Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?
Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?
Because I generally quote only the exact sentence I am responding to - it adds clarity and saves space on the page. If I am responding to your entire post in general terms, I usually quote the entire comment. Any poster can scroll back and read your entire comment if they wish, of course.
Meanwhile - your sig line is STILL fraudulent.
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.
you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.
you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.
I don't know you or your position on AGW. CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth.
The uncertainties in energy in clouds etc dwarf the small but real CO2 effect. Climate science has stated that they have studied all of the factors and have come to the conclusion it must be CO2! I find that to be ridiculous when the error bars are much larger than the effect being measured. It is 'hidden variable fraud'.
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.
Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?
Because I generally quote only the exact sentence I am responding to - it adds clarity and saves space on the page. If I am responding to your entire post in general terms, I usually quote the entire comment. Any poster can scroll back and read your entire comment if they wish, of course.
Meanwhile - your sig line is STILL fraudulent.
you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.
I don't know you or your position on AGW. CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth.
The uncertainties in energy in clouds etc dwarf the small but real CO2 effect. Climate science has stated that they have studied all of the factors and have come to the conclusion it must be CO2! I find that to be ridiculous when the error bars are much larger than the effect being measured. It is 'hidden variable fraud'.
"CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth."
I don't understand your point. No matter where it is, co2 reflects roughly half of longwave radiation from the earth down again. And transmits virtually all short wave radiation down too.
Eliminate all of the red herring stuff, and things get simple. The earth is a closed system except for solar short wave radiation in, and long wave radiation out. Reduce the amount out, and that energy has to raise the temperature of the system until the same amount is coming out as going in. There are simply no other global possibilities.
What is complicated about that?
Why not leave in the parts you edit out of peoples posts in your quotes?
Because I generally quote only the exact sentence I am responding to - it adds clarity and saves space on the page. If I am responding to your entire post in general terms, I usually quote the entire comment. Any poster can scroll back and read your entire comment if they wish, of course.
Meanwhile - your sig line is STILL fraudulent.
No what you do is take any and all context from the post, including your previous words that led to that post. It's childish, dishonest and a douchebag tactic..
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?
you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.
I don't know you or your position on AGW. CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth.
The uncertainties in energy in clouds etc dwarf the small but real CO2 effect. Climate science has stated that they have studied all of the factors and have come to the conclusion it must be CO2! I find that to be ridiculous when the error bars are much larger than the effect being measured. It is 'hidden variable fraud'.
"CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth."
I don't understand your point. No matter where it is, co2 reflects roughly half of longwave radiation from the earth down again. And transmits virtually all short wave radiation down too.
Eliminate all of the red herring stuff, and things get simple. The earth is a closed system except for solar short wave radiation in, and long wave radiation out. Reduce the amount out, and that energy has to raise the temperature of the system until the same amount is coming out as going in. There are simply no other global possibilities.
What is complicated about that?
Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...
Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark
10 May 2013 - Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have broken through a symbolic mark.
Daily measurements of CO2 at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time. The station, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958. The last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed. Scientists say the climate back then was also considerably warmer than it is today.
Key measurements are made on top of the Mauna Loa volcano
Carbon dioxide is regarded as the most important of the manmade greenhouse gases blamed for raising the temperature on the planet over recent decades. Human sources come principally from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. The usual trend seen at the volcano is for the CO2 concentration to rise in winter months and then to fall back as the northern hemisphere growing season kicks in. Forests and other vegetation pull some of the gas out of the atmosphere. This means the number can be expected to decline by a few ppm below 400 in the coming weeks. But the long-term trend is upwards.
Carbon by proxy
James Butler is responsible for the Earth System Research Laboratory, a facility on Mauna Loa belonging to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). Its daily average CO2 concentration figure on Thursday was 400.03. Dr Butler told BBC News: "Carbon dioxide has some variability on an hourly, daily and weekly basis, so we are not comfortable calling a single number - the lowest we will go is on a daily average, which has happened in this case. "Mauna Loa and the South Pole observatory are iconic sites as they have been taking CO2 measurements in real time since 1958. Last year, for the first time, all Arctic sites reached 400ppm. "This is the first time the daily average has passed 400ppm at Mauna Loa." The long-term measurements at Mauna Loa were started by a Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist called Charles Keeling. In 1958, he found the concentration at the top of the volcano to be around 315ppm (that is 315 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air). Every year since then, the "Keeling Curve", as it has become known, has squiggled resolutely higher.
Scripps still operates equipment alongside Noaa on the mountain peak. Its readings have been pushing 400ppm in recent days, and on Thursday recorded a daily average of 399.73. But Noaa senior scientist Pieter Tans said: "Our measurements (Noaa) are in Coordinated Universal Time, while the Keeling measurements are in local Hawaii time. If you shift the Keeling definition of a day to the same as ours then we do agree almost completely on the measurements." By this definition, the Keeling team's Thursday number would be 400.08ppm. And Dr Butler added: "Probably next year, or the year after that, the average yearly reading will pass 400pm. "A couple of years after that, the South Pole will have readings of 400ppm, and in eight to nine years we will probably have seen the last CO2 reading under 400ppm."
To determine CO2 levels before the introduction of modern stations, scientists must use so-called proxy measurements. These include studying the bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice. One of these can be used to describe CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years. It suggests that CO2 held steady over this longer period at between 200ppm and 300ppm. British atmospheric physicist Prof Joanna Haigh commented: "In itself, the value 400ppm of CO2 has no particular significance for the physics of the climate system: concentration levels have been in the 300s for so long and now we've passed the 400 mark. However, this does give us the chance to mark the ongoing increase in CO2 concentration and talk about why it's a problem for the climate."
BBC News - Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark
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.
I don't know you or your position on AGW. CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth.
The uncertainties in energy in clouds etc dwarf the small but real CO2 effect. Climate science has stated that they have studied all of the factors and have come to the conclusion it must be CO2! I find that to be ridiculous when the error bars are much larger than the effect being measured. It is 'hidden variable fraud'.
"CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth."
I don't understand your point. No matter where it is, co2 reflects roughly half of longwave radiation from the earth down again. And transmits virtually all short wave radiation down too.
Eliminate all of the red herring stuff, and things get simple. The earth is a closed system except for solar short wave radiation in, and long wave radiation out. Reduce the amount out, and that energy has to raise the temperature of the system until the same amount is coming out as going in. There are simply no other global possibilities.
What is complicated about that?
The fact that it's not an accurate recital of the physical world.
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?
The fact that you are not following along and REFUTING any of the true statements I've made puts you in the cheap seats. It is NOT a simple action-reaction as you are mindlessly parroting. Besides the dependence on complex (not well known) feedbacks to wreck havoc (in my previous post to you), you are wrong that CO2 is DIRECTLY tied to a specific temp rise..
I'll give you one more chance to find ANY error in this LAST ATTEMPT to educate you..
The CO2 forcing function is an exponential relationship built on concentration ratios.. It predicts an increase/decrease in the HEAT POWER working on the surface of the Earth.. It's units are in watts/m2. To get to temperature, as with any surface, you need to know the thermal properties. In GW theory this is called the elusive "Climate Sensitivity Number"..
This converts the watt/m2 into a surface temp delta. CURRENTLY, the literature shows a complete DISARRAY of agreement listing that number ANYWHERE from the low ones to the high fives... Probably because these idiots treat the entire GLOBE as having just one Climate Sensitivity number when it's obvious that's counter productive to modeling.
Point is --- YOU DON'T KNOW what temperature will do with CO2 forcing, you only know that the watts/m2 will increase by some amount. And when skeptics with a brain hear that
"the science is settled" -- while VITAL insights like this are still in doubt -- we're just not in the mood to be heckled for being skeptical...
There it is.. . Your last chance to nail me on "pseudo-science".. Go spend a couple months on Climate Sensitivity and CO2 forcing function and climate feedback mechanisms and get back to slice and dice me.. I'm scared and I'll wait under the bed...
BTW: Please toss that Occam razor out in the trash.. It's rusted and pitted all to hell.
You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?
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?
The fact that you are not following along and REFUTING any of the true statements I've made puts you in the cheap seats. It is NOT a simple action-reaction as you are mindlessly parroting. Besides the dependence on complex (not well known) feedbacks to wreck havoc (in my previous post to you), you are wrong that CO2 is DIRECTLY tied to a specific temp rise..
I'll give you one more chance to find ANY error in this LAST ATTEMPT to educate you..
The CO2 forcing function is an exponential relationship built on concentration ratios.. It predicts an increase/decrease in the HEAT POWER working on the surface of the Earth.. It's units are in watts/m2. To get to temperature, as with any surface, you need to know the thermal properties. In GW theory this is called the elusive "Climate Sensitivity Number"..
This converts the watt/m2 into a surface temp delta. CURRENTLY, the literature shows a complete DISARRAY of agreement listing that number ANYWHERE from the low ones to the high fives... Probably because these idiots treat the entire GLOBE as having just one Climate Sensitivity number when it's obvious that's counter productive to modeling.
Point is --- YOU DON'T KNOW what temperature will do with CO2 forcing, you only know that the watts/m2 will increase by some amount. And when skeptics with a brain hear that
"the science is settled" -- while VITAL insights like this are still in doubt -- we're just not in the mood to be heckled for being skeptical...
There it is.. . Your last chance to nail me on "pseudo-science".. Go spend a couple months on Climate Sensitivity and CO2 forcing function and climate feedback mechanisms and get back to slice and dice me.. I'm scared and I'll wait under the bed...
BTW: Please toss that Occam razor out in the trash.. It's rusted and pitted all to hell.
The limits to your understanding get more obvious.
Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in. What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored.
That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose.
We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced.
Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.
"CO2 makes it harder for radiation to escape from the surface but once on the other side of cloud cover it actually helps radiation escape into space. Convection and latent heat do the heavy lifting from the surface but only radiation sheds heat from the Earth."
I don't understand your point. No matter where it is, co2 reflects roughly half of longwave radiation from the earth down again. And transmits virtually all short wave radiation down too.
Eliminate all of the red herring stuff, and things get simple. The earth is a closed system except for solar short wave radiation in, and long wave radiation out. Reduce the amount out, and that energy has to raise the temperature of the system until the same amount is coming out as going in. There are simply no other global possibilities.
What is complicated about that?
The fact that it's not an accurate recital of the physical world.
The red herring that this refers to is that I said that co2 reflects half of the long wave radiation down. Not precisely correct but the simplification is accurate in terms of the big picture. To be technically correct I should say that the co2 absorbs the long wave radiation from earth, then reradiates it's own long wave radiation, half of which goes up, and half of which goes down.
Absolutely inconsequential to the main point. Co2 lowers the outgoing energy in proportion to its atmospheric concentration. With the same energy going in, and less going out, the earth and atmosphere must warm, until what's going out equals what's coming in.
This is sort of representative as to how big oil tries to obscure the big truth by dragging those with little science through insignificant details.
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?
The fact that you are not following along and REFUTING any of the true statements I've made puts you in the cheap seats. It is NOT a simple action-reaction as you are mindlessly parroting. Besides the dependence on complex (not well known) feedbacks to wreck havoc (in my previous post to you), you are wrong that CO2 is DIRECTLY tied to a specific temp rise..
I'll give you one more chance to find ANY error in this LAST ATTEMPT to educate you..
The CO2 forcing function is an exponential relationship built on concentration ratios.. It predicts an increase/decrease in the HEAT POWER working on the surface of the Earth.. It's units are in watts/m2. To get to temperature, as with any surface, you need to know the thermal properties. In GW theory this is called the elusive "Climate Sensitivity Number"..
This converts the watt/m2 into a surface temp delta. CURRENTLY, the literature shows a complete DISARRAY of agreement listing that number ANYWHERE from the low ones to the high fives... Probably because these idiots treat the entire GLOBE as having just one Climate Sensitivity number when it's obvious that's counter productive to modeling.
Point is --- YOU DON'T KNOW what temperature will do with CO2 forcing, you only know that the watts/m2 will increase by some amount. And when skeptics with a brain hear that
"the science is settled" -- while VITAL insights like this are still in doubt -- we're just not in the mood to be heckled for being skeptical...
There it is.. . Your last chance to nail me on "pseudo-science".. Go spend a couple months on Climate Sensitivity and CO2 forcing function and climate feedback mechanisms and get back to slice and dice me.. I'm scared and I'll wait under the bed...
BTW: Please toss that Occam razor out in the trash.. It's rusted and pitted all to hell.
The limits to your understanding get more obvious.
Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in. What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored.
That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose.
We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced.
Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.
You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?
The side which has 0.7% of scientific papers on its side is likely to be wrong.
That is how much scientific support climate change denial has.
btw.You have misunderstood the debate about CO2. The reason we need to reduce CO2 emissions is not because people might feel nauseous or get headaches as you suggest - but because CO2 drives the increase in temperatures.
