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

[Saigon]

Gslack -

As cosmologist Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.

He said: “It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming will befall the earth within a thousand years.”

Stephen Hawking: Climate change greatest threat posed to human-kind | RTCC - Climate change news

It's not getting hotter yet

Actually it is - average temperatures have risen during the past 100 years. By all means go and check.

 

[Saigon]

Jon -

Ok, we are making progress!

We know that tiny amounts of botulism and radioactive caesium can destroy a large area or ecosystem.

If water is NOT a poison, but can still be fatal in excessive quantites, why do you not think CO2 could also be harmful to the environment in excessive quantities?

you are full of nonsense

--LOL

Ok, so this one was simply too difficult for you, and that's fine.

I think most people will be able to understand the issue, so let's see what they have to say. Why not go and drink 25 litres of water and report back to us on how much healthier you feel?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon -

Ok, we are making progress!

We know that tiny amounts of botulism and radioactive caesium can destroy a large area or ecosystem.

If water is NOT a poison, but can still be fatal in excessive quantites, why do you not think CO2 could also be harmful to the environment in excessive quantities?

you are full of nonsense

--LOL

Ok, so this one was simply too difficult for you, and that's fine.

no it is not to difficult

co2 is a trace gas

get over it

it is not botulism

it is not radioactive

it is essential to life on the planet

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

As cosmologist Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.

He said: “It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming will befall the earth within a thousand years.”

Stephen Hawking: Climate change greatest threat posed to human-kind | RTCC - Climate change news

It's not getting hotter yet

Actually it is - average temperatures have risen during the past 100 years. By all means go and check.

LOL,that was a pretty general statement he made. You notice he also mentioned a natural disaster and nuclear war as well... Funny how you don't notice that.. ALsoI wasn't aware he was researching climate change? When did he start doing that? LOL..

It rose and now its not.. And? It rose before, even before us, it fell too.. Now prove that CO2 warms the planets surface like I asked you to do..

Your attempt to misrepresent my claim is noted...

My words to you...

"Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it..."

You responded to an edited single line from the post, and tried to misrepresent my post.. If you continue this course good luck trying to win back respect after your fake finnish journalist nonsense..

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "

http://www.examiner.com/article/stephen-hawking-s-best-quotes-about-the-earth-climate-change

You mentioned Hawking as a noted physicist. Like most noted physicists, he understands climate science better than you or I do.

I'd be delighted to hear why you think he has got this wrong....does he not understand the science as well as you do, or is he perhaps only in science for the money?


btw. Please spare us the constant abuse and diversions.

 

[waltky]

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further.

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... we all gonna be like a frog inna boilin' kettle...

... an' den we all gonna die."

 

[SSDD]

Jon -

Ok, we are making progress!

We know that tiny amounts of botulism and radioactive caesium can destroy a large area or ecosystem.

If water is NOT a poison, but can still be fatal in excessive quantites, why do you not think CO2 could also be harmful to the environment in excessive quantities?

you are full of nonsense

--LOL

Ok, so this one was simply too difficult for you, and that's fine.

I think most people will be able to understand the issue, so let's see what they have to say. Why not go and drink 25 litres of water and report back to us on how much healthier you feel?

If you drink 25 liters if water....what sort of concentration would that create? If you can't manage an apt analogy, why bother?

 

[SSDD]

Gslack -

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. [\quote]

Is there any evidence, any evidence at all that such a thing happened in the past, even when CO2 was in the multiple thousands of parts per million? If not, describe a change in the fundamental laws of physics that would cause such a thing at less than four or five thousand ppm now.

 

[editec]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tn9yjY05U]Hot In Herre - Nelly Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "

Stephen Hawking's best quotes about the earth, climate change - Miami Interfaith Spirituality | Examiner.com

You mentioned Hawking as a noted physicist. Like most noted physicists, he understands climate science better than you or I do.

I'd be delighted to hear why you think he has got this wrong....does he not understand the science as well as you do, or is he perhaps only in science for the money?


btw. Please spare us the constant abuse and diversions.

Why not cite my post? You respond to it why not cite it so we can see the argument? Because you can't twist the discussion when imy statement is part of your post.. You cite the same link and same reference as if it wasn't addressed...

Pretty childish...But n worry I will re-post it verbatim here, since you decided to re-post your link and claim and ignore my words...

"LOL,that was a pretty general statement he made. You notice he also mentioned a natural disaster and nuclear war as well... Funny how you don't notice that.. ALsoI wasn't aware he was researching climate change? When did he start doing that? LOL..

It rose and now its not.. And? It rose before, even before us, it fell too.. Now prove that CO2 warms the planets surface like I asked you to do..

Your attempt to misrepresent my claim is noted...

My words to you...

"Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it..."

You responded to an edited single line from the post, and tried to misrepresent my post.. If you continue this course good luck trying to win back respect after your fake finnish journalist nonsense.."

Now don't pull that crap with me again. You keep skirting the line of being dishonest and an outright rule violator. Keep it up and you will only ruin your reputation here.

 

[gslack]

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:

FIRST, warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (or any other system, for that matter).

SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space.

THEREFORE, adding more IR absorbing gases will cause a warming tendency.

QED.

Again I emphasize, however, the above simple argument is necessarily true only to the extent that all other elements of the climate system remain the same, which they will not. These other changes are called ‘feedbacks’, and they can either make or break theories of global warming and associated climate change.

Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.

ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis.

the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

I hope you get a kickback from all the free advertising you give his website.. Seriously man, you must have a Spencer shrine in your basement, if the man farted you would try and bottle it..ROFL..

It doesn't warm the surface, the surface is already warmer. It slows heat loss, it doesn't warm the surface. They already know that more energy in means more energy out at a higher rate. In other words, the more the sun warms the surface, the faster the heat will be dissipated away. It's entropy doing it's job.

IF by some miracle the surface and the atmosphere were to reach a state of thermal equilibrium, the radiative transfer would neither add to or subtract from the system, hence blackbody radiation.

The earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse, nor is it anything like one. A closer analogy would be a fine mesh. EM radiation or light comes in well enough to give us light and warm the surface, and when that heat is released it is diffused by the atmosphere. It keeps a more closer to uniform global temperature and slows the heat loss, but DOES NOT heat the surface further.

Spencer used the insulated house story again... Too funny.. The insulation does NOT make the house warmer, it slows the loss of heat. If you turn off the heater it will not stay the same temperature or get any warmer, it will cool down and do so at the rate the insulation levels will permit. Now turn the heater up to 90 F and what will happen? The house will warm until it reaches the 90F temperature and then the thermostat will shut it off. It will reach 90F faster the more insulation you add, but it will NOT warm the interior any more than the heater or heat source. The reason? The 1st and 2nd law negate perfect machines and lossless energy transfer, as well as energy flowing back to it's warmer source without work being done to make it happen.

I think spencer has invested so much into this theory he just refuses to accept reality even when he himself says it...

His own words from your link...

"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."-Roy Spencer

Yes it does, and that IS NOT the same as warming the surface even more than it already is .. It can reach a state of equilibrium with the energy coming in quicker, but it cannot produce any extra energy or warming..

Now I know you're going to go and pretend it makes no sense again and do your standard Ian dumb act. Please be my guest, and show me that you lack the mental capacity to think on the proper level to see things as they are and not as you wish them to be.

Edit* Re-post for Ian because he can't respond to anything honestly..

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO......still ice fishing in Minnesota..........and a moving glacier!!!!

LAUGH......MY.........BALLS.........OFF


Still waiting for spring in Minnesota | Watts Up With That?



You stupid mofu's..........

 

[whitehall]

Coldest "Mother's Day" in history in much of the mid-west. Still snow in some places. Freeze warnings in the southern mid-Atlantic. Tell me again how corrupt America is in causing global warming?

 

[westwall]

Jon Bezerk -

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die.

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.

The BEST? Are you kidding me? They push a paper through their pal review and post it online where it gets demolished in hours and you think they're the best? Get real! These clowns couldn't figure out how to change a damned light bulb.

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. [\quote]

Is there any evidence, any evidence at all that such a thing happened in the past, even when CO2 was in the multiple thousands of parts per million? If not, describe a change in the fundamental laws of physics that would cause such a thing at less than four or five thousand ppm now.

Well, SSDD, you would know a lot more abouit physics than that silly Stephen Hawking. What was he thinking?

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Ignoring your usual witless abuse, do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. [\quote]

Is there any evidence, any evidence at all that such a thing happened in the past, even when CO2 was in the multiple thousands of parts per million? If not, describe a change in the fundamental laws of physics that would cause such a thing at less than four or five thousand ppm now.

Well, SSDD, you would know a lot more abouit physics than that silly Stephen Hawking. What was he thinking?

There you go again showing your dishonest nature.. Grow up man.. Seriously you have yet to respond to anybody you debate honestly.. Are you even capable of it any more? I guess that is what comes from establishing multiple fake persona on a web forum. Easy to lie and be dishonest when your aren't even being truthful about yourself..

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Ignoring your usual witless abuse, do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?

Dude you haven't even responded to the FIRST post where you tried that nonsensical excuse. Respond to my post honestly, fairly and with proper quoting.. Can't can you coward... Yeah we know it's your MO no matter which character you play, this method and manner shines through..

Sorry I don't respond to dishonesty well. Try again..

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

I'll ask again - do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?

Again, please spare us the witless abuse.

 

[westwall]

Gslack -

I'll ask again - do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?

Again, please spare us the witless abuse.

Hawking is a great scientist who has also happened to be WRONG in his own field. From wiki so you can understand it better....



In the area of physics, by 2003, consensus was growing that Hawking was wrong about the loss of information in a black hole.[261] In a 2004 lecture in Dublin, the physicist conceded his 1997 bet with Preskill, but described his own, somewhat controversial solution, to the information paradox problem, involving the possibility of black holes have more than one topology.[262][197] In the 2005 paper he published on the subject, he argued that the information paradox was explained by examining the all the alternative histories of universes, with the information loss in those with black holes being cancelled out by those without.[196][263] As part of another longstanding scientific dispute, Hawking had emphatically argued, and bet, that the Higgs Boson would never be found.[264] The particle, proposed to exist as part of the Higgs Field theory by Peter Higgs in 1964, became discoverable with the advent of the Fermilab near Chicago and the Large Electron Positron and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.[265] Hawking and Higgs engaged in a heated and public debate over the matter in 2002 and again in 2008, with Higgs criticising Hawking's work and complaining that Hawking's "celebrity status gives him instant credibility that others do not have."[265] The particle was discovered at CERN in July 2012: Hawking quickly conceded that he had lost his bet[266][267] and said that Higgs should win the Nobel Prize for Physics.[268]


Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which just go's to show that even the best can be WRONG! And do always remember in the 1950's 97% of the scientific community thought it preposterous the idea of continents moving...look how wrong they were....