What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 86495

I'm happy to explain what this shows......

it's a picture derp

With actual useful info. Not like that hack site you linked.

that shows a picture,

Yes, it seems that even pictures are too complicated for you to understand.

because a picture without an explanation is just a picture.

Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Emission Spectra

 

[IanC]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres.

That would slow the escape of IR from the atmosphere.
JC said that doesn't happen. I hate it when he posts a link that refutes his claims.

 

[IanC]

it's a picture derp

With actual useful info. Not like that hack site you linked.

that shows a picture,

Yes, it seems that even pictures are too complicated for you to understand.

because a picture without an explanation is just a picture.

View attachment 86497

Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Emission Spectra

Ira has lots of interesting articles on this and related subjects. I fear jc lacks sufficient brainpower to understand or learn from them though. He wants simple answers to his questions but a certain amount of basic scientific knowledge is necessary to understand them. He is unwilling, or more likely, unable to attain it.

 

[IanC]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres.

That would slow the escape of IR from the atmosphere.
JC said that doesn't happen. I hate it when he posts a link that refutes his claims.

He learned that stupid pet trick from crick. They are more interested in posting a link than reading or understanding it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information

I keep getting an error message on his link.

 

[IanC]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information

I keep getting an error message on his link.

Does your phone do PDFs?

 

[Divine Wind]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

While I fully accept the data published by NASA on this issue, the fact remains that the LW fucked themselves, as usual, by doing the two things they do best:
1) Over emotionalizing a topic rather than basing it entirely on fact and reason.

2) Politicizing a science issue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SSDD

Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

well son, just present the empirical evidence and say na, na,na,na,na,na to us. sounds simple doesn't it?

Why do you hate science?

 

[IanC]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

While I fully accept the data published by NASA on this issue, the fact remains that the LW fucked themselves, as usual, by doing the two things they do best:
1) Over emotionalizing a topic rather than basing it entirely on fact and reason.

2) Politicizing a science issue.

Yup. It only sounds like science. The conclusions are political.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante, just post up the science

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yup. It only sounds like science. The conclusions are political.

And you claim NASA backs the science for political reasons. All those scientists involved, hundreds maybe thousands. And tis is only with NASA. Then there are scientists all over the world.

You know you sound crazy?

 

[jc456]

SSDD

Most people who accept the AGW hypothesis do so based on politics...

Really? So scientists started talking about it, and you think people believed the scientists because of a political agenda?

I do know some people who feared regulation because of the science started attacking the science AFTERWARDS. So did you disbelieve the science before or after it was attacked by people who feared regulation?

well son, just present the empirical evidence and say na, na,na,na,na,na to us. sounds simple doesn't it?

Why do you hate science?

I love science. I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.

 

[jc456]

Dante, just post up the science

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I love science. I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.

Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science, and winning accolades for exposing fraud?

Something illogical with your mind

 

[jc456]

I just read jc's link. It has a lot of outstanding information, much of which I have already informed jc of. Some of the conclusions inferred from the information is suspect but overall he makes very good points.

Eg. Surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by 10 metres. Adding more CO2 lessens that height. The actual numbers don't matter but the principal does. But he goes on to say that the height doesn't matter because convection stirs the atmosphere. Of course it matters! The same amount of energy absorbed in a smaller volume of air leads to higher temperature near the surface. We are talking about CO2's effect, not the alternate pathways that move the heat higher up.

I have talked dozens of times about the surface bottleneck (and the secondary bottleneck at the cloudtops).

so funny I post what I feel is a good source of data and you think I automatically believe everything posted in it. I believe some of it and question other parts. I'd say I'm consistent with most science professionals. You're right, there are many good parts there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love science. I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.

Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science, and winning accolades for exposing fraud?

Something illogical with your mind

Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science

How about that Nobel Prize Michael Mann received?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are the one saying the consensus on the science is all wrong. You attack both the science and the consensus on it.

The burden is on you to refute people like NASA

good luck

well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.

How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?

 

[IanC]

Yup. It only sounds like science. The conclusions are political.

And you claim NASA backs the science for political reasons. All those scientists involved, hundreds maybe thousands. And tis is only with NASA. Then there are scientists all over the world.

You know you sound crazy?

NASA has lots of departments. GISS and some of the climate specific sections are often contradicted by other reports produced elsewhere by NASA.

I am neither crazy or scientifically illiterate. The case for AGW, and especially CAGW, is much weaker than is presented to laypersons. Often it leaves the realm of science and turns into advocacy.

 

[jc456]

I love science. I wish actual scientists did science instead of political begging for grants.

Now the overwhelming majority of scientists would be concerned with a few grants, rather than receiving a Nobel Prize on 'real' climate science, and winning accolades for exposing fraud?

Something illogical with your mind

yep, especially when fraud wins you one like ol Gore did.