 retained in the atmos -- from something like 280ppm to 560ppm -- than the physics of THIS EFFECT ALONE would yield about 1.1DegC..

The math to get there is equivalent to a question on the final exam for thermodynamics 220.

You got me --- I accept that --- Problem is --- THIS AGW alarmism is INVENTING 3 or even 6degC based on the PHONEY side of AGW theory that postulates all of the positive feedbacks, accelerations, and phoney "GLOBAL sensitivities numbers" that get tossed around. THAT's where I'm skeptical.. At 1.1degC per century or so --- the effect of the CO2 "trigger" isn't even a news story...

 

[flacaltenn]

There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?

OK. I'll give you a short introduction to the topic and then quote some climate scientists.

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth ordinarily radiates enough of this heat energy back into outer space to stay in thermal equilibrium. Direct measurements show that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased by over 40% in the last 150 years. Isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The laws of physics and numerous scientific studies and experiments have shown that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that has the quality of absorbing and re-radiating the infrared radiation coming from the Earth's surface, thus keeping more of the sun's energy trapped in the Earth's atmosphere rather than being radiated away into space.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere. The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

Source - Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Wow. The global warmers standards for science are astonishingly low. A PhD (well a climatology PhD...which really ain't much) actually wrote that crap...

Remember --- At skepticalscience.com it ain't about the neutral science, it's about the drama and pyrotechnic effects...

There are minds to bend and most of our customers are easily bent. So why use that PhD?????

 

[RollingThunder]

There was no proof of anthropogenic global warming in post #62. Try again?

OK. I'll give you a short introduction to the topic and then quote some climate scientists.

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth ordinarily radiates enough of this heat energy back into outer space to stay in thermal equilibrium. Direct measurements show that the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased by over 40% in the last 150 years. Isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The laws of physics and numerous scientific studies and experiments have shown that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that has the quality of absorbing and re-radiating the infrared radiation coming from the Earth's surface, thus keeping more of the sun's energy trapped in the Earth's atmosphere rather than being radiated away into space.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere. The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

Source - Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Bravo. What a show... Except for the mental midget conclusion about about CO2 "dwarfing" everything else..

Common knowledge pal that methane (pound for pound) and MANY of those compounds in your chart EXCEED the "warming power" of CO2 by orders of magnitude. So there is more to the story.. In fact water vapor is 60% of the radiative energy of Greenhouse and methane is 20 to 30 times MORE POWERFUL as CO2. You expect crappy science from skepticalscience.com every time.

LOL.... talk about "mental midgets", you really take the prize, fecalhead.....no, you poor imbecile, we expect crappy science from you every time. And lies and deliberate deceptions, of course.

Other than water vapor, which is a separate story, CO2 does, in fact, dwarf the effects of the other greenhouse gases because there is so much more of it in the atmosphere. A fact that you're either deliberately ignoring in your futile duplicitous attempts to deny reality, or that you just too dumb-butt ignorant to comprehend. Probably the former, since you mention that water vapor accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect but, instead of telling us the percentage that methane accounts for, you just say that "methane (pound for pound)" is 30 times more powerful than CO2. Misleading by omission is still lying, fecalhead.

Carbon dioxide levels are currently a little over 400 parts per million while methane levels have risen (from 700ppb pre-industrial, also because of mankind's activities, BTW) to a current level of about 1800 parts per billion, or only 1.8 parts per million, and nitrous oxide is 324 parts per billion, or only .3 parts per million. Methane is indeed 30 or more times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 but there is well over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane, which is why the effect of CO2 does, in fact, dwarf the effects of methane, currently. Of course, if AGW warms the oceans enough to destabilize the methane clathrate deposits, that might change. The increased radiative forcing of current CO2 levels, in Watts per square meter (W/m2), is 1.85 while all of the methane in the atmosphere is only 0.51. (source)

As far as water vapor goes, it is clear to scientists that it is a feedback and not a forcing. Something that you are undoubtedly too dimwitted or brainwashed to comprehend.

Denier argument - Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise. How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C. The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect. So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.