Late fall and -10 F in Chicago...global warming?

[SSDD]

Clearly you think that there is actual science

Yeah, there is. But you would have had to make it past the 3rd grade to have learned any of it. So yes. I understand your confusion.

I said that there was not a single shred of observed. measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I can't help but notice that like all warmers, you answered with an insult, rather than making me your bitch with that single shred of observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence that I asked for....and that is what you will continue to do....or run away....but you won't provide the evidence I challenged you to produce because it doesn't exist...

 

[Cosmos]

but you won't provide the evidence I challenged you to produce because it doesn't exist...

Of course it exists, you moron. The effects of global warming are measured everywhere. Air and sea temperatures, ocean acidification, bleached out corals, melting glaciers and Antarctic ice sheets, shrinking Arctic multi-year ice, etc. You'd have to be a total boob not to have observed any of this. And the case for man causing it is also obvious in the astronomical increase in emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the last 250 years.

 

[SSDD]

but you won't provide the evidence I challenged you to produce because it doesn't exist...

Of course it exists, you moron. The effects of global warming are measured everywhere. Air and sea temperatures, ocean acidification, bleached out corals, melting glaciers and Antarctic ice sheets, shrinking Arctic multi-year ice, etc. You'd have to be a total boob not to have observed any of this. And the case for man causing it is also obvious in the astronomical increase in emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the last 250 years.

And still I can't help but notice that again, you answer with an insult, as I predicted, rather than bringing forward that single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions that I asked for.

And like all warmers, after the first insult, you immediately begin arguing an entirely different topic...I never suggested that the climate was not changing....of course the climate is changing.....the question is not whether the climate is changing or not...of course it is, just as it always has...the question is whether or not mankind is causing it with his CO2 emissions...you claim that the reason is obvious...but how can that be when no actual evidence exists supporting the claim.

So again...very slowly...can you find a single shred of observed measured quantified empirical evidence supporting the claim that MANKIND IS ALTERING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE WITH HIS CO2 EMISSIONS?

and of course, the answer is no, because not the first shred of evidence supporting that claim exists....evidence that the climate is changing is nothing more than evidence that it is business as usual on planet earth... it is not evidence that mankind is doing it...

 

[Cosmos]

And still I can't help but notice that again, you answer with an insult, as I predicted, rather than bringing forward that single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions that I asked for.

What you're asking for is impossible. You're talking about an experiment on a global scale where you add in a measured amount of greenhouse gases and carefully measure the resulting temperature change. Then you'd have to repeat it multiple times to get anyone to believe it. That's just not going to happen so all we have to go one are ongoing measurements and observations that we're already using.

So yeah, dummies like you will always have your little excuse and claim there's no link between human activity and global warming even though amazingly, CO2 concentrations and average earth temperature clearly established new trendlines not seen in the previous 600000 years about the same time man began burning lots of coal.

I think if you study the science of it, you'll come to the same conclusion. The problem really comes in when the politicians got involved. We've now suffered through 8 years of the worst US regime in history who's policy has been to punish American businesses immediately, while agreeing to the worst polluter in the world, China, continuing to increase it's pollution until 2030 at which time if they feel like it they might begin to do something about their emissions. Then on the other side you've got your various idiot GOP politicians and pundits that claim global warming is all a big hoax just because they don't want to be on the same side of an issue as Obama. So yeah, once the politicians got ahold of it, it's pretty hard to take it seriously.

 

[ding]

Arctic jet dips southward and cold pours into the northern united states....All while the polar and arctic regions remain very warm compared to avg.

View attachment 101761

The northern hemisphere warms during interglacial cycles, Matthew. It is perfectly normal.

The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.

 

[SSDD]

What you're asking for is impossible. You're talking about an experiment on a global scale where you add in a measured amount of greenhouse gases and carefully measure the resulting temperature change. Then you'd have to repeat it multiple times to get anyone to believe it. That's just not going to happen so all we have to go one are ongoing measurements and observations that we're already using.

I am talking about observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical substance (CO2) is causing drastic changes to an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity..the atmosphere. You claimed that there was science at work here...not faith.

Saying that the reason the climate is changing is obvious...and that it is changing due to CO2 is like a very religious person saying that it is obvious that God created the universe. To them it is obvious, but when you start asking for some actual evidence, you find that it just doesn't exist and what they have is faith. You warmers claim that our CO2 is altering the global climate, but when I ask for actual evidence of that claim, then it turns out that you have faith in the claim that CO2 is causing the global climate to change and don't actually have any evidence.

So yeah, dummies like you will always have your little excuse and claim there's no link between human activity and global warming even though amazingly, CO2 concentrations and average earth temperature clearly established new trendlines not seen in the previous 600000 years about the same time man began burning lots of coal.

Upon what do you base your claim that the present climate is something that has not happened in 600,00 years? There are no proxy studies that have anything like the sort of resolution necessary for you to make any such claim....we have ice core data, which is the gold standard in so far as proxy studies go and that data tells an entirely different story than you are telling. For example, here is just the past 10,000 years in the northern hemisphere taken from the Greenland ice core data...

Clearly, the average temperature in the northern hemisphere has been considerably higher than at the present...not 600,000 years ago, but for most of the past 10,000 years. And the same temperature fingerprints evident in the Greenland ice core data are also visible in the Vostok ice core data from Antarctica....and when the earth started falling into the ice age that it is currently still climbing out of, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm..and has been in excess of 1000ppm for most of the history of the earth.

When you look at the temperature reconstructions showing the last 600,000 years, I am more worried that the warming cycle has just about peaked out and that a cooling trend is on the way...we are certainly cooler than 3 of the past 4 interglacial periods by a pretty wide margin. Prolonged cold is far more frightening than prolonged warmth.

I think if you study the science of it, you'll come to the same conclusion.

I have...for decades now, which is why I was supremely confident that you could not provide even the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions. If you are telling me that science is unable to gather observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entities like the atmosphere and CO2, and show actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence, (and I am just asking for evidence...not proof...just some actual evidence) then the science you think is happening...isn't.

The problem really comes in when the politicians got involved.

True that...had politics never become involved, there would have been no motivation to demonize a trace gas in the atmosphere in an attempt to use it as a club to beat capitalism into submission...AGW would never have existed..and certainly never existed as mainstream "science" without serious political support....in real science, when a hypothesis fails a prediction, it is scrapped....just one predictive failure falsifies an actual scientific hypothesis...the AGW hypothesis has failed every predictive test and is kept viable by politics and money...and nothing else.

We've now suffered through 8 years of the worst US regime in history who's policy has been to punish American businesses immediately, while agreeing to the worst polluter in the world, China, continuing to increase it's pollution until 2030 at which time if they feel like it they might begin to do something about their emissions.

Pollution is an entirely different topic and one that I feel very strongly about...I support draconian fines...fines that would bankrupt polluters....and minimum prison sentences of decades for polluters...penalties so terrible that only an idiot would try to get away with skirting the laws because no amount of money would be worth it...Pollution is an actual problem with actual solutions...CO2, however, is not, and never will be a pollutant and so long as the AGW scam is sucking all of the air out of the room by claiming that everything is the result of CO2 emissions, and sucking all the treasure out of the coffers, the real problems will never be addressed.

Then on the other side you've got your various idiot GOP politicians and pundits that claim global warming is all a big hoax just because they don't want to be on the same side of an issue as Obama.

You can't find a single shred...not one small bit....not a single bit of data that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....none exists....and you think us skeptics are skeptical of the claim because of politics?...Only a political wanker would not be skeptical....Name one other scientific field that you believe could convince as many people as are apparently convinced of imminent disaster without the first bit of actual evidence supporting the claims?

And I was skeptical of manmade global warming back when it was global cooling in the 1970's...anyone who has taken a real look at the earth's climate history can not take the present hysterical handwaving over climate seriously...

So yeah, once the politicians got ahold of it, it's pretty hard to take it seriously.

Politics got hold of smoking and that was taken damned seriously...politics got hold of pollution way back when, and that was taken damned seriously...politics has taken hold of numerous scientific topics that have been taken very seriously...the difference is that those which were taken seriously were accompanied by plenty of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supported the scientific claims. There is none in support of the claims being made by climate pseudoscience.

 

[Cosmos]

Saying that the reason the climate is changing is obvious...and that it is changing due to CO2 is like a very religious person saying that it is obvious that God created the universe. To them it is obvious, but when you start asking for some actual evidence, you find that it just doesn't exist and what they have is faith. You warmers claim that our CO2 is altering the global climate, but when I ask for actual evidence of that claim, then it turns out that you have faith in the claim that CO2 is causing the global climate to change and don't actually have any evidence.

It isn't a matter of faith, retard. It's a matter of physics. CO2 is a well documented and well understood greenhouse gas.

 

[Hossfly]

Uncle Al is back from his trek to Antarctica

 

[Cosmos]

Pollution is an actual problem with actual solutions...CO2, however, is not,

CO2 is a combustion byproduct. When you see the air filled with particulates caused by the burning of coal, like in China, there are millions of tons of CO2 also released into the atmosphere that you cannot see.

 

[Hossfly]

Pollution is an actual problem with actual solutions...CO2, however, is not,

CO2 is a combustion byproduct. When you see the air filled with particulates caused by the burning of coal, like in China, there are millions of tons of CO2 also released into the atmosphere that you cannot see.

Something of interest. I wonder how many millions of tons of CO2 the trees on earth absorb every year?

A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.

Untitled Document

 

[SSDD]

Saying that the reason the climate is changing is obvious...and that it is changing due to CO2 is like a very religious person saying that it is obvious that God created the universe. To them it is obvious, but when you start asking for some actual evidence, you find that it just doesn't exist and what they have is faith. You warmers claim that our CO2 is altering the global climate, but when I ask for actual evidence of that claim, then it turns out that you have faith in the claim that CO2 is causing the global climate to change and don't actually have any evidence.

It isn't a matter of faith, retard. It's a matter of physics. CO2 is a well documented and well understood greenhouse gas.

Really?...well documented, and understood, but no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.....or have the power to alter the global climate...

Again, you sound like the religious person stating that it is clear that God created the universe..they will tell you that it isn't faith...that the topic has been studied for thousands of years, and scholars agree....they will tell you that the fact that God created the universe is well understood, etc...

The only thing well understood and well documented regarding CO2 is that it absorbs IR in a couple of very narrow bands, and that it immediately emits the IR that it has absorbed...and again, there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that absorption and emission equal warming....or cooling...

Water vapor has the ability to absorb and actually hold energy, but water vapor isn't politically viable...while CO2, which has no such power is.

 

[SSDD]

Pollution is an actual problem with actual solutions...CO2, however, is not,

CO2 is a combustion byproduct. When you see the air filled with particulates caused by the burning of coal, like in China, there are millions of tons of CO2 also released into the atmosphere that you cannot see.

So what?....CO2 is not a particulate....CO2 is not a pollutant...never has been...and never will be. You exemplify why the actual problems can't be addressed...Climate science is never going to address actual environmental pollution...it blames all evils on CO2 and people like you lump all the harmful things in with harmless CO2 and only want to address CO2 which in reality is a non problem, but is of vast political importance.

 

[Hossfly]

Something to consider if I was a Global Warming nut.

Methane (CH4) is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC’s latest report, released this past Monday, reports that methane is 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale. Methane’s current global-warming potential (GWP) is 34, nearly 40% increase from the IPCC’s previous estimate of 25.

Over the course of 20 years, methane has a global warming potential of up to 86, up from its previously calculated 72. This is far higher than CO2. The problem: most climate change studies do not take this increase into account.

The pressing issue: Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as it is called, is alive and well and seen by many as a more environmentally friendly way to extract natural gas. Opponents have long known that fracking can lead to ground water contamination, denigrated air quality, contaminated water, and raised CO2 levels.

Methane Worse Than CO2 as Greenhouse Gas - Fracking Makes it Even Worse - The Green Optimistic

 

[Crick]

After all that setup, you didn't mention what effect fracking might have on methane levels.

 

[Hossfly]

After all that setup, you didn't mention what effect fracking might have on methane levels.

Try clicking on the link. It touches on the effects.

 

[SSDD]

methane has no more warming power than CO2...which has none beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

 

[westwall]

And that is unusual?

If it were a hot day you would be all over it and you bloody well know it.

 

[SSDD]

If it were a hot day you would be all over it and you bloody well know it.

Every one knows that if it is cold it is just weather.....only hot weather is climate.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Damn I have a hard time believing this game would be colder then the last Bears/packers game I went to in the 1980s..it was cold as hell.


Bears vs. Packers could be coldest game in team history
Winters can be brutal in the city of Chicago.

This coming Sunday the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers will square off from Soldier Field, and the game has a chance to be the coldest in modern Bears history.

 

[SSDD]

Damn I have a hard time believing this game would be colder then the last Bears/packers game I went to in the 1980s..it was cold as hell.


Bears vs. Packers could be coldest game in team history
Winters can be brutal in the city of Chicago.

This coming Sunday the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers will square off from Soldier Field, and the game has a chance to be the coldest in modern Bears history.

Just weather...move along...nothing to see here. If you want to see climate, you must look to the arctic where it is -11 instead of -13.