seven stats on climate change

[ReinyDays]

I assumed the atmospheric window as no photographic paper is capable of such a narrow limitation.

Check with Kodak ... they may not make it anymore but they did back in the 1960's and 1970's ... CCD technology is in more general use today, but SSDD says that's bogus pseudo-science and a massive conspiracy to do ... er ... something ... not completely sure ... you'll have to have him tell you why 21st Century electronics are fraudulent ...

Your chart clearly shows CO2 being reactive at 14.9µm ... so thanks for the verification of my claims ... empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

Also ... we can measure the Earth's radiation curve and from there calculate the temperature of 4ºC (277 K) ... the actual temperature is closer to 12ºC or 15ºC ... what do you call this effect if not the greenhouse effect? ... I'd agree with you if you said the internet is full of bullshit explanations of this ... but we still have this ≈10ºC higher temperatures on the surface ... the only thing between the Earth's surface and outer space is the atmosphere ... it's an easy step to say the atmosphere is causing this increase in temperatures ... but I'm open to any other explanation that doesn't violate the basic laws of nature ...

 

[ReinyDays]

... 15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency ...

15µm describes a wavelength ... not a frequency ... they're inversely proportional, but not equal ...

 

[georgephillip]

I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

"Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.

"Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'

Great...lets see some of this evidence...what you have shown is a bit of actual science which doesn't demonstrate anything in particular with a great big assumption that it does tacked on for good measure.

"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."

Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate...that statement claims that we know them all...every natural factor, and how each and every one of those natural factors interact and affect all the others...we aren't even close to having that sort of knowledge of the way energy moves through the atmosphere...the statement is pure pseudoscience..and very very dishonest.. But if you think we know all the factors, and how they interact with each other, by all means, start listing..

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?

"Rush Limbaugh’s comments would have been fair in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius calculated that we could cause serious global warming1.

"But the past century of measurements mean that around 97% of specialists now agree that humans are the main cause of global warming2,3, and Limbaugh’s claim is false.

"World temperatures measurements began in the 1800s and show a warming burst since the 1970s.

"Last year we checked with satellite scans of the ocean4, confirming the accuracy of the surface measurements."

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

 

[georgephillip]

Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate.

Who told you that, Dude?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

"Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.

"Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'

Great...lets see some of this evidence...what you have shown is a bit of actual science which doesn't demonstrate anything in particular with a great big assumption that it does tacked on for good measure.

"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."

Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate...that statement claims that we know them all...every natural factor, and how each and every one of those natural factors interact and affect all the others...we aren't even close to having that sort of knowledge of the way energy moves through the atmosphere...the statement is pure pseudoscience..and very very dishonest.. But if you think we know all the factors, and how they interact with each other, by all means, start listing..

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?

"Rush Limbaugh’s comments would have been fair in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius calculated that we could cause serious global warming1.

"But the past century of measurements mean that around 97% of specialists now agree that humans are the main cause of global warming2,3, and Limbaugh’s claim is false.

"World temperatures measurements began in the 1800s and show a warming burst since the 1970s.

"Last year we checked with satellite scans of the ocean4, confirming the accuracy of the surface measurements."

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?

The temperature is never supposed to change? Why?

 

[georgephillip]

So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

"Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.

"The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4"

 

[georgephillip]

as I pointed out, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of humanity

Link?

"A meme shared hundreds of times in multiple posts on Facebook and Twitter claims that termites produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than humans in a single year.

"The claim is false; scientists estimate termites’ carbon emissions are approximately one-tenth of those created by humans."

It’s the other way around -- termites produce approximately one-tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions created by humans

 

[georgephillip]

2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...
3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...
4] And for God's sake, stop eating so much meat ...

Seriously?

 

[SSDD]

Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Lord have mercy ...

Still waiting...maybe you meant to say that there could be no back conduction or back convection in a vacuum...you believe in those also don’t you?

 

[georgephillip]

Agree or not?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ...

Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ..

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

If I'm interpreting this source correctly of 11,944 peer reviewed climate abstracts published between 1991-2011, 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW.

32.6% endorsed AGW and 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Of the 33.6% of abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

If those numbers reflect 2020 reality, it makes this claim by NASA appear misleading, at least?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

 

[georgephillip]

Sorry. Wrong. You're talking about "homogenized" data, which means fake data.

Agree or not?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Consensus isn't science. It's politics.

Consensus isn't science. It's politics.

Whenever crony-capitalists control government.

Crony Capitalism meets Sustainability | Toronto Sustainability | TSSS

"Market Capitalism in Action

"The first question a good capitalist always asks is, 'What is the business opportunity?'

"The next step is to flush out some of the key issues.

"Let’s assume the two people involved in the discussion are named Donald and Mickey.

"Donald: Mickey, do you know anything about this ocean plastic issue?

"Mickey: I think fish are dying and waterways are clogged with plastic which degrades into tiny pieces and poisons fish.

"I’ve also heard that when the plastic degrades it releases CO2 which contributes to climate change AND the tiny pieces of plastic can also enter into human water supplies.

"Besides that, I think our customers are growing concerned that we might be contributing to this problem.

"I’ve heard that some of them are looking at our competitors who are exploring how to address this issue."

 

[Redfish]

I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

"Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.

"Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'

Great...lets see some of this evidence...what you have shown is a bit of actual science which doesn't demonstrate anything in particular with a great big assumption that it does tacked on for good measure.

"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."

Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate...that statement claims that we know them all...every natural factor, and how each and every one of those natural factors interact and affect all the others...we aren't even close to having that sort of knowledge of the way energy moves through the atmosphere...the statement is pure pseudoscience..and very very dishonest.. But if you think we know all the factors, and how they interact with each other, by all means, start listing..

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?

"Rush Limbaugh’s comments would have been fair in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius calculated that we could cause serious global warming1.

"But the past century of measurements mean that around 97% of specialists now agree that humans are the main cause of global warming2,3, and Limbaugh’s claim is false.

"World temperatures measurements began in the 1800s and show a warming burst since the 1970s.

"Last year we checked with satellite scans of the ocean4, confirming the accuracy of the surface measurements."

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

50 years ago those temperature measuring stations were in forests, today they are on blacktopped parking lots. Think about that for a few seconds.

 

[Redfish]

Agree or not?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ...

Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ..

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

If I'm interpreting this source correctly of 11,944 peer reviewed climate abstracts published between 1991-2011, 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW.

32.6% endorsed AGW and 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Of the 33.6% of abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

If those numbers reflect 2020 reality, it makes this claim by NASA appear misleading, at least?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

you have never answered my simple question from a few days ago so lets try again.

What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW? Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.

Or, if you cannot do that, tell us why fighting pollution isn't enough for you. Why do you need a fake link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

 

[Silver Cat]

"Passenger vehicles" means vehicles designed to carry passengers ... like a Ford Focus or Ferrari 350GT ... not semi-trucks or buses ... the emissions from military vehicles is insignificant, there's not 100's of millions of tanks running back and forth from the grocery store every day ... sheesh ...

There is such term as "industrial ecosystem". Something like the "natural ecosystem". You can not raise and breed predators, without any herbivores and plants. In normal economic, you make machines to make machines to make civilians cars, which are paid by millions of civilians. If you have the industry, which is paid by civilians, you can gather taxes, and return those taxes to buy tanks. If you have industry, that made only tanks, not civilian cars, you need demand much more taxes from civilians. It is why, even shizo-militaristic socialists in DPRK make civil cars to have ability to build tanks.

Do you want here even more shizomilitaristic regime, than in DPRK, or do you want to buy tanks in China and Russia?

3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...

No civilian planes - no military jets. No militaru jets - no military victories.

Same logic as above ... [/quote]
Yes, same logic as above.

4] And for God's sake, stop eating so much meat ...

Less meat in the diet - less strong soldiers. Less strong soldiers - less military victories.

Do you think eating meat every other meal has that profound of an effect? ... just cutting meat in half opens up an enormous number of acres for growing human food ... drive around Indiana, all those corn fields are for beef and pork production ... what a waste ...

Some Americans eats enough of meat, but many - not enough, yet.

Very strange ... both "global warming" and "nuclear winter" are falsifiable ... these issues can be properly addressed with scientific methods ... you should learn what "pseudo-science" means before you use that term again ... parts of AGW theory have been falsified, thus it's honest to God science ...

"Unfalsifiable" is not the only sigh of the pseudoscience. If you willingly "forget" to add important data in your models (for example - CO_2 emission in NW-model and H_2O emission in AGW-models) it is pseudoscience, too.

The battle fought on United States soil was in 1865 ... just saying ...

The Russians are dreaming about invading USA, and, with all that new technologies, they could have chance (or we can give them this chance).
Did you ever hear their songs? For example, "The medal for the capture of Washington"

Or "On the nuclear submarine"

Or "The missiles are flying away slowly..."

Or many-many others?

 

[Billy_Bob]

... 15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency ...

15µm describes a wavelength ... not a frequency ... they're inversely proportional, but not equal ...

interchangeable words... what is frequency? The length of a wave and its cycles per second. For all intents and purposes they are the same, in laymans terms. Now if you want to talk the power and amplitude of that wave they're inversely proportional, but not equal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... 15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency ...

15µm describes a wavelength ... not a frequency ... they're inversely proportional, but not equal ...

interchangeable words... what is frequency? The length of a wave and its cycles per second. For all intents and purposes they are the same, in laymans terms. Now if you want to talk the power and amplitude of that wave they're inversely proportional, but not equal.

I want to talk about your claim that "Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this" 15µm "band".

 

[Billy_Bob]

I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

"Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.

"Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'

Great...lets see some of this evidence...what you have shown is a bit of actual science which doesn't demonstrate anything in particular with a great big assumption that it does tacked on for good measure.

"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."

Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate...that statement claims that we know them all...every natural factor, and how each and every one of those natural factors interact and affect all the others...we aren't even close to having that sort of knowledge of the way energy moves through the atmosphere...the statement is pure pseudoscience..and very very dishonest.. But if you think we know all the factors, and how they interact with each other, by all means, start listing..

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?

"Rush Limbaugh’s comments would have been fair in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius calculated that we could cause serious global warming1.

"But the past century of measurements mean that around 97% of specialists now agree that humans are the main cause of global warming2,3, and Limbaugh’s claim is false.

"World temperatures measurements began in the 1800s and show a warming burst since the 1970s.

"Last year we checked with satellite scans of the ocean4, confirming the accuracy of the surface measurements."

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

I love it when left wing twits use climtefeedback.org as a source... Nothing they post has empirical evidence or science to back them up. That aside, lets look a bit longer in the paleo record and you tell me why we warmed far faster and far greater than today's little blip.

I see some very fast warm ups in there and some very fast cool downs.. Where is your empirical evidence man is causing the current warm up? This is considered to be the natural variation bounds for our interglacial and we are nowhere near exiting those limits today.

 

[ReinyDays]

There is such term as "industrial ecosystem" ...

Yes ... anything we do to help the environment will be expensive ... and will cause a recession ... remember how bad things were when we increased the building insulation requirements? ...

"Unfalsifiable" is not the only sigh of the pseudoscience. If you willingly "forget" to add important data in your models (for example - CO_2 emission in NW-model and H_2O emission in AGW-models) it is pseudoscience, too.

You speaking of fraud, or fraudulent science ... that's different from pseudoscience ... pseudoscience can be used for fraud, but it's not in of itself necessarily fraudulent ... crypto-zoology is a good example of a good reason to use pseudoscience ... where we treat the search for legendary creatures using scientific means and methods ... not that we say it's science, just we're using scientific method for something that's not science ... and the King Cheetah was found and described in this way ... now, it's proper science ...

I recently came across the pseudo- prefix in another strange way ... describing torque as a pseudo-vector ... and they were right, torque isn't a vector ... we just treat it as a vector because, well, it's useful to do so ... in truth, it's a second order tensor, but taking the cross product yields an effective pseudo-vector that gives us good results ... we just have to remember it's not a real vector, we just treating as a vector is all ...

 

[ReinyDays]

interchangeable words... what is frequency? The length of a wave and its cycles per second. For all intents and purposes they are the same, in laymans terms. Now if you want to talk the power and amplitude of that wave they're inversely proportional, but not equal.

Those words are not interchangeable the way you use them ... 15µm is a wavelength, not a frequency ... even in layman's terms ... 2 x 10^13 hertz is the frequency of 15µm IR ... big difference ... frequency is strictly cycles-per-second ...

You mis-spoke ... it happens ... easy enough to just admit it and move on with your point ... and you've been asked several times now to clarify something else you posted ... if this was another mistake, best to admit it ... lesson learned and we can move on ...

I am well versed in spectral analysis of energy. It helps to know the subject matter before you embarrass yourself as being ignorant.

You maybe shouldn't have posted this ... it's going to keep coming back to haunt you ... maybe it's true, but these "embarrassing" mistakes of yours are going to get called now ... I took a class is all, that doesn't allow me to call others ignorant ... so I generally don't ... a habit maybe you should cultivate ...

 

[Silver Cat]

There is such term as "industrial ecosystem" ...

Yes ... anything we do to help the environment will be expensive ... and will cause a recession ... remember how bad things were when we increased the building insulation requirements? ...

Depends on your definition of the term "to help the environment". For example, increasing of CO_2 help green plants to grow, same is usage of fertilizers.

"Unfalsifiable" is not the only sigh of the pseudoscience. If you willingly "forget" to add important data in your models (for example - CO_2 emission in NW-model and H_2O emission in AGW-models) it is pseudoscience, too.

You speaking of fraud, or fraudulent science ... that's different from pseudoscience ... pseudoscience can be used for fraud, but it's not in of itself necessarily fraudulent ... crypto-zoology is a good example of a good reason to use pseudoscience ... where we treat the search for legendary creatures using scientific means and methods ... not that we say it's science, just we're using scientific method for something that's not science ... and the King Cheetah was found and described in this way ... now, it's proper science ...
[/QUOTE]
Depends on your definitions of the terms.
Wikipedia suggests us those ones:
---------------
Pseudoscience
Pseudoscnce consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[
----------------
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
-------------------

So, "careless" observation and ignorance of important factors are incompatible with scientific method, that means that both NW and AGW "theories" are pseudoscientific.