Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.What I'm reading from all of the leftist and others in here is CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air. So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth? Let's put the pedal to the metal here. Explain once and for all.The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.
Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.
CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air
Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.
So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth?
Without the Sun adding heat, IR escaping into space would tend to reduce night time temps.
Let's put the pedal to the metal here.
Until you put your brain in gear, you'll make no progress with your pedal.
And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently. so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?
And the pedal is still to the metal.
Curious if you can explain how it is possible for the arctic to warm up and lose ice in the winter due to CO2?Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.What I'm reading from all of the leftist and others in here is CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air. So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth? Let's put the pedal to the metal here. Explain once and for all.The stupidity of jc is truly staggering. If he spent one tenth of his time trying to understand some of the basics, instead of posting up an endless stream of stupid questions, he would be much further ahead.
Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.
CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air
Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.
So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth?
Without the Sun adding heat, IR escaping into space would tend to reduce night time temps.
Let's put the pedal to the metal here.
Until you put your brain in gear, you'll make no progress with your pedal.
And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently. so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?
And the pedal is still to the metal.
And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently
Yes. And?
so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?
You need the sun because 3 K is pretty cold.
Same temperature, same emission (basically).
Dealing with 'people like you' on this level is akin to dealing with the 9/11 Truthers or other conspiracists.well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.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
How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?
Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.
Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?
"Al Gore received an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his film?"Who is AL Gore and why would I care?
Al Gore received an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his film A Inconvenient Truth. He was highly influential ten years ago but know it seems no one wants to acknowledge him anymore.
Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.
I disagree. If the folks gathered here are any indication, the majority of them believe that CO2 has no effect on temperature and that the observed warming is purely the product of data manipulation by various government agencies. A centrist such as yourself, Ian, is a very rare bird on the side of the table at which you've chosen to sit.
Dante,"as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise as quickly as predicted."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...rm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies
"Scientists, who agree that CO2 and other gases from human activities are warming Earth, disagree widely about how sensitive the planet's climate is to these changes."
This is what those evil scientists with 'science' are doing: "The researchers are currently working toward more precise estimates of how the newly discovered process affects predictions of the Earth's future climate."
Global Analysis - May 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
I don't argue the science itself. Never really have. Why? I don't play a scientist on the web or in real life.Dante,
for me personally, the claim is that more CO2 means hotter air. I merely want to see the experiment that confirms that claim. Have you found one? I'm no scientist so I'm looking for their experiment so I can understand the claim. But for the four years I've been looking, I haven't found one. Not one. I find that very unscientific especially since the government wants carbon credits. That implies diminishing CO2 because of a threat. A threat that has never been shown to the american people. That sir is why you have us in here looking for the experiments.
Post one up if you have it.
Ian,Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.
I disagree. If the folks gathered here are any indication, the majority of them believe that CO2 has no effect on temperature and that the observed warming is purely the product of data manipulation by various government agencies. A centrist such as yourself, Ian, is a very rare bird on the side of the table at which you've chosen to sit.
You disagree? How can you make an opinion on the skeptics' position when you refuse to even read it? You don't read McIntyre or Watts or Pielke, etc. You read strawman versions put out by Slandering Sue or Tamino. I read both sides.
Do you honestly believe wackos like jc and SSDD are representative of skeptics? You prefer to argue with extremists because it is easier. You ignore my legitimate concerns by lumping me in with the crazies. Likewise you ignore Flac.
well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play because of the farce, then people need to speak out. I have one sounding board and it's here. therefore, here I am. And I will challenge all of the posts that suggest something that isn't, is. And right now, that is what we have. When scientist have to fudge data sets to make the earth warmer, I call bullshit as well. Well, that's me my man. I call bullshit when I see it.I don't argue the science itself. Never really have. Why? I don't play a scientist on the web or in real life.Dante,
for me personally, the claim is that more CO2 means hotter air. I merely want to see the experiment that confirms that claim. Have you found one? I'm no scientist so I'm looking for their experiment so I can understand the claim. But for the four years I've been looking, I haven't found one. Not one. I find that very unscientific especially since the government wants carbon credits. That implies diminishing CO2 because of a threat. A threat that has never been shown to the american people. That sir is why you have us in here looking for the experiments.
Post one up if you have it.
I posted facts: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...rm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies
"Scientists, who agree that CO2 and other gases from human activities are warming Earth, disagree widely about how sensitive the planet's climate is to these changes."
I do not see any quotes about "means hotter air" I do not believe the science on a warming Earth is only about the 'air' around us.
well, do you want to discuss pollution or CO2. CO2 has never been proven a heating source. ever. I suggest looking on the internet. you'll end up with a great big goose egg.Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?
"Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?"
"Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests. There are many heat-trapping gases (from methane to water vapor), but CO2 puts us at the greatest risk of irreversible changes if it continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere. There are two key reasons why."
I cannot believe putting all of that stuff into the atmosphere is not a bad thing for the health of our planet. I remember the acid rain debates of decades ago. The sterile lakes. Pollution is a problem. The anti regulation agenda is short sighted. It's primary purpose is to challenge the science in oder to fight off regulation. It is not about scientific truths or methods.
Curious if you can explain how it is possible for the arctic to warm up and lose ice in the winter due to CO2?Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.What I'm reading from all of the leftist and others in here is CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air. So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth? Let's put the pedal to the metal here. Explain once and for all.Same could be said of you Ian...continuing to believe in a hypothesis that has failed multiple predictions...when in real science a single failed prediction is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap yard....no tropospheric hot spot...and you keep moving it downwards in an attempt to keep the zombie hypothesis moving...now you have the hot spot at ground level...except it isn't warming there either...is it...except within the heavily massaged and altered data sets....why not put some time into self examination and tell us why you still believe when the scientific method demands that you drop the silly hypothesis.
CO2 emits warmer than the surrounding air
Matter emits according to temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann and all that.
So why isn't the night as warm as the day on earth?
Without the Sun adding heat, IR escaping into space would tend to reduce night time temps.
Let's put the pedal to the metal here.
Until you put your brain in gear, you'll make no progress with your pedal.
And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently. so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?
And the pedal is still to the metal.
And yet matter and its properties absorb differently and therefore emit differently
Yes. And?
so again, why do you need the sun if your version of CO2 emits hotter than the air?
You need the sun because 3 K is pretty cold.
Same temperature, same emission (basically).
Dealing with 'people like you' on this level is akin to dealing with the 9/11 Truthers or other conspiracists.well first show me how consensus fits into science. Then let's talk.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
How a consensus 'fits' into science? What are you talking about? Do you deny there is a consensus on what the science shows?
Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.
Do you think consensus includes such things as a 3C warming and a one metre sea level rise by 2100? Millions of extinctions or any of the hundreds of items on the lists of things supposedly caused by global warming?
Getting stuck in the weeds with circular arguments, and debating the minutiae without any possibility of a resolution? No thanks.
Neither of us is a credibly recognized 'climate scientist' and for that reason our opinions would be like the 'holes' that everybody has.
You are attacking the scientific community. Fine. You are saying scientists are on the take for grants, and are all unethical and corrupt. Fine. You demand to be taken seriously. Fine.
What is even finer, is I do not have to respect any of your harebrained opinions, in order to show respect to the principle that; you are entitled to have opinions, no matter how wrongheaded or harebrained they be.
23 trillion dollars came into play? When? Where?well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play...
sea level rise, another great one. Where is the excess water coming from? Do you know? I certainly don't. Greenland still has ice and the Antarctic is gaining ice. So, explain to me why you believe the sea is rising and where the extra water comes from?Climate change: How do we know?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Sea level rise
Global temperature rise
Warming oceans
Shrinking ice sheets
Declining Arctic sea ice
Glacial retreat
Extreme events
Ocean acidification
Decreased snow cover
References
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
- In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
- National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
- Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
- Global Climate Change Indicators | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Temperature data (HadCRUT4, CRUTEM4) Climatic Research Unit global temperature
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
- T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
- I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
- Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
- L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
State of the Cryosphere | SOTC: Sea Ice | National Snow and Ice Data Center
- C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
- National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
State of the Cryosphere | SOTC: Northern Hemisphere Snow | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
Ian,Define what the consensus position is. Even the majority of skeptics believe the Earth has warmed since the LIA, that mankind has increased CO2, and that CO2 has a warming influence on the surface.
I disagree. If the folks gathered here are any indication, the majority of them believe that CO2 has no effect on temperature and that the observed warming is purely the product of data manipulation by various government agencies. A centrist such as yourself, Ian, is a very rare bird on the side of the table at which you've chosen to sit.
You disagree? How can you make an opinion on the skeptics' position when you refuse to even read it? You don't read McIntyre or Watts or Pielke, etc. You read strawman versions put out by Slandering Sue or Tamino. I read both sides.
Do you honestly believe wackos like jc and SSDD are representative of skeptics? You prefer to argue with extremists because it is easier. You ignore my legitimate concerns by lumping me in with the crazies. Likewise you ignore Flac.
Do you have a link with an experiment that shows that more CO2 means hotter air. You can't cause it doesn't exist. Mythbusters tried and dropped a doogie. All of the other experiments posted over the years couldn't show the temperatures, and instead told us that it was hotter in the container. never showed the thermometer with the readings. Why? science 101 I was told. Stuff taught in schools and yet not one flippin experiment. So excuse me if i challenge a very unproven subject. And one, I may add, that you can't explain either. So stupid jc is stupid cause there isn't any verification of the subject. Ice in the Arctic melts cause of CO2. RIGHT?
Ice in the Antarctic grows cause of CO2. RIGHT?
Floods are caused by CO2. RIGHT?
See, I'm merely smarter than you all. I don't fall for fools lies. I expect confirmation before I buy in. And right now, all of you have zip.
The earth has not warmed in almost 20 years now. CO2 went up 120 PPM in that time frame.
Oh, you haven't heard about that one eh? go look on line.23 trillion dollars came into play? When? Where?well when 23 trillions of dollars comes into play...
