Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

yep, thanks for proving my point!!!!!

"The arguments against climate science are not scientifically based out peer reviewed"
That doesn't prove your point.

what is my point?

Sorry, what do you think my point is?

to attack Al gore?

who? Who is he? Why would I quote a loser politician?

what a phoney

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

show the experiment that shows what 10 PPM of manmade CO2 does differently than 10 PPM of natural CO2. Your answer will be that it does absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!!

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

 

[jc456]

show the experiment that shows what 10 PPM of manmade CO2 does differently than 10 PPM of natural CO2. Your answer will be that it does absolutely nothing. NOTHING!!!!

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

 

[IanC]

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

The mechanism of CO2 is a simple concept that cannot be reasonably be denied. That its pressure towards warming can be easily overwhelmed by natural factors also cannot reasonably be denied. CAGW makes its biggest mistake by thinking that CO2 is directly involved with all the feedback systems.

 

[lake avenue]

There is no difference, they both affect the environment the same, but we make significantly more CO2 than nature does.


Who said natural and man made CO2 was different?

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

The mechanism of CO2 is a simple concept that cannot be reasonably be denied. That its pressure towards warming can be easily overwhelmed by natural factors also cannot reasonably be denied. CAGW makes its biggest mistake by thinking that CO2 is directly involved with all the feedback systems.

agreed, and why the warmers can't prove any of what they say. Probably never will. Why can't they just admit it? They have an agenda.

 

[jc456]

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

first, we can debate until the end of time that temperatures have gone up in the last 18 years four months. At least the IPCC agrees with me on that. CO2 did go up in that time frame, some 10 to 20 PPM. so why didn't temperatures follow? CO2 is logarithmic, it will saturate. Also, CO2 only holds heat in and does not reflect heat back to earth. That's a farce. CO2 has always and will always follow temperatures and why the earth has cycles. Interruptions have changed the cycles over the millions upon million years. BTW, more LW is now found in the atmosphere out to space and there is no warming happening. How is that possible? It goes against what you just posted.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

The mechanism of CO2 is a simple concept that cannot be reasonably be denied. That its pressure towards warming can be easily overwhelmed by natural factors also cannot reasonably be denied. CAGW makes its biggest mistake by thinking that CO2 is directly involved with all the feedback systems.

agreed, and why the warmers can't prove any of what they say. Probably never will. Why can't they just admit it? They have an agenda.

NASA

refute something that NASA says is a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

 

[jc456]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let me see, people who say the globe is warming: scientists

against

Novel writers who quote out of context crap on Einstein?

When NASA says the
"evidence for rapid climate change is compelling"

I'll err on the side of scientists at NASA
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Call me silly, but say what you will about Global Warming -- I'll side with the scientists at NASA

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7 http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

call it erring on the side of a consensus or even better, on the fastest horse in the race​

 

[jc456]

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

The mechanism of CO2 is a simple concept that cannot be reasonably be denied. That its pressure towards warming can be easily overwhelmed by natural factors also cannot reasonably be denied. CAGW makes its biggest mistake by thinking that CO2 is directly involved with all the feedback systems.

agreed, and why the warmers can't prove any of what they say. Probably never will. Why can't they just admit it? They have an agenda.

NASA

refute something that NASA says is a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

I refute it all as fact. I don't doubt they believe that and can manipulate all of the data to support their position. But the fact is, CO2 was in the thousand PPM area before humans existed. Fact, sea level hasn't risen, look at the beaches of the Hawaiian Islands, the islands in the Carribean, I see no panic. Where is the panic on those islands? Temperature increases, come now, that's been discussed on here for years, reconstructed datasets. that isn't fact. Again, it may be to them, but not to me. You can't do any better than that eh?

Oh I know, post that picture of Venice with the streets flooded from 2012 sixth highest, because of a storm. still like that today? Hmm, the water receded because it was ....due to a storm and not sea level rise. my Gawd.

 

[jc456]

Call me silly, but say what you will about Global Warming -- I'll side with the scientists at NASA

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7 http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

call it erring on the side of a consensus or even better, on the fastest horse in the race​

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.

I just laugh out loud at you all. The very first sentence "All three major global surface temperature reconstructions" ahem, do you know the definition of the word reconstruction? It is exactly what I and several on here say they all do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

The mechanism of CO2 is a simple concept that cannot be reasonably be denied. That its pressure towards warming can be easily overwhelmed by natural factors also cannot reasonably be denied. CAGW makes its biggest mistake by thinking that CO2 is directly involved with all the feedback systems.

agreed, and why the warmers can't prove any of what they say. Probably never will. Why can't they just admit it? They have an agenda.

NASA

refute something that NASA says is a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

I refute it all as fact. I don't doubt they believe that and can manipulate all of the data to support their position. But the fact is, CO2 was in the thousand PPM area before humans existed. Fact, sea level hasn't risen, look at the beaches of the Hawaiian Islands, the islands in the Carribean, I see no panic.

Where is the panic on those islands? Temperature increases, come now, that's been discussed on here for years, reconstructed datasets. that isn't fact. Again, it may be to them, but not to me. You can't do any better than that eh?

Oh I know, post that picture of Venice with the streets flooded from 2012 sixth highest, because of a storm. still like that today? Hmm, the water receded because it was ....due to a storm and not sea level rise. my Gawd.

So you think NASA is manipulating data because they have staked out a position ahead of time? What effing position?

NASA says

"Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4"

You say things like "look at the beaches" or " it's cold today, so the planet can't have warmed"

news flash: even your buddies in the led GOP Senate agree
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax ThinkProgress​

 

[jc456]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

The mechanism of CO2 is a simple concept that cannot be reasonably be denied. That its pressure towards warming can be easily overwhelmed by natural factors also cannot reasonably be denied. CAGW makes its biggest mistake by thinking that CO2 is directly involved with all the feedback systems.

agreed, and why the warmers can't prove any of what they say. Probably never will. Why can't they just admit it? They have an agenda.

NASA

refute something that NASA says is a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

I refute it all as fact. I don't doubt they believe that and can manipulate all of the data to support their position. But the fact is, CO2 was in the thousand PPM area before humans existed. Fact, sea level hasn't risen, look at the beaches of the Hawaiian Islands, the islands in the Carribean, I see no panic.

Where is the panic on those islands? Temperature increases, come now, that's been discussed on here for years, reconstructed datasets. that isn't fact. Again, it may be to them, but not to me. You can't do any better than that eh?

Oh I know, post that picture of Venice with the streets flooded from 2012 sixth highest, because of a storm. still like that today? Hmm, the water receded because it was ....due to a storm and not sea level rise. my Gawd.

So you think NASA is manipulating data because they have staked out a position ahead of time? What effing position?

NASA says

"Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4"

You say things like "look at the beaches" or " it's cold today, so the planet can't have warmed"

news flash: even your buddies in the led GOP Senate agree
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax ThinkProgress​

BTW, I believe that climate changes. I believe that climate changes in cycles and daily. Not sure what you're after. What can I do for you that you haven't gotten out of the last couple of posts?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Call me silly, but say what you will about Global Warming -- I'll side with the scientists at NASA

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7 http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

call it erring on the side of a consensus or even better, on the fastest horse in the race​

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.

I just laugh out loud at you all. The very first sentence "All three major global surface temperature reconstructions" ahem, do you know the definition of the word reconstruction? It is exactly what I and several on here say they all do.

Okay, you disagree with NASA (a denier you are) Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence



but disagreement is NOT refutation

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The mechanism of CO2 is a simple concept that cannot be reasonably be denied. That its pressure towards warming can be easily overwhelmed by natural factors also cannot reasonably be denied. CAGW makes its biggest mistake by thinking that CO2 is directly involved with all the feedback systems.

agreed, and why the warmers can't prove any of what they say. Probably never will. Why can't they just admit it? They have an agenda.

NASA

refute something that NASA says is a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

I refute it all as fact. I don't doubt they believe that and can manipulate all of the data to support their position. But the fact is, CO2 was in the thousand PPM area before humans existed. Fact, sea level hasn't risen, look at the beaches of the Hawaiian Islands, the islands in the Carribean, I see no panic.

Where is the panic on those islands? Temperature increases, come now, that's been discussed on here for years, reconstructed datasets. that isn't fact. Again, it may be to them, but not to me. You can't do any better than that eh?

Oh I know, post that picture of Venice with the streets flooded from 2012 sixth highest, because of a storm. still like that today? Hmm, the water receded because it was ....due to a storm and not sea level rise. my Gawd.

So you think NASA is manipulating data because they have staked out a position ahead of time? What effing position?

NASA says

"Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4"

You say things like "look at the beaches" or " it's cold today, so the planet can't have warmed"

news flash: even your buddies in the led GOP Senate agree
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax ThinkProgress​

BTW, I believe that climate changes. I believe that climate changes in cycles and daily. Not sure what you're after. What can I do for you that you haven't gotten out of the last couple of posts?

the world climate changes daily? how the eff do you know that?

Oh, you must be talking about your local weather

 

[jc456]

agreed, and why the warmers can't prove any of what they say. Probably never will. Why can't they just admit it? They have an agenda.

NASA

refute something that NASA says is a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

I refute it all as fact. I don't doubt they believe that and can manipulate all of the data to support their position. But the fact is, CO2 was in the thousand PPM area before humans existed. Fact, sea level hasn't risen, look at the beaches of the Hawaiian Islands, the islands in the Carribean, I see no panic.

Where is the panic on those islands? Temperature increases, come now, that's been discussed on here for years, reconstructed datasets. that isn't fact. Again, it may be to them, but not to me. You can't do any better than that eh?

Oh I know, post that picture of Venice with the streets flooded from 2012 sixth highest, because of a storm. still like that today? Hmm, the water receded because it was ....due to a storm and not sea level rise. my Gawd.

So you think NASA is manipulating data because they have staked out a position ahead of time? What effing position?

NASA says

"Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4"

You say things like "look at the beaches" or " it's cold today, so the planet can't have warmed"

news flash: even your buddies in the led GOP Senate agree
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax ThinkProgress​

BTW, I believe that climate changes. I believe that climate changes in cycles and daily. Not sure what you're after. What can I do for you that you haven't gotten out of the last couple of posts?

the world climate changes daily? how the eff do you know that?

Oh, you must be talking about your local weather

Ah, I see you don't know the difference do you? You should edumicate yourself.