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

[PMZ]

It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.

Obvious perhaps to a mental midget.. The hysterical projections of TOTAL warming in the future are NOT based on what additional CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere.. MOST of the projected warming comes from climate feedback mechanisms that ARE SAID to be mostly positive towards warming. For instance, a warming planet probably has more cloud cover.. Debates RAGE about the net direction of whether this is a cooling effect or warming effect. Other feedbacks include the ocean ability to sink CO2 or the increased CO2 absorption from the land. NONE of this is settled science.. WITHOUT THE FEEDBACKS, there IS no catastropic Global Warming from man-made CO2.

Note that the theory is that a relatively minor induced rise in temp from CO2 will be the TRIGGER for a ginormous fuel air bomb when the methane melts in the Arctic..

Now I dont expect you'll ponder this. You'll probably keep quoting Occam. But for you to believe that the Earth climate is sooooo fragile that a 3degF forcing in Mean Temperature leads to the end times --- Then you need to know that ANY 3degF forcing would do the same. In other words YOU have to believe that the planet we live on is a dangerous lemon that can't tolerate a 3degF shift without going totally postal.. How silly is that belief really?

Silly enough that YOU think it's simple...

 

[itfitzme]

Well, if it all come do to who to believe....

Hmm...

You or


Global Warming Supportive Sites


GLOBAL

UN
Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - Home (CC Gateway)

IPCC
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Bank
Climate Change Home

Europe
Climate change ?


World Health Organiztion
WHO | Climate change

OECD
Climate change - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

NATIONS

Britian/United Kingdom
Climate - Met Office

Australia
Tackling the challenge of Climate Change | climatechange.gov.au
Climate Change in Australia - Temperature, Rainfall, Humidity, Sea surface Temperature, Wind speed, Potential evapotranspiration, Downward solar radiation

Canada
Canada's Action on Climate Change - Climate Change

Iran
Iran's Climate Change Office

New Zealand
New Zealand climate change information

US-FEDERAL

National Institute Of Health
Climate Change: MedlinePlus

NOAA
Science & Services for Society | NOAA Climate.gov
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management : Climate Change

EPA
Home | Climate Change | US EPA

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

USDA
USDA | Office of the Chief Economist | Climate Change Program Office

National Science Foundation
NSF Climate Change Special Report

CDC
CDC - Climate Change and Public Health - Health Effects

USGS
USGS: Science Topics: climate change

GAO
U.S. GAO - Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions

Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service - Climate Change Emphasis Area

US-STATES

Alaska
State of Alaska - Climate Change in Alaska

Calif
Office of Planning and Research - Climate Change: Just the Facts

NY
Climate Change Information Resources - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Vermont
Vermont Climate Change Initiative

Washington States
Clearinghouse: Federal Resources for Impacts, Preparation, Adaptation | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology

BUSINESS

API
Climate Change

CHEVRON
Climate Change | Global Issues | Chevron

EXXON
Managing climate change risks | ExxonMobil

BP
Climate change

SHELL
Climate change - Shell Global


That makes it way easier.

 

[PMZ]

It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.

Obvious perhaps to a mental midget.. The hysterical projections of TOTAL warming in the future are NOT based on what additional CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere.. MOST of the projected warming comes from climate feedback mechanisms that ARE SAID to be mostly positive towards warming. For instance, a warming planet probably has more cloud cover.. Debates RAGE about the net direction of whether this is a cooling effect or warming effect. Other feedbacks include the ocean ability to sink CO2 or the increased CO2 absorption from the land. NONE of this is settled science.. WITHOUT THE FEEDBACKS, there IS no catastropic Global Warming from man-made CO2.

Note that the theory is that a relatively minor induced rise in temp from CO2 will be the TRIGGER for a ginormous fuel air bomb when the methane melts in the Arctic..

Now I dont expect you'll ponder this. You'll probably keep quoting Occam. But for you to believe that the Earth climate is sooooo fragile that a 3degF forcing in Mean Temperature leads to the end times --- Then you need to know that ANY 3degF forcing would do the same. In other words YOU have to believe that the planet we live on is a dangerous lemon that can't tolerate a 3degF shift without going totally postal.. How silly is that belief really?

Silly enough that YOU think it's simple...

Thanks for the demonstration of pseudo science. I can't wait for the next installment. Meanwhile, every day we put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, more radiation is reflected back to earth, and the average global temperature goes up. Every day. The US spent over $100B in extreme weather recovery last year. Remember when that was rare?

 

[westwall]

Well, the way I read it, they attribute it to gradual changes in the position of the sun AND the increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. Which makes perfect sense to anybody who reads it.

Which is old news

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

So does it explain the current trend?

Yes it's old news and yet your little graphs don't explain how CO2 can possibly drive the bus when it lags hundreds of years behind a warming period. There is more evidence to support the theory that the current uptick in CO2 is due to the Medieval Warming Period that occurred 800 years ago then any theory of yours that claims CO2 is the most important GHG.

You guys settled on CO2 because it is something that can be taxed pure and simple.

 

[westwall]

It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.

Yes, AGW is the poster child for pseudo science. Thank you for pointing that out. What does Occam say about a "theory" that claims global warming will cause both less snow and more snow in winter as AGW proponent have done.

That is the DEFINITION OF PSEUDO SCIENCE. If it's untestable................it isn't science.

 

[westwall]

Well, if it all come do to who to believe....

Hmm...

You or


Global Warming Supportive Sites


GLOBAL

UN
Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - Home (CC Gateway)

IPCC
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Bank
Climate Change Home

Europe
Climate change ?


World Health Organiztion
WHO | Climate change

OECD
Climate change - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

NATIONS

Britian/United Kingdom
Climate - Met Office

Australia
Tackling the challenge of Climate Change | climatechange.gov.au
Climate Change in Australia - Temperature, Rainfall, Humidity, Sea surface Temperature, Wind speed, Potential evapotranspiration, Downward solar radiation

Canada
Canada's Action on Climate Change - Climate Change

Iran
Iran's Climate Change Office

New Zealand
New Zealand climate change information

US-FEDERAL

National Institute Of Health
Climate Change: MedlinePlus

NOAA
Science & Services for Society | NOAA Climate.gov
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management : Climate Change

EPA
Home | Climate Change | US EPA

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

USDA
USDA | Office of the Chief Economist | Climate Change Program Office

National Science Foundation
NSF Climate Change Special Report

CDC
CDC - Climate Change and Public Health - Health Effects

USGS
USGS: Science Topics: climate change

GAO
U.S. GAO - Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions

Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service - Climate Change Emphasis Area

US-STATES

Alaska
State of Alaska - Climate Change in Alaska

Calif
Office of Planning and Research - Climate Change: Just the Facts

NY
Climate Change Information Resources - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Vermont
Vermont Climate Change Initiative

Washington States
Clearinghouse: Federal Resources for Impacts, Preparation, Adaptation | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology

BUSINESS

API
Climate Change

CHEVRON
Climate Change | Global Issues | Chevron

EXXON
Managing climate change risks | ExxonMobil

BP
Climate change

SHELL
Climate change - Shell Global


That makes it way easier.

Ahhhhh yes the ever popular appeal to authority. That too is a logic fail.

 

[westwall]

It's interesting how much pseudo science is invested in denying the obvious. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate. Occam's razor applies.

Obvious perhaps to a mental midget.. The hysterical projections of TOTAL warming in the future are NOT based on what additional CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere.. MOST of the projected warming comes from climate feedback mechanisms that ARE SAID to be mostly positive towards warming. For instance, a warming planet probably has more cloud cover.. Debates RAGE about the net direction of whether this is a cooling effect or warming effect. Other feedbacks include the ocean ability to sink CO2 or the increased CO2 absorption from the land. NONE of this is settled science.. WITHOUT THE FEEDBACKS, there IS no catastropic Global Warming from man-made CO2.

Note that the theory is that a relatively minor induced rise in temp from CO2 will be the TRIGGER for a ginormous fuel air bomb when the methane melts in the Arctic..

Now I dont expect you'll ponder this. You'll probably keep quoting Occam. But for you to believe that the Earth climate is sooooo fragile that a 3degF forcing in Mean Temperature leads to the end times --- Then you need to know that ANY 3degF forcing would do the same. In other words YOU have to believe that the planet we live on is a dangerous lemon that can't tolerate a 3degF shift without going totally postal.. How silly is that belief really?

Silly enough that YOU think it's simple...

Thanks for the demonstration of pseudo science. I can't wait for the next installment. Meanwhile, every day we put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, more radiation is reflected back to earth, and the average global temperature goes up. Every day. The US spent over $100B in extreme weather recovery last year. Remember when that was rare?

Yeah, try going back and calculating disasters from the past and add in the cost of inflation. The reasone why it's so expensive now is because our money is worthless. Add to that the concentration of population in large urban areas and you have a nice little target just waiting to be demolished.

For someone who trys and pass themself off as a big thinker you sure ignore a lot of factors.

 

[gslack]

LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.

I only have one screen name socko,and the fact is nobody here posts like me, acts like me,or debates anything like me. I am unique unlike you and the troll army.

Except that you do not 'debate', and neither does Westwall, of course.

For the umpeenth time, if you have reason to believe that any poster here is using socks, report it to the Mods and have them banned. I'll absolutely support you in that.

If not, stop making baseless attacks simply because you are losing the argument.

AND for the umpteenth time I have and the problem is you ding dongs know enough about proxy-socking to get away with it so far. You have several personas on here, that's obvious. And you're denying it doesn't mean much to me. You're a known liar and a fake.

 

[gslack]

Except that you do not 'debate', and neither does Westwall, of course.

For the umpeenth time, if you have reason to believe that any poster here is using socks, report it to the Mods and have them banned. I'll absolutely support you in that.

If not, stop making baseless attacks simply because you are losing the argument.

We've WON the argument saggy. You have no meaningful legislation going to be passed this year or the next. Further, as the warmists themselves finally lose control over the various journals the real data will get out to the real world and you will find your religion in full retreat.

And yes sweety, I DO debate.....but there must be two to tango and all you do is spew nonsense and silliness. If you ever care to REALLY debate something other than posting something up and screaming "see I won", feel free to. But your methods of "debate" bear no semblance to reality....

Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo? Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them. But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.

Now I'm still reading new studies of primitive fossilized tree rings that so far are receiving little press and attention because they so challenge the current AGW religion. So far only those media outlets that report ALL the news rather than only the politically correct news seem to be dealing with it:

. . . An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. . . .

. . . . The international research team used these density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga. The researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. . . .

. . . ."This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time

Copernicus's theory was not fully accepted by the scientific community for most of 150+ years but the rejection of competent science then had no significant affect on the people. Given the political and socioeconomic damage currently in progress implementing the warmers' religion now, however, I hope it doesn't take that long to get the science right this time.

I have been saying for years now, that GH gases are more likely to aid in shedding heat from the surface than they are to provide any additional warming.

The insulating properties of gases change with temperature. Just as the effects of GH gases are logarithmic, their effects change with rising and falling of temperature. Put the two together and add in natural convection and the system makes a very good heat pump.

It makes more sense logically, and given the evidence we have seems to fit. And this concept does not come into conflict with the 2nd law.

 

[Saigon]

Iftiwazme -

You make an excellent point with those resources, one I hope sceptics will consider with an open mind.

Given none of us are in a position to conduct our own research on this topic, we are all taking the word of some experts.

We know that physicists, geographers, climatologists, chemists and biologists overwhelmingly favour AGW, as does the oil industry, conservative politicians and auto manufacturers.

Opposing we have a handful of scientists, a large group of extreme right wing politicians and the coal industry.

Looked at from that point of view, it's not a difficult choice.

 

[Saigon]

Saigon I have answered your same question again and again and you ignored my answers. So you'll have to do the work to go back to find those posts because I have no confidence that you'll bother to read them if I repeat them because they won't be 'interesting' enough to you. If you read only what interests you and leave out what completes the thought, you would make a really sorry scientist, Wouldn't you agree?

Asking for the third time now - provide me with the post #, and I'll go back and check that answer. How hard is that?

I don't understand why you make points and then apparently refuse to discuss them. This is not the first time I've asked a perfectly polite on-topic question, and you have simply refused to answer it.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?

Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?

It seems to me that endemic to conservatism is the belief that doing nothing is always the cheapest alternative. Of course when you are talking about national problems it's rarely the cheapest alternative. I think that conservatives are hard wired to look only at short term costs and liberals at long term investments.

When you consider all of the national damage done by the Bush Administration it's a toss up as to whether more was from what he did do or what he didn't do.

That seems to be it.

As I said to Ian, of course there are costs associated with transitioning from coal to tidal, but so were there in switching from steam engines to oil. It's a natural progression to move constantly from older, dirtier technologies to newer, cleaner ones. Many of these will also result in direct savings for consumers, in the form of longer-lasting batteries, lightbulbs, or hot water from solar panels. It's progress.

It's also imperative for any government to prepare for whatever contingencies they can imagine - from terror attack to earthquake to rising sea levels.

The potential cost of NOT preparing for, say, increased storm intensity is far greater than the cost of replacing coal.

Why Fox opposes this I have no idea, and she clearly won't discuss it.

 

[gslack]

Iftiwazme -

You make an excellent point with those resources, one I hope sceptics will consider with an open mind.

Given none of us are in a position to conduct our own research on this topic, we are all taking the word of some experts.

We know that physicists, geographers, climatologists, chemists and biologists overwhelmingly favour AGW, as does the oil industry, conservative politicians and auto manufacturers.

Opposing we have a handful of scientists, a large group of extreme right wing politicians and the coal industry.

Looked at from that point of view, it's not a difficult choice.

Oh stop patting your lil bro on the back already. It's pathetic...

He spammed a bunch of links that are behind the BS. It's not hard to find a list of links that support AGW. All one need do is go to a UN website and look, which is pretty much what junior did. Links to the same organizations that have continually pushed this failed hypothesis and have been shown time again to exaggerate findings..

Just read my signature and we can eliminate over half of his links on bias alone.

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Just read my signature and we can eliminate over half of his links on bias alone.

Actually, your sig line is fraudulent - as I am sure you know. (It is missing about 50% of the words in the original statement, and you have deliberately totally changed the meaning)

What do you think it says about a posters integrity that even his sig line has been manipulated?!

 

[Ha3mme8tt]

you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.

 

[Saigon]

you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.

I'm not sure who you mean here, but I am sure no one believes that CO2 "runs" theclimate - THAT is simplistic.

But most scientists believe is that AGW plays a role in altering the climate. That does not mean that the sun or orbital path of the earth do not also alter the climate.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Just read my signature and we can eliminate over half of his links on bias alone.

Actually, your sig line is fraudulent - as I am sure you know. (It is missing about 50% of the words in the original statement, and you have deliberately totally changed the meaning)

What do you think it says about a posters integrity that even his sig line has been manipulated?!

Nonsense... The full quote...

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.[8]).

My shortened version does not change the meaning of his words in any way, nor is it out of context with what was said...

The rebuttal/excuse to the APS he gave in PDF format as it was printed is even worse.. He screwed up and ran his mouth thinking his position would save him, and it didn't so he tried to justify it with a lengthy but pointless excuse.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanphysicalsociety.com%2Fpublications%2Fapsnews%2F199608%2Fupload%2Faug96.pdf

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth]to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

LOL, yes it was shortened but his original is even worse, He even states they should stretch the truth in the original..

ROFL.He thinks you are stupid, and he tells you so there. Read the entire article in the pdf file, its in the "opinion section near the end. He says he didn't mean that scientists should exaggerate even though that is what he said. He also feels that leaving off the words he ended with; "double ethical bind"seems toalter the meaning of his statement. he is a liar. The fact he claims it to be a double ethical bind, rather than a simple and honest portrayal of the data and facts like scientists should do is all too telling of him and his character...

 

[Saigon]

My shortened version does not change the meaning of his words in any way, nor is it out of context with what was said...

Nonsense - we both know that your only intention here was to distort the meaning of the quote as dishonestly as possible without being caught. If you intention was not to distort, you'd have included this sentence:

"...as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts."

Having a distorted and manipulated "quote" as a sig line fairly well sums up your posting altogether, doesn't it?

You're back on ignore mode.

 

[gslack]

My shortened version does not change the meaning of his words in any way, nor is it out of context with what was said...

Nonsense - we both know that your only intention here was to distort the meaning of the quote as dishonestly as possible without being caught. If you intention was not to distort, you'd have included this sentence:

"...as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts."

Having a distorted and manipulated "quote" as a sig line fairly well sums up your posting altogether, doesn't it?

You're back on ignore mode.

If you think it's so inaccurate why not quote my text fully? Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?

You just edited your last quote of my post, and then you try and lecture me on proper quoting? Unbelievable, your hypocrisy knows no bounds..

BTW. If I'm on ignore mode or were than your incessant neg-repping a should have stopped by now but it hasn't has it... Keep it up and when somebody finally realizes what you're doing and that you do it under multiple names, we can be shut of you and your clones. Also, the fact you claim to ignore me but still neg-rep me when you can shows again that you are a liar...