how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[PMZ]

What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.

 

[gslack]

What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.

Energy from the surface.. Jesus man, they held your hand and helped you and you still fight it..

What the hell "media" do you think you are referring to moron?... The sun heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere, and convection does it's thing..

Dude seriously, you can't be anymore ignorant..

 

[PMZ]

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

Now the law states that, "Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einstein's equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy."

"Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured."

The bottom line of all these statements is the same from the perspective of systems earth. Energy from the sun, once it enters the earth system, warms whatever media it encounters until the temperature of all systems, over time, is high enough to energize the incoming heat to break through whatever barriers that exist, and radiate off into space. Then equilibrium is restored. No exceptions. It's just how thermodynamics works.

This plus the nature of greenhouse gasses plus the fact that burning fossil fuels causes the release of GHGs into earth's atmosphere make AGW scientifically inevitable and inarguable. There is no other possibility.

But, that's not the problem.

The problem is the change in weather caused by AGW, from the climate that we built civilization around.

So, the more we burn fossil fuels, the greater AGW will inevitably be, the greater will be the changes to the weather we have adapted to, and the greater will be the cost of adapting to the new climate. The greater the cost of adapting to the new climate, the more compelling is the urgency to limit AGW by converting our energy infrastructure to sustainable ASAP.

It's all economics. Minimizing the total cost.

We are, of course, spending billions each year already on changing our energy infrastructure to sustainable. But the current evidence shows that what we are spending is not the least expensive path. A significantly higher rate will save us total cost.

So the decision. Spend more of our resources now to save future generations what might well be for them unaffordable.

Step up to the plate.

Will we be responsible enough at this critical time?

Conservatives say no. Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend ignorance.

Liberals say yes. It's not only responsible but ripe with economic opportunity.

What do you say?

 

[Old Rocks]

What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.

Energy from the surface.. Jesus man, they held your hand and helped you and you still fight it..

What the hell "media" do you think you are referring to moron?... The sun heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere, and convection does it's thing..

Dude seriously, you can't be anymore ignorant..

Uh, gslack, that is exactly what he said. Just in terms that a scientist would use. And you forgot the ocean in your little speil. The ignorance demonstrated here is yours, ignorance concerning science and language.

 

[gslack]

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

Now the law states that, "Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einstein's equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy."

"Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured."

The bottom line of all these statements is the same from the perspective of systems earth. Energy from the sun, once it enters the earth system, warms whatever media it encounters until the temperature of all systems, over time, is high enough to energize the incoming heat to break through whatever barriers that exist, and radiate off into space. Then equilibrium is restored. No exceptions. It's just how thermodynamics works.

This plus the nature of greenhouse gasses plus the fact that burning fossil fuels causes the release of GHGs into earth's atmosphere make AGW scientifically inevitable and inarguable. There is no other possibility.

But, that's not the problem.

The problem is the change in weather caused by AGW, from the climate that we built civilization around.

So, the more we burn fossil fuels, the greater AGW will inevitably be, the greater will be the changes to the weather we have adapted to, and the greater will be the cost of adapting to the new climate. The greater the cost of adapting to the new climate, the more compelling is the urgency to limit AGW by converting our energy infrastructure to sustainable ASAP.

It's all economics. Minimizing the total cost.

We are, of course, spending billions each year already on changing our energy infrastructure to sustainable. But the current evidence shows that what we are spending is not the least expensive path. A significantly higher rate will save us total cost.

So the decision. Spend more of our resources now to save future generations what might well be for them unaffordable.

Step up to the plate.

Will we be responsible enough at this critical time?

Conservatives say no. Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend ignorance.

Liberals say yes. It's not only responsible but ripe with economic opportunity.

What do you say?

LOL, you nincompoop...

Einsteins own words...

Quote by Einstein: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can o...

“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”


― Albert Einstein

When you are done re-writing the laws of physics let us know tweaker..

And the fact oldsocks tries to defend you... CLassic... ROFL..

 

[gslack]

What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.

Energy from the surface.. Jesus man, they held your hand and helped you and you still fight it..

What the hell "media" do you think you are referring to moron?... The sun heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere, and convection does it's thing..

Dude seriously, you can't be anymore ignorant..

Uh, gslack, that is exactly what he said. Just in terms that a scientist would use. And you forgot the ocean in your little speil. The ignorance demonstrated here is yours, ignorance concerning science and language.

Oh no it isn't oldoscks.. He just showed himself for a loon again, and like before we have another warmer faithful trying tocover for him... Pathetic.. LOL, the surface.. Get it? The ocean surface, the earth surface, the surface of the roof of your house, the surface.. Moron..LOL

Want to defend his latest nonsense? He just re-wrote the law of conservation of energy, want to take a crack at defending that?

ROFL

 

[PMZ]

What drives weather is energy being transferred among media until it finds a way out of the system by the force of elevated systemic temperature and therefore higher energy radiation.

Energy from the surface.. Jesus man, they held your hand and helped you and you still fight it..

What the hell "media" do you think you are referring to moron?... The sun heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere, and convection does it's thing..

Dude seriously, you can't be anymore ignorant..

Uh, gslack, that is exactly what he said. Just in terms that a scientist would use. And you forgot the ocean in your little speil. The ignorance demonstrated here is yours, ignorance concerning science and language.

Slackerman has to be regarded as a special case of scientifically retarded. He often agrees with me and doesn't realize it. He is a professional disagreer too. He likes to hang around scientific circles hoping that some will rub off, but when that does happen he's not alert enough to realize it.

Sad case.

 

[PMZ]

One of the favors that the Slackster does for me with every post is his tag line. He believes that it insults me when in fact it insults him. He's just not able to understand the sense that those two statements make.

For instance, I might say that "John Brown's life is over". Slackster would like to sell that as meaning the same as "life is over".

The question of course being what chance does a person not able to understand that simple logic have in the complex world of science?

 

[PMZ]

A good WSJ artical about the "traveling wave reactor" technology and how important it is to foster innovation to create the future that we need.

TerraPower, Bill Gates and the Reactor - WSJ.com

We can hide from our problems or we can aggressively pursue solving them. Our individual choices along that spectrum will be determined by our faith in mankind. The world has always be built by "can doers" but lately it seems that they've been hampered by past, rather than future, worshipers.

 

[IanC]

But what science is available to you and not the IPCC? I'm not sure what you mean by pristine. This is science.

You are naïve if you believe science is cut and dried.

Why do you so easily believe the motivations of sceptical are evil and wrong while also believing concensus scientists have only the purest of motives?

The IPCC reports are not neutral.

They are more neutral than you are. You are committed to prove them wrong with no science to support your preformed opinion. I don't read any conclusions in their positions that aren't well supported by science.

I understand why you want to have complete faith in the legitimacy of the IPCC. Unfortunately the reality is not so uncomplicated.

Himalayagate and Amazongate both had the full backing of the IPCC, and they were defended until the evidence was overwhelmingly against them. What makes you so sure that other areas that are not so unequivocal are not also being defended because of past agreement rather than the preponderance of evidence? The hockeystick graph and climate sensitivities immediately spring to mind.

 

[PMZ]

What gives me faith in science is the scientific process and the mindset of those who dedicate their lives to it.

I've seen no credible science from deniers. Only obfuscation.

The simple conservation of energy applied to planet earth demands AGW as the only response to rising atmospheric GHG concentrations.

On the other hand there is huge money at stake in denial politics.

If I follow the money and the politics I see the problem completely. If I follow the science I see both theoretical and empirical sense.

 

[orogenicman]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

 

[flacaltenn]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

That's right.. Blame the Post Office for delivering the bad news..

WHO exactly did the hacking? You don't know -- do ya? T'was not a random attack. Could have been done in concert with a "whistle-blower" member of the Climate Science community --- couldn't it?

Are whistle-blowers criminals? Do they need evidence to back up their assertions? Of course they do..

Much good came of this exposure..

 

[IanC]

As opposed to e-mail hackinggate?

I want all the "ethical" deniers here to come out of the closet and state irrefutably that they believe that hacking government e-mail servers, stealing confidential communications, and publishing them on the internet is a violation of national and international laws, and has no place in scientific discourse. Let us see how many actually believe that such behavior is reprehensible, illegal, and unethical, and call for the illegal practice to stop. (This should be interesting).

Has anyone here said it was legal? Are you equally offended when govt confidential material is hacked and released? What is your opinion on Gleick committing fraud against Heartland? What did you think of the forged document Gleick added to the real material? At least Climategate only released real documents, not forgeries whose sole purpose was to slander. Who is worse in your opinion, Gleick or the Climategate hacker?

Should Gleick be allowed to keep his honoured positions with the AGU and other organizations? What would you consider appropriate punishment for the hacker, if he had been identified?

 

[PMZ]

'' Much good came of this exposure.''

For instance?

 

[IanC]

For those who are into science rather than politics.

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the reference above and the main reason why AGW is scientifically irrefutable.

''The sum of all the forms of energy inside a volume of space can only change by the amount of energy leaving or entering the volume.''

The evidence of energy imbalance is sketchy at best, and is dependant on assumptions made in computer models that produce values that are smaller than the error bars. We have been seeing many systems, such as GRACE, that are being scaled back to more conservative numbers as more data is available to calibrate the calculations.

 

[IanC]

'' Much good came of this exposure.''

For instance?

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.

 

[PMZ]

For those who are into science rather than politics.

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the reference above and the main reason why AGW is scientifically irrefutable.

''The sum of all the forms of energy inside a volume of space can only change by the amount of energy leaving or entering the volume.''

The evidence of energy imbalance is sketchy at best, and is dependant on assumptions made in computer models that produce values that are smaller than the error bars. We have been seeing many systems, such as GRACE, that are being scaled back to more conservative numbers as more data is available to calibrate the calculations.

There is nothing at all sketchy about the behavior of GHGs nor their increasing concentration in our atmosphere. And the result of previous times in earth's history when they were there.

 

[flacaltenn]

THis is just one pledge I've taken for ethics.. Maybe OrogenicMan wants to tell me if it covers exposes fraud that jeopardizes the public interest...

1.to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

2.to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;

3.to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;

4.to reject bribery in all its forms;

5.to improve the understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential consequences;

6.to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;

7.to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

8.to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9.to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;

10.to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

#9 might be countervailing guidance to hacking someone's emails --- but NOT if I had prior knowledge to suspect that fraud on the public was being committed.

Ethics probably NEED to be spelled out.. We shouldn't be winging it..

WHOEVER did the hacking had reason to suspect ethics violations and public fraud. It was NOT to steal a bunch of personal information..

 

[IanC]

From the reference above and the main reason why AGW is scientifically irrefutable.

''The sum of all the forms of energy inside a volume of space can only change by the amount of energy leaving or entering the volume.''

The evidence of energy imbalance is sketchy at best, and is dependant on assumptions made in computer models that produce values that are smaller than the error bars. We have been seeing many systems, such as GRACE, that are being scaled back to more conservative numbers as more data is available to calibrate the calculations.

There is nothing at all sketchy about the behavior of GHGs nor their increasing concentration in our atmosphere. And the result of previous times in earth's history when they were there.

You are very much like konradv, in as much that you have taken one piece of information and have given it far too much importance. The co2 effect is real but much smaller than you think.

The IPCC often uses legitimate science but the directio and conclusions it comes to are not the only ones consistent with the evidence.

You think that I and other skeptics are trying to'trick you' but you haveto invent implausible reasons for our actions. The vast majority of skeptics not only get no recompense but actually pay a price for their position.