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

[itfitzme]

I ran across this, yesterday

Joe Bastardi Calls Manmade CO2 Global Warming ?An Obvious Fraud?

Which presents

and

Thing is, it breaks it up into two sections, 1905 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. *He doesn't do his PDO and AMO thing on 2000 to 2010. *And the last one, he picks just the last 15 years.

It seems to be always the same, zoom in on the noise. Never do the whole thing.

But, still, I just gotta know.

So I find

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming

Which gives

and*

8.4.2 Pacific Decadal Variability - AR4 WGI Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation

Which leads to the following considerations

a) Damned if the zoomed out comparison, just picking up an extra five years on one end, an extra ten on the other, and less smoothing, doesn't look like that R-squared just goes to shits.

and an important point is made. *The physical process of an oscillation cannot add to a long term trend. *

b) The IPCC talks about PDO, so it's not like they haven't thought of it. Nothing new there.

I use to download the data and run my own regressions. *After a dozen of them, this was the pattern. *Zoom in close and pick a short range, I can find anything I'd like. *Use all the data, and suddenly it disappears.

So of all the models I've seen, this one is the best

 

[itfitzme]

OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Are you that surprised when stocks hit "all time highs" consecutively when the DOw is above 15000??? Expect that to happen when the DOw is at 13,000?

Think the Dow hitting monthly "all time highs" is ANY INDICATION of future positive performance?*

I don't care about "3rd warmest on record".. I understand where those numbers are coming from. Apparently you don't...

About those "natural variations".. As I pointed out to Mamooth in another thread --- A rational person would see that if a "natural variation" can swamp the projected increase from GHGas theory, *-- why then --- WHY isn't it a bigger part of the modeling?*

No excuse for finding the temp rise stalled due to well-known and quantified NATURAL variations.. Except maybe sloppy science eh?

Who says it isn't part of the modelling?

How else do you believe they get

?

 

[itfitzme]

ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..

That's funny coming from the guy who thinks plants need graphite and diamonds to grow because they don't get carbon from carbon dioxide.

 

[PMZ]

ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..

That's funny coming from the guy who thinks plants need graphite and diamonds to grow because they don't get carbon from carbon dioxide.

One thing that is clear is that Slackerman Limpnoodle III is not a sock. To be one, someone who doesn't have to be him, would choose to be.

How unlikely is that?

 

[flacaltenn]

I ran across this, yesterday

Joe Bastardi Calls Manmade CO2 Global Warming ?An Obvious Fraud?

Which presents

and

Thing is, it breaks it up into two sections, 1905 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. *He doesn't do his PDO and AMO thing on 2000 to 2010. *And the last one, he picks just the last 15 years.

It seems to be always the same, zoom in on the noise. Never do the whole thing.

But, still, I just gotta know.

So I find

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming

Which gives

and*

8.4.2 Pacific Decadal Variability - AR4 WGI Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation

Which leads to the following considerations

a) Damned if the zoomed out comparison, just picking up an extra five years on one end, an extra ten on the other, and less smoothing, doesn't look like that R-squared just goes to shits.

and an important point is made. *The physical process of an oscillation cannot add to a long term trend. *

b) The IPCC talks about PDO, so it's not like they haven't thought of it. Nothing new there.

I use to download the data and run my own regressions. *After a dozen of them, this was the pattern. *Zoom in close and pick a short range, I can find anything I'd like. *Use all the data, and suddenly it disappears.

So of all the models I've seen, this one is the best

You're such a professional phoney.. Why according to you, regression is the hammer of data analysis. Let's chat Professor Regressive... (now that you appear to monitoring my channel again).

and an important point is made. *The physical process of an oscillation cannot add to a long term trend. *

THat's NOT what the fellow did when he combined TWO oscillatory processes in the AMO and PDO.. And you're "important point" above is SHEER BULLSHIT when you COMBINE "osc9illatory processes...

Ever hear of Fourier Series? You can construct EVERY SIGNAL from a simple sum of sinewaves... Actually is the basis of your MP3 and other compression schemes as well.

Now all that said --- THE SHAPE of that AMO and PDO wave is very interesting. But I'd be foolish to say THAT'S the answer to anything.

You really need to go back on your Ritalin.. It's starting to resemble Romper Room and the The Gong Show in here...

 

[PMZ]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."



Edited for Fair Use link added.Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[westwall]

Look at all those pretty graphs that don't bear any relationship to the real world. Imagine a whole group of people so taken by their religious fervor that they can ignore all real world physical data for the fictions they produce with their cute simplistic models.

Just amazing. That they can eat and wipe their own butts I mean...

 

[gslack]

ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..

That's funny coming from the guy who thinks plants need graphite and diamonds to grow because they don't get carbon from carbon dioxide.

What's even funnier can you point to where I said that?

No? we know socko, because it's a lie. You got called on your BS CO2 sequestering theory and now you want to make shit up... ROFL, try to tone down the foot stomping socko..

 

[gslack]

ifitzpmzpoopiepants sock, your spamming the board isn't helping your story. In fact it's showing your BS for what it is. You're a troll..

That's funny coming from the guy who thinks plants need graphite and diamonds to grow because they don't get carbon from carbon dioxide.

One thing that is clear is that Slackerman Limpnoodle III is not a sock. To be one, someone who doesn't have to be him, would choose to be.

How unlikely is that?

And you are a sock because someone that is pretending not to be you is obviously being you...You two going to follow one another around kissing each others butts all the time or do you ever plan on manning up?

 

[gslack]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

"There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace."

"The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated."

"This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years."

"We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"*– eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor."

"During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago."

"When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole."

"Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance. The paper concluded,"

"Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown."

"Reuters did not talk to the authors of this study, or ask any other climate scientists about this surface warming slowdown that they're supposed to be puzzled about. Actually that's not quite true. Just a week earlier, Reuters interviewed the lead author of that paper in an article with the headline "Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change". The article noted,"


"Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief."

"Reuters didn't connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these 'slowdowns' happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed 'The Escalator'."


"Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12."

"During periods with more La Niñas, surface temperatures temporarily flatten out. But global warming does not. As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, the planet will continue to warm, as is clear from the acceleration of global warming since 2000."

Nice bit of plagiarism socko... no link, no source, no attribution? Way to show your ethical side...

 

[SSDD]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."



Edited for Fair Use link added.Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second? Wow. And that impresses you?

I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second. 4 more causes you to quake in your boots?

Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face. Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his. Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.

Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:

1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source

Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)

Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.

A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.

Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.

To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.

So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb, 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.

Could you even see it?

And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?

If you beleive the math is wrong, by all means point out any errors.

 

[PMZ]

Look at all those pretty graphs that don't bear any relationship to the real world. Imagine a whole group of people so taken by their religious fervor that they can ignore all real world physical data for the fictions they produce with their cute simplistic models.

Just amazing. That they can eat and wipe their own butts I mean...

Another poster boy for ignorance.

 

[PMZ]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

"There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace."

"The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated."

"This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years."

"We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"*– eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor."

"During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago."

"When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole."

"Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance. The paper concluded,"

"Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown."

"Reuters did not talk to the authors of this study, or ask any other climate scientists about this surface warming slowdown that they're supposed to be puzzled about. Actually that's not quite true. Just a week earlier, Reuters interviewed the lead author of that paper in an article with the headline "Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change". The article noted,"


"Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief."

"Reuters didn't connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these 'slowdowns' happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed 'The Escalator'."


"Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12."

"During periods with more La Niñas, surface temperatures temporarily flatten out. But global warming does not. As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, the planet will continue to warm, as is clear from the acceleration of global warming since 2000."

Nice bit of plagiarism socko... no link, no source, no attribution? Way to show your ethical side...

Slackerman Limpnoodle III, tell the class what " means. Then explains what adults use Google for.

 

[PMZ]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."



Edited for Fair Use link added.Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second? Wow. And that impresses you?

I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second. 4 more causes you to quake in your boots?

Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face. Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his. Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.

Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:

1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source

Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)

Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.

A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.

Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.

To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.

So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb, 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.

Could you even see it?

And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?

If you beleive the math is wrong, by all means point out any errors.

Willis Eschenbach has way too much empty time on his hands.

 

[itfitzme]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."



Edited for Fair Use link added.Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something. *4 Hiroshima bombs per second? *Wow. *And that impresses you?*

I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second. *4 more causes you to quake in your boots? *

Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face. *Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his. *Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.

Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:
*
1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
*
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)
*
Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
*
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
*
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
*
To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
*
So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb, 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.
*
Could you even see it?
*
And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?

If you beleive the math is wrong, by all means point out any errors.

Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.

One is called learning, the other psychosis.

 

[PMZ]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."



Edited for Fair Use link added.Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something. *4 Hiroshima bombs per second? *Wow. *And that impresses you?*

I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second. *4 more causes you to quake in your boots? *

Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face. *Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his. *Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.

Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:
*
1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
*
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)
*
Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
*
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
*
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
*
To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
*
So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb, 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.
*
Could you even see it?
*
And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?

If you beleive the math is wrong, by all means point out any errors.

Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.

One is called learning, the other psychosis.

One virus, that you can't see, measure or weigh can kill you. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Size should be everything. Doesn't seem fair that a few hundred parts per million of CO2 could cause draught and tornadoes and superstorms either.

What is Mother Nature thinking? Aren't humans entitled?

 

[gslack]

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it

"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

"There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace."

"The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated."

"This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years."

"We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"*– eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor."

"During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago."

"When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole."

"Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance. The paper concluded,"

"Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown."

"Reuters did not talk to the authors of this study, or ask any other climate scientists about this surface warming slowdown that they're supposed to be puzzled about. Actually that's not quite true. Just a week earlier, Reuters interviewed the lead author of that paper in an article with the headline "Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change". The article noted,"


"Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief."

"Reuters didn't connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these 'slowdowns' happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed 'The Escalator'."


"Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12."

"During periods with more La Niñas, surface temperatures temporarily flatten out. But global warming does not. As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, the planet will continue to warm, as is clear from the acceleration of global warming since 2000."

Nice bit of plagiarism socko... no link, no source, no attribution? Way to show your ethical side...

Slackerman Limpnoodle III, tell the class what " means. Then explains what adults use Google for.

Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...

He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...

The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..

 

[itfitzme]

Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...

He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...

The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..

Cuz nothing says, "No climate change" like "You plagiarised."

Does it ever strike you that you have really wierd fixations that have nothing to do with the actual natural processes like temperature, CO2, acidification, drought, huricanes, wildfires, plant and animal extinctions, farming and agriculture, etc.?

Last I checked, NASA and the IPCC don't use PMZ in their climate models.

It's like how you can tell that a girl likes you because she hits you a lot. Everyone figures that out in grade school.

You may be struggling with latent homosexual feelings.

(As they say, PMZ, he's got a hard@^ for you. You must remind him of his daddy. Yuck!!)

EDIT: Could be an elder sibling or neighbor, you never know with these things

 

[SSDD]

Willis Eschenbach has way too much empty time on his hands.

Enough to show your hiroshima bomb scare tactic for the idiotic hysterics it actually is.

 

[SSDD]

Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.

An amount of energy so small that it can't be measured?....if the claim is true in the first place...may be scary to a hysterical old granny like you, but not to rational thinking people.