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

[westwall]

No matter what happens within system earth, energy balance remains the necessary long term equilibrium big picture end point.

It is very entertaining to consider all of the various thermodynamics of earth, oceans, atmospheres, ice caps, natural and man made sources and sinks, frequency domain details, as long as they are regarded as actors on a stage who play their parts and interact and then retire to the wings. But the play is Conservation of Energy and at the end of the performance that's the plot that the audiance carries home.

Energy in = energy out. Incoming solar radiation is constant enough to be considered so over the long term. Outgoing long wave is presented obstacles on the way out. Unles you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the higher the concentration of it in the atmosphere, the more incoming energy temporarily exceeds outgoing, and that energy will have its way with earth until the net effect of warming drives it through the obstacles.

How long that play takes, and how much forcing is required as a function of GHG concentration, can be debated endlessly, and has been, and the majority of scientists are now converging on some more reliable estimates.

Let me say that I have been no part of that but have researched and followed it objectively and am the reporter here.

While you've been consumed with proving denial, a professed skeptic is not an objective perspective, the mainstream science community has considered all possibilities in an open minded way, and discovered, as often happens, the big picture is pretty simple. The details endlessly fascinating.

There is a time and place for skepticism, but it's long over. The problem has moved from a science problem to a business, political, and engineering one.

Technology, economics, risk, profit making, jobs, organizations, laws, etc are the stars of the next act and are already on stage playing their roles.

"you've been consumed with proving denial"

that funny! the warmers call me a denier and the deniers call me a warmer, hahahahaha.

I am not consumed with anything. I try to point out the weakness in the logic and data that the catastrophic AGW side puts up as evidence, thats all.

by coincidence the 90's appeared to support the CO2 theory. the idea got locked in but since then they have been trying to jam square pegs into round holes to make things fit.

there is no 3x feedback. nature abhors positive feedbacks because they are unstable.

there is no 'hotspot', which is an obligatory condition for all climate models. not from lack of looking for it, I might add.

if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere then more than 90% of the heat would escape by direct radiation from the surface and less than 10% would be carried even part way up by conduction and convection. as GHGs are added the ratio changes, especially at lower elevations because heat is stored, temps go up, and energy is available to drive convective and latent heat pathways. the ratio has already gone from 90:10 to 66 (40 through the window, 26 pinballing through GHGs) : 97 (17 thermal, 80 latent heat). nature has already found a way past the blockage in the near-surface atmosphere, any diminishment of that 26W by CO2 is mostly going into the already primed other pathways, not being completely transformed into extra surface temperature.

it has been this warm, or warmer, for much of the interglacial with no catastrophes. proxy reconstructions wipe out the variance so we cannot see the peaks and valleys of past temperature records, if you looked at the modern thermometer era at the same resolution as proxy records it would hardly be an upturn. that is why it is so dishonest to splice on high definition data to proxy reconstructions like the MBH98,99 Hockey Stick abominations. they are pure propaganda, and the authors knew it.

I could care less whether you understand the points I am trying to make but the one thing I know that you are wrong about is my politics. I am a socialist Swedish-Canadian, although I must admit I am old enough to have been forced by reality to give up some of my youthful exuberance about the intelligence and character of mankind. global warming alarmism isnt the stupidest thing I have seen from group think herd mentality, but it has been the longest lasting and most expensive.

I think that your science is strong on the thermodynamics of the earth adjusting to energy imbalance, but you seem to think that energy only sometimes needs to be conserved.

But there is a more important point that you tend to underplay by an order of magnitude. The resulting warming of AGW is not the problem at all. The fact that we have built a civilization capable of feeding and housing 7B people assuming a stable climate which has now become unstable from this energy imbalance is the problem. We have just experienced only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what it will require to rebuild civilization to accomodate the new climate. But it's something for which there is no choice. That's why the current discussion is mostly outside of the scientific community. It's among engineers and business people and politicians and meteorologists and public safety people and agriculturalists.

Denialists assume that do nothing is a choice. They present zero evidence to support that which they'd like to be true. For that reason they are no longer relevant to the future. Cultural Natural Selection is at work on the problem and denialism will go extinct.

Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.

We don't "think" that energy needs to be conserved. It's called a physical LAW. No one need look any further than that post to realize just how much of a tinfoil hat wearer you are.

Thanks for making it so obvious.

 

[itfitzme]

Speaking of permafrost, NASA has just begun a program of determining the rate of GHG emissions from thawing permafrost. *The program, CARVE (Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment), an equipment laden plane flies at 500 ft, gathering samples.

Daily Kos :: Arctic Methane found at "Amazing Levels" by NASA

NASA Tracks Greenhouse Gases from Thawing Permafrost | Climate Change | LiveScience

Missions - CARVE - NASA Science

Science - Water and Carbon Cycles: Projects

Missions - CARVE - NASA Science

nasa carve - Google Search

nasa tundra methane - Google Search

 

[mamooth]

Fox, if you're going to call people socks, just do it and admit it to doing it. The way you constantly do it and then weasel about it makes you look cowardly and dishonest.

The way you're trying to derail discussion here also makes you look cowardly and dishonest. Deflection is all you do, aside from buttkissing the rest of your tribe, and repeating the idiot fables of your political cult concerning some vast mysterious unnamed "loss of freedom". You contribute nothing meaningful to any discussion. You are essentially a troll, which is why you're not taken seriously.

 

[westwall]

Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.


The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming. Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

No, and no. They don't care about facts Foxfyre. They made that plain from the very beginning. I post that up for those who read these threads and actually wish to learn something. saggy is a very useful idiot in that he will parrot very basic talking points and then try and defend them to the death. He is a very good target and the skeptical side has won over at least five people from that interplay.

PMZ is simply a troll with no redeeming value at all so I pretty much ignore what it posts.

olfraud is in the same vein as saggy and I have won over many converts by demolishing his arguments. The same go's for trolling blunder and poopy. The more they repeat the party line over and over and over again the less people believe them because we have more and more recent information to present.

They are losing and losing big time. They know it, they're just not smart enough to figure out how to stop it.

Not lying about facts would be a step in the right direction, but they are incapable of that.

 

[mamooth]

Speaking of permafrost, NASA has just begun a program of determining the rate of GHG emissions from thawing permafrost.

Another interesting program is the Dark Snow expedition, heading out to Greenland now to look at soot effects. They're having trouble with money though, having to beg just to get 80k for the expedition.

Dark Snow Project

Getting rich, those guys are not. These expeditions operate on a shoestring in the most godforsaken places on earth. Makes the cranks who claim "it's all about grants" look stupid and dishonest. Yeah, greedy people always camp in the ice for peanut wages.

 

[flacaltenn]

I like this;

"This message is hidden because flacaltenn is on your ignore list."

If only I could do that in real life.

And what's really funny is I keep reading it as;

"FLATULANCE has been ignored."

Which would be even greater in real life.

It just makes me laugh, every time.

I come in ONCE on this thread. Make an almost irrefutable beat down on his post.. And he blissfully thinks he's winning by running away scared..

That's the problem with putting folks on ignore that you cant refute.. Everyone ELSE KNOWS youre a clucking chickenshit...

 

[Foxfyre]

Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.


The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming. Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

No, and no. They don't care about facts Foxfyre. They made that plain from the very beginning. I post that up for those who read these threads and actually wish to learn something. saggy is a very useful idiot in that he will parrot very basic talking points and then try and defend them to the death. He is a very good target and the skeptical side has won over at least five people from that interplay.

PMZ is simply a troll with no redeeming value at all so I pretty much ignore what it posts.

olfraud is in the same vein as saggy and I have won over many converts by demolishing his arguments. The same go's for trolling blunder and poopy. The more they repeat the party line over and over and over again the less people believe them because we have more and more recent information to present.

They are losing and losing big time. They know it, they're just not smart enough to figure out how to stop it.

Not lying about facts would be a step in the right direction, but they are incapable of that.

You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here? Hmmm. . . .

Anyhow, for grins and giggles, I think the deflections are now up to five or more, so let's put it out there again and see what happens:

Did anybody on this thread watch the video Westfall posted? If so, you know that his comments on the presence of malaria bearing mosquitos was to illustrate that the 'scientific opinion' that global warming would increase malaria was just simply foolish on the face of it. But he was discussing that not to discuss malaria bearing mosquitos or bugs in general, but to address a much larger issue.

And then he went on to discuss a really serious issue with the IPCC formal report.

I just wondered what those who watched the video thought about the issue he raised and the point he was making?

 

[mamooth]

What did you think about the other points raised about misinformation being spread as science?

I think avalanche o' crap tactics are sleazy.

You want to prove a point, then state a point. Directly, so there's no ambiguity about it. Don't just reference a video, demand everyone "refute" it, and declare victory if they don't. No one is ever obligated to play such weasel games, but those weasel games seem to be all you have.

 

[westwall]

Speaking of permafrost, NASA has just begun a program of determining the rate of GHG emissions from thawing permafrost.

Another interesting program is the Dark Snow expedition, heading out to Greenland now to look at soot effects. They're having trouble with money though, having to beg just to get 80k for the expedition.

Dark Snow Project

Getting rich, those guys are not. These expeditions operate on a shoestring in the most godforsaken places on earth. Makes the cranks who claim "it's all about grants" look stupid and dishonest. Yeah, greedy people always camp in the ice for peanut wages.

Ahhhh yes, good old Bill....poor little guys freezing out in the snow huh? Suuuuure they are....

350.org has the look and feel of an amateur, grassroots operation, but in reality, it is a multi-million dollar campaign run by staff earning six-digit salaries.

Rockefellers behind ?scruffy little outfit? | FP Comment | Financial Post

 

[Foxfyre]

Deflection #1 and pretty storng confirmation mamooth didn't watch the video. Who is next?

 

[westwall]

What did you think about the other points raised about misinformation being spread as science?

I think avalanche o' crap tactics are sleazy.

You want to prove a point, then state a point. Directly, so there's no ambiguity about it. Don't just reference a video, demand everyone "refute" it, and declare victory if they don't. No one is ever obligated to play such weasel games, but those weasel games seem to be all you have.

So, you'll ignore a five minute video from THE LEADING experts on tropical diseases that refute categorically the drivel you have been posting.

I think we can all clearly see who the science deniers are here.

And it's not the sceptics.

 

[mamooth]

What everyone can see is how you and Fox are terrified of stating any facts directly. You just yell "watch the video!" and run. You have to keep things vague. You know you're spouting a lot of crap, and that making specific claims leaves you vulnerable to being proven wrong. That's one of the points of your "avalanche o' crap" tactics.

But here, sauce for the gander time. Here's a page of 174 debunkings of skeptic arguments. Refute them. All of them. By your standards, you have to refute every bit of it, or admit defeat.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

 

[mamooth]

Deflection #1 and pretty storng confirmation mamooth didn't watch the video. Who is next?

Asskissing taken to this type of extreme often indicates a sock.

My suggestion: try kissing some asses other than Westwall's. That will make you more believable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you watch the video mamooth? What was your impression of what the speaker was saying about the IPCC reports?

 

[SSDD]

You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here? Hmmm. . . .

Anyhow, for grins and giggles, I think the deflections are now up to five or more, so let's put it out there again and see what happens:

Did anybody on this thread watch the video Westfall posted? If so, you know that his comments on the presence of malaria bearing mosquitos was to illustrate that the 'scientific opinion' that global warming would increase malaria was just simply foolish on the face of it. But he was discussing that not to discuss malaria bearing mosquitos or bugs in general, but to address a much larger issue.

And then he went on to discuss a really serious issue with the IPCC formal report.

I just wondered what those who watched the video thought about the issue he raised and the point he was making?

Good video from a genuine expert. Earlier one of the "tuplets" mentioned bark beetles out west as a climate change problem. I took a quick look and wonder of wonders, it isn't a climate change problem at all. Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism. Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control. When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally. Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year, being killed by bark beetles.

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.


The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming. Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

That interview is so valuable from a whole list of angles. On the IPCC process. On the way these lies get embedded in the public media. On the fallacy of "consensus". AND on bugs.

I haven't been following THIS thread closely.. Have ANY of the quadruplet choir responded to this link? Think ANY of them has listened to it?

This is a keeper --- thanks to (I think) Westwall...

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you watch the video mamooth? What was your impression of what the speaker was saying about the IPCC reports?

Didya?? I'd really like to have ANYONE on the "science is settled" side spin this one for us..

(Hopefully without some dumb blog piece trying to character assassinate the fellow)

 

[itfitzme]

"Flatulance has been ignored."

It's still funny.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm, so far crickets. Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video. Would really appreciate your impression of it. And direct refutation if you think he gets any of that wrong.

To help you out, here it is again, the exact video Westwall orginally posted:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PxtWEW2nKRI]The[/ame] Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

 

[flacaltenn]

You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here? Hmmm. . . .

Anyhow, for grins and giggles, I think the deflections are now up to five or more, so let's put it out there again and see what happens:

Did anybody on this thread watch the video Westfall posted? If so, you know that his comments on the presence of malaria bearing mosquitos was to illustrate that the 'scientific opinion' that global warming would increase malaria was just simply foolish on the face of it. But he was discussing that not to discuss malaria bearing mosquitos or bugs in general, but to address a much larger issue.

And then he went on to discuss a really serious issue with the IPCC formal report.

I just wondered what those who watched the video thought about the issue he raised and the point he was making?

Good video from a genuine expert. Earlier one of the "tuplets" mentioned bark beetles out west as a climate change problem. I took a quick look and wonder of wonders, it isn't a climate change problem at all. Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism. Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control. When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally. Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year, being killed by bark beetles.

Also exaccerbated by replanting a less diverse selection of trees. Bark beetles have preferences. When the Forest Service and BLM serve up their favorite fast foods in concentrated areas, there is less foraging, less diversity of forest and the beetles have less predation because they don't leave home to travel as much.