What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

"A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,

How does that work?

That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.

Radiation is contradicted?

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

 

[jc456]

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

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

"A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,

How does that work?

That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.

Radiation is contradicted?

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

"A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,

How does that work?

That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.

Radiation is contradicted?

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

LOL. So you have to lie about what Todd has claimed! Of course you do, because you have not other argument. No, Todd never said that the CO2 in the atmosphere heats the Earth more than the sun. Nor has anyone else with the slightest bit of sanity. That, of course, do not include jc.

 

[jc456]

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

"A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,

How does that work?

That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.

Radiation is contradicted?

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

LOL. So you have to lie about what Todd has claimed! Of course you do, because you have not other argument. No, Todd never said that the CO2 in the atmosphere heats the Earth more than the sun. Nor has anyone else with the slightest bit of sanity. That, of course, do not include jc.

Sure he has, he's a big boy, he can argue his own case, Derp

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

"A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,

How does that work?

That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.

Radiation is contradicted?

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.

Nope. Never did. Not even once.

 

[jc456]

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

"A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,

How does that work?

That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.

Radiation is contradicted?

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.

Nope. Never did. Not even once.

You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant,

How does that work?

That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted.

Radiation is contradicted?

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.

Nope. Never did. Not even once.

You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp

You imply it almost every post t me.

No I don't. Not even close.

and you give a formula.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.

 

[jc456]

Dude I'm still waiting for your evidence. Don't hold your breath for me! Hahahaha

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.

Nope. Never did. Not even once.

You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp

You imply it almost every post t me.

No I don't. Not even close.

and you give a formula.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.

cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for. derp

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't claim CO2 was a coolant, why would I post evidence?

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.

Nope. Never did. Not even once.

You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp

You imply it almost every post t me.

No I don't. Not even close.

and you give a formula.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.

cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for. derp

Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.

 

[jc456]

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun. I'm waiting

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.

Nope. Never did. Not even once.

You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp

You imply it almost every post t me.

No I don't. Not even close.

and you give a formula.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.

cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for. derp

Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.

like I posted. yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty?

here from Skeptical Science. Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

"Understanding Trenberth's travesty
Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No you claim it heats the earth more than the sun.

Nope. Never did. Not even once.

You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp

You imply it almost every post t me.

No I don't. Not even close.

and you give a formula.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.

cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for. derp

Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.

like I posted. yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty?

here from Skeptical Science. Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

"Understanding Trenberth's travesty
Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.

The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.

 

[jc456]

You imply it almost every post t me. I've asked you for the experiment that proves your co2 claim, and you give a formula. Derp

You imply it almost every post t me.

No I don't. Not even close.

and you give a formula.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.

cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for. derp

Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.

like I posted. yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty?

here from Skeptical Science. Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

"Understanding Trenberth's travesty
Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.

The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.

I guess you ignored the link. hmmmmmmm. again, it shows the math isn't working. One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work. Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind. I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information. You just pofoo it. And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You imply it almost every post t me.

No I don't. Not even close.

and you give a formula.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann. I understand why you don't like that one.

cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for. derp

Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.

like I posted. yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty?

here from Skeptical Science. Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

"Understanding Trenberth's travesty
Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.

The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.

I guess you ignored the link. hmmmmmmm. again, it shows the math isn't working. One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work. Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind. I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information. You just pofoo it. And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

I guess you ignored the link

Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?

 

[jc456]

cause it isn't an experiment and it is what I asked for. derp

Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.

like I posted. yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty?

here from Skeptical Science. Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

"Understanding Trenberth's travesty
Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.

The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.

I guess you ignored the link. hmmmmmmm. again, it shows the math isn't working. One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work. Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind. I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information. You just pofoo it. And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

I guess you ignored the link

Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?

Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like an experiment that shows it's a coolant? Good idea.

like I posted. yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty?

here from Skeptical Science. Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

"Understanding Trenberth's travesty
Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.

The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.

I guess you ignored the link. hmmmmmmm. again, it shows the math isn't working. One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work. Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind. I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information. You just pofoo it. And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

I guess you ignored the link

Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?

Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp

Yes. No smart photons. No CO2 is a coolant.
I've never defended Trenberth. No reason here for me to start.

Did you have some reason for posting any of this stuff to me?
Looks like something better posted to Crick....or some other warmer.

 

[jc456]

like I posted. yup!

BTW, ever read up on the Trenberth's Travesty?

here from Skeptical Science. Great article;

Understanding Trenberth's travesty

"Understanding Trenberth's travesty
Posted on 12 December 2009 by John Cook

Throughout the Climategate controversy, the second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system."

Why is earth cooler than it was supposed to based on all of the formulas?

The comments again under the article good as well.

The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.

I guess you ignored the link. hmmmmmmm. again, it shows the math isn't working. One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work. Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind. I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information. You just pofoo it. And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

I guess you ignored the link

Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?

Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp

Yes. No smart photons. No CO2 is a coolant.
I've never defended Trenberth. No reason here for me to start.

Did you have some reason for posting any of this stuff to me?
Looks like something better posted to Crick....or some other warmer.

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth. you have no evidence to prove that, but you do anyway, so what again is different from your position and Crick?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that I point out your idiocy in no way means I believe the AGW scammers. Sorry.

There are no smart photons and building windmills is a waste of money.

I guess you ignored the link. hmmmmmmm. again, it shows the math isn't working. One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work. Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind. I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information. You just pofoo it. And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

I guess you ignored the link

Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?

Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp

Yes. No smart photons. No CO2 is a coolant.
I've never defended Trenberth. No reason here for me to start.

Did you have some reason for posting any of this stuff to me?
Looks like something better posted to Crick....or some other warmer.

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth. you have no evidence to prove that, but you do anyway, so what again is different from your position and Crick?

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth.

CO2 slows the escape of IR into space.

so what again is different from your position and Crick?

He believes we should waste trillions on windmills to reduce temps by 0.1 degrees in 2080.
I think that's a stupid idea.

 

[jc456]

I guess you ignored the link. hmmmmmmm. again, it shows the math isn't working. One has to manipulate the surface readings to make the math work. Therefore the math is in error or no good. Somewhere you all are flying blind. I'm open minded, and why I'm reading the alternate information. You just pofoo it. And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

I guess you ignored the link

Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?

Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp

Yes. No smart photons. No CO2 is a coolant.
I've never defended Trenberth. No reason here for me to start.

Did you have some reason for posting any of this stuff to me?
Looks like something better posted to Crick....or some other warmer.

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth. you have no evidence to prove that, but you do anyway, so what again is different from your position and Crick?

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth.

CO2 slows the escape of IR into space.

so what again is different from your position and Crick?

He believes we should waste trillions on windmills to reduce temps by 0.1 degrees in 2080.
I think that's a stupid idea.

and so what is slowing IR down have to do with a warmer surface since it is in the atmosphere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess you ignored the link

Does the link prove smart photons or that CO2 is a coolant?

And yet can't explain it like Trenberth.

Is that the guy who plugged numbers to claim the heat is hiding in the ocean? Why would I defend him?

Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp

Yes. No smart photons. No CO2 is a coolant.
I've never defended Trenberth. No reason here for me to start.

Did you have some reason for posting any of this stuff to me?
Looks like something better posted to Crick....or some other warmer.

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth. you have no evidence to prove that, but you do anyway, so what again is different from your position and Crick?

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth.

CO2 slows the escape of IR into space.

so what again is different from your position and Crick?

He believes we should waste trillions on windmills to reduce temps by 0.1 degrees in 2080.
I think that's a stupid idea.

and so what is slowing IR down have to do with a warmer surface since it is in the atmosphere?

Since matter above 0K radiates in all directions, that should be obvious.

 

[jc456]

Did you read it? If so can't you answer? Derp

Yes. No smart photons. No CO2 is a coolant.
I've never defended Trenberth. No reason here for me to start.

Did you have some reason for posting any of this stuff to me?
Looks like something better posted to Crick....or some other warmer.

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth. you have no evidence to prove that, but you do anyway, so what again is different from your position and Crick?

Why not you, you believe CO2 warms the earth.

CO2 slows the escape of IR into space.

so what again is different from your position and Crick?

He believes we should waste trillions on windmills to reduce temps by 0.1 degrees in 2080.
I think that's a stupid idea.

and so what is slowing IR down have to do with a warmer surface since it is in the atmosphere?

Since matter above 0K radiates in all directions, that should be obvious.

No it isn't cause you've net proven it will warm the surface. And that isn't slowing down IR. Does the gas get more dense as it rises?

Does density change absorption?