Direct evidence for a positive feedback in climate change

March 30, 2015, University of Exeter
ocean

A new study has confirmed the existence of a positive feedback operating in climate change whereby warming itself may amplify a rise in greenhouse gases resulting in additional warming.

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, shows that in addition to the well understood effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth's temperature, researchers can now confirm directly from ice-core data that the has a profound effect on atmospheric . This means that as the Earth's temperature rises, the positive feedback in the system results in additional warming.

It has been known for a while that the Earth has historically had higher levels of greenhouse gases during warm periods than during ice ages. However, it had so-far remained impossible to discern cause and effect from the analysis of gas bubbles contained in ice cores.

Professor Tim Lenton from the University of Exeter said: "Our new results confirm the prediction of from the climate models, the big difference is that now we have independent data based evidence for it."

An international team of researchers led by Egbert van Nes from Wageningen University (Netherlands) used a novel mathematical insight developed to have a fresh look at the data. The analysis reveals that the glacial cycles experienced by the planet over the past 400,000 years are governed by strong internal feedbacks in the Earth system. Slight variations in the Earth orbit known as Milankovitch cycles, functioned merely as a subtle pacemaker for the process.

'State space reconstruction: Time series and dynamic systems'. Credit: Geroge Sugihara, Robert May, Hao Ye, Chih-hao Hsieh, Ethan Deyle, Mike Fogarty and Stephan Munch

"A fundamental insight by George Sugihara from the USA on how one can use observed dynamics in time series to infer causality caused a big splash in the field," explains Egbert van Nes. "It immediately made us wonder whether it could be used to solve the enigma of the iconic correlated temperature and gas history of the Earth."

Indeed this riddle has proven hard to solve. A slight lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 variations has been argued to point to temperature as a driver of CO2 changes. However, more recent studies cast doubt on the existence of a significant time-lag between CO2 and temperature.

"It can be highly misleading to use simple correlation to infer causality in complex systems," says George Sugihara from Scripps Institution of Oceanography (USA). "Correlations can come and go as mirages, and cause and effect can go both ways as in a kind of chicken and egg problem, and this requires a fundamentally different way to look at the data."

As direct evidence from data has been hard to achieve, Earth system models are used as a less direct alternative to quantify causality in the climate system. However, although the effects of on the Earth's temperature are relatively well understood, estimating the actual strength of this effect is challenging, because it involves a plethora of mechanisms that are difficult to quantify and sometimes oppose each other.

Explore further: Past warming increased snowfall on Antarctica, affecting global sea level

More information: "Causal feedbacks in climate change" Nature Climate Change 2015. Egbert H. van Nes, Marten Scheffer, Victor Brovkin, Timothy M. Lenton, Hao Ye, Ethan Deyle and George Sugihara dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2568

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Ocean acidification may reduce sea scallop fisheries

September 21, 2018

Each year, fishermen harvest more than $500 million worth of Atlantic sea scallops from the waters off the east coast of the United States. A new model created by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), ...

327 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.7 / 5 (49) Mar 30, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (36) Mar 30, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.


LOL
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Mar 30, 2015
What is it that you expected to be done?
MR166
2.5 / 5 (24) Mar 30, 2015
The only positive feedback that is likely to kill us is the progressive ignorance taught in our schools. Ignorant biased teachers create even more ignorant and biased future teachers.
JamesG
2.4 / 5 (30) Mar 30, 2015
"estimating the actual strength of this effect is challenging, because it involves a plethora of mechanisms that are difficult to quantify and sometimes oppose each other."

In other words, the idea this is settled science is garbage. All you have to do is read all the articles on this one website that totally contradict themselves.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (28) Mar 30, 2015
>What is it that you expected to be done?

Expect? Well... pretty much this. But a reasonable *hope* might have been that instead of deferring costs to future generations, we started pricing carbon according to both extraction/refinement costs _and_ the future damage mitigation/cleanup costs. A carbon tax might be one way to pursue such ends, but need not be the only solution.

The reality of course, is that we live in a world with many facets and competing interests; humans that are far from the "rational" beings we like to think we are, or the "rational" actors assumed by some "free-market" models. So reality plays out like reality plays out.
Science Officer
2.5 / 5 (32) Mar 30, 2015
So, the question remains. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's warmer, or is it warmer, because there's more CO2 in the air? Choose your assumption and you can prove either argument. It's sad what is considered to be science today.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (24) Mar 30, 2015
>What is it that you expected to be done?

Expect? Well... pretty much this. But a reasonable *hope* might have been that instead of deferring costs to future generations, we started pricing carbon according to both extraction/refinement costs _and_ the future damage mitigation/cleanup costs. A carbon tax might be one way to pursue such ends, but need not be the only solution.

The reality of course, is that we live in a world with many facets and competing interests; humans that are far from the "rational" beings we like to think we are, or the "rational" actors assumed by some "free-market" models. So reality plays out like reality plays out.

This was well said. Noumenon likes to try and pigeon hole people into a position, then attack that position. The reality is that there will be a whole range of different actions, technologies and methods by which the issues of global warming and CO2 are dealth with.
gkam
2 / 5 (31) Mar 30, 2015
There is no position as a "Science Officer" unless it is with the Sea Org.
Stevepidge
2.1 / 5 (30) Mar 30, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.


Boohoo, The sky is falling. Give us more money. How exactly do you propose to reign in CO2 in developing countries? Military force? sanctions? reduction in cow farts? Idiots, we all die of something.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (38) Mar 30, 2015
" Idiots, we all die of something."
---------------------------------------

- Written on the gas chamber walls, Sobibor.
Stevepidge
1.3 / 5 (24) Mar 30, 2015
" Idiots, we all die of something."
---------------------------------------

- Written on the gas chamber walls, Sobibor.


All i hear here is a bunch of pansies crying about climate change. Just let evolution do it's thing, you know create species better adapted to their environment. SCIENCE!!! get used to being a poorly adapted organism. Evolve or GTFO!
gkam
2.5 / 5 (38) Mar 30, 2015
Stevie, apparently for you this is some kind of adolescent exercise in macho, but to those of us who earned degrees in the field it is deadly serious.

I suggest you man up and then read up.
Wake
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 30, 2015
You can bet that there is always positive feedback - warming oceans mean more plankton blooms which absorb more CO2. Death is on the horizon. Just ask any True Believer.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (26) Mar 30, 2015
It's sad what is considered to be science
@stupid officer
what is sad is the lack of scientific literacy in the general public like much of your own comments

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

the progressive ignorance taught in our schools. Ignorant biased teachers create even more ignorant and biased future teachers
@mr
this is actually something that you and i can agree on
but i think for different reasons? i don't know

i truly wish that the education system was better, and we could generate more scientifically literate students as well as adults...
but i think the major driving factors of the problem aren't so much policy etc as it is media and cultural issues

We celebrate stupidity and honor, promote as well as glorify stupid and those who demonstrate the stupid publicly
see kardashians, TV, reality shows, Music industry, creationist, news etc for proof
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (25) Mar 30, 2015
You can bet that there is always positive feedback - warming oceans mean more plankton blooms which absorb more CO2. Death is on the horizon. Just ask any True Believer.

What an idiotic statement. Warming oceans aren't the biggest problem, their acidification is.

Sloganeering. Typical denierville trailer trash.
Wake
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 30, 2015
gkam - you might as well buy your burial plot now because you've had it. You told us already that the world is dying around you and you can see it with your own two eyes.

Do you think that China or India or Russia wherein lies most of the world's population is going to stop their economic expansion just to save you? Or would you rather blame the US because you are totally unaware of what is going on in the world?

The fact is that we do NOT know that there is climate change per se' and cannot know for a MINIMUM of a century or so. But you've your own proof in your imagination.

Here's your proof positive of global warming:

https://wattsupwi...ate1.jpg
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (16) Mar 30, 2015
Stevie, apparently for you this is some kind of adolescent exercise in macho, but to those of us who earned degrees in the field it is deadly serious.

I suggest you man up and then read up.


Deadly serious huh, I don't fear death. I've died nearly twice in catastrophic interstate accidents, I've had passengers in my vehicles, FRIENDS contorted in inhuman ghastly ways due to errant truck drivers trying to make time. I don't give two sh!ts about your paper or maths. I am more than qualified to make statements on how I wish to carry out the rest of my life and your fear is just that, fear. You don't know sh!t about real fear and begging for death through the massive pain of muscular skeletal reconstruction. Go cry to the dinosaurs about extinction, see how far that gets you.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 30, 2015
Just let evolution do it's thing...Evolve or GTFO!
@steve
were you literal in this you would have anhero'ed long ago
especially considering your propensity for pseudoscience (like Velikovski) or your blatantly stupidity
I think you are an idiot if you consider anything scientific "fact"
found here - http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

the probabilities that it could possibly get worse past the point of our ability to control or adapt are far too great to allow this to continue unchecked

Of course, you see it different because of pseudoscience and conspiracy
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

this is analogous to crime
would you simply lie down and let someone beat you to death? steal everything you own just because?
or would you try to control the situation? fight back? etc?

slycat
4 / 5 (25) Mar 30, 2015
Why are the denial comments just so unbelievably stupid? It's just depressing.. they are really this dumb or they are just deliberating being stupid. Either way... it's depressing. I'm waiting for them to tell me gravity doesn't exist.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (34) Mar 30, 2015
" I don't fear death. I've died nearly twice in catastrophic interstate accidents, I've had passengers in my vehicles, FRIENDS contorted in inhuman ghastly ways due to errant truck drivers trying to make time. I don't give two sh!ts about your paper or maths."
-------------------------------------------------

Oh, good. Aggressive macho and pretend bravery are exactly what we need to make rational decisions.

"You don't know sh!t about real fear and begging for death through the massive pain of muscular skeletal reconstruction."

You are debating the wrong folk for that, . . . Stumpy is real.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 30, 2015
just deliberating being stupid....gravity doesn't exist.
@slycat
some might actually do that... like reg mundy
the problem is not so much stupidity as other issues blinding them to reality
for instance, read these links: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://arstechnic...nformed/

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

http://phys.org/n...lls.html

They basically say the same thing
People succumb to peer pressure and/or allow delusions of faith, politics or other things like pseudoscience blind them to reality

they will accept ONLY that which supports their delusions (this is VERY prevalent in the religious circles, especially creationists)

in a way, they ARE that stupid...
ettubrute
3.8 / 5 (23) Mar 30, 2015
So, the question remains. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's warmer, or is it warmer, because there's more CO2 in the air? Choose your assumption and you can prove either argument. It's sad what is considered to be science today.


Since the level of CO2 has been rising since the advent of the industrial revolution we have seen an increase in global temperatures as well. Based on the evidence of other past warming events none of these cycles are in play now that would warm the planet. As a "Science Officer", you should know this.

Greenhouse gases will warm the global climate beyond the warming that would otherwise occur in the climate system. I am amazed by those that deny the Science and yet think nothing of what Science has brought us as if it all would happen without an understanding of Science.
Stevepidge
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2015


Oh, good. Aggressive macho and pretend bravery are exactly what we need to make rational decisions.

"You don't know sh!t about real fear and begging for death through the massive pain of muscular skeletal reconstruction."

You are debating the wrong folk for that, . . . Stumpy is real.


Fear is irrational. You seek to extol change based on the lowest of the emotional states. You think you can make "rational" choices from a point of fear? You aren't even human, you are part of the charlatan class who tells people that life is merely an accident, that evolution is a haphazard conductor of life and humans are nothing special, just a biological mathematical error in the great vastness of existence and somehow we live on through progeny and collective humanity. I say you know nothing about existence, nor will I ever EVER care about your "opinion" on life and it's meaning. Now go chemically alter your "consciousness" with some Prozac you are gonna need it.
ettubrute
3.7 / 5 (22) Mar 30, 2015
Boohoo, The sky is falling. Give us more money. How exactly do you propose to reign in CO2 in developing countries? Military force? sanctions? reduction in cow farts? Idiots, we all die of something.


These are the questions you would ask as an intellectual? It more seems to me that since you are not able to think of any answers that therefore there must be no answers. The problem is that too many people tend to reject the answers simply because they will find them to be an inconvenience to their life.

China and the U.S. just reached agreements that both nations begin the reductions in the amount of greenhouse gases each nation emits. China's participation will not begin in earnest until 2030. Many, including myself, will say that this is not soon enough for China to join in. I, on the other hand, am fully aware that China has never agreed to this before. It is a start that most that live in denial would not even consider taking.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2015
charlatan class who tells people that life is merely an accident, that evolution is a haphazard conductor of life and humans are nothing special, just a biological mathematical error in the great vastness of existence and somehow we live on through progeny and collective humanity
@stevie
there is NO empirical evidence to support the biblical perspective that we are something special
there is NO scientific or OTHER evidence, other than personal conjecture and the suspension of logic and the scientific method, that is supporting biblical claims, accuracy nor mythological arguments at all whatsoever

Your post states a lot about your religious overtones which are NOT science, and are NOT allowing you to see the reality around you
every time you post diatribe like the above, it validates this study:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
ettubrute
3.7 / 5 (22) Mar 30, 2015
You can bet that there is always positive feedback - warming oceans mean more plankton blooms which absorb more CO2. Death is on the horizon. Just ask any True Believer.


There is a huge difference between believing and understanding. You may work on a belief system while others will understand the Science.
ettubrute
3.7 / 5 (22) Mar 30, 2015
Why are the denial comments just so unbelievably stupid? It's just depressing.. they are really this dumb or they are just deliberating being stupid. Either way... it's depressing. I'm waiting for them to tell me gravity doesn't exist.


When they cannot understand the Science, or refuse to even try, then all that is left for them to do is to make stupid comments on the subject. This is truly sad, for I do not consider any of these people to be stupid. They are more than likely content with their self induced ignorance than they are with tested knowledge.
Stevepidge
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2015

there is NO empirical evidence to support the biblical perspective that we are something special
there is NO scientific or OTHER evidence, other than personal conjecture and the suspension of logic and the scientific method, that is supporting biblical claims, accuracy nor mythological arguments at all whatsoever



Biblical? what makes you think I adhere to some organized mind control? You on the other hand look at history and view it as illogical derivations used to control humanity. You view the world through a uniformitarian lens that builds upon "interpretations" of data, studies and theories extrapolated through ignorance devoid of meaning, yet simultaneously ignoring the greater understanding to be gleaned through our observations. Life is more than an accident, it is a miracle and should be treated as such, revered as such. Your ancestors have warned you of events that they have witnessed, they tried to convey the unimaginable. They were not liars.
hevster1
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.

Sure. If you believe this can I interest you in a Bridge for sale in Brooklyn? You can have it for the low price of 1000.00. You get to keep all the toll money.
The idiots here amaze me. The stories keep changing and they still don't see the scam.
RWT
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2015
HAH, the so-called "deniers" have said this for years because this has been KNOWN FOR YEARS. It's all quite simple and applies to Le Chatelier's principle. Warming causes CO2 to degas from seawater, hence, CO2 has lagged rises in temperature in the past. And of course it can work the other way too, CO2 can cause warming. But of course the magnitude of change caused by small adjustments in CO2 is minuscule compared to all other forces, or even just the forces of H20 alone.

My only question is: now that the global warming cultists are FINALLY ADMITTING THIS, how will they find a way to spin this rediscovered feedback with acidification? How can CO2 degas from sea water to be counted as a feedback for warming AND build up in seawater at the same time? Paradoxes in their logic have never stopped them before.
psychosalmon
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2015
So the journal Nature Climate Change confirms climate change is real. Even though CO2 has risen and temperature has not, the theory is confirmed. Shocking development.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.

Sure. If you believe this can I interest you in a Bridge for sale in Brooklyn? You can have it for the low price of 1000.00. You get to keep all the toll money.
The idiots here amaze me. The stories keep changing and they still don't see the scam.

Oh, I see you bought the Brooklyn Bridge! I don't think anyone is going to buy it from you now, so you may want to look into increasing the tolls.

It never ceases to amaze me how often the "There is no global warming because CONSPIRACY!" gets used by deniers. Idiots.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2015
So the journal Nature Climate Change confirms climate change is real. Even though CO2 has risen and temperature has not, the theory is confirmed. Shocking development.

Another dumdum who thinks that CO2 loading of the atmosphere must lead to linear temperature change. How do people get so indoctrinated? Tell me dumdum, is Nature in on the scam too?

For the intelligent, more information regarding feedbacks and another possible tipping pooint: http://e360.yale....at/2860/

gkam
2.3 / 5 (28) Mar 30, 2015
Is hevster1 gone?

I want to debate the science, not the politics or the prejudice.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2015
Why are the denial comments just so unbelievably stupid? It's just depressing.. they are really this dumb or they are just deliberating being stupid. Either way... it's depressing. I'm waiting for them to tell me gravity doesn't exist.


When they cannot understand the Science, or refuse to even try, then all that is left for them to do is to make stupid comments on the subject. This is truly sad, for I do not consider any of these people to be stupid. They are more than likely content with their self induced ignorance than they are with tested knowledge.


Well, self delusion can certainly be stupid, but your point is taken. I think it is more a matter of religious intolerance enhanced by scientific ignorance. That is to say, they don't understand the science because it conflicts with their beliefs, not because they can't understand it. A catch 22 of ignorance.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2015
Biblical? what makes you think I adhere to ...
@steveieTROLL
your post that i quoted, moron, or are you illiterate too?
or perhaps your continued diatribe
Life is more than an accident, it is a miracle and should be treated as such, revered as such. Your ancestors blah blah blah They were not liars
you say miracle, i say prove it

and WTF?
most of my ancestors were either religious morons or maimed, stolen, beaten or even killed because they wouldn't accept european religion
Some are STILL being subjected to prejudice etc on the res

THAT is another reason i say you are religious

but even if you are NOT, your mindset is one of the weak religious type who refuses to accept knowledge and science for the sake of a BELIEF or conspiracy (PSEUDOSCIENCE)

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

your posts are all BS denial wrapped in stupid & pseudoscience
proven above in YOUR OWN WORDS
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
[
and WTF?
most of my ancestors were either religious morons or maimed, stolen, beaten or even killed because they wouldn't accept european religion
Some are STILL being subjected to prejudice etc on the res

THAT is another reason i say you are religious

but even if you are NOT, your mindset is one of the weak religious type who refuses to accept knowledge and science for the sake of a BELIEF or conspiracy (PSEUDOSCIENCE)



I'm not talking about recent history where religion has been used to suppress humanity including your "stupid" ancestors. Instead, you wrap yourself in a garb of knowledge which you claim superiority. Faith in something greater than yourself is not weakness, it is a strength unparalleled and unmatched by the attempts of vain men to appear as keepers of knowledge. In 100 years your self righteous aggrandizing will be viewed as the ignorant drivel of sycophants whom licked the boots of uniformitarian heresy.
mbee1
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
This study does not do what it claims in this mish mash of an article.. The ice core studies show a lag between CO2 levels and climate change of hundreds of years. What is happening is the CO2 level is changing as CO2 goes into or out of the oceans depending on the temperature just like it does in your glass of coke. The positive part is the ocean temperature affects how much CO2 is in solution, it has zero to due with climate change.

The current CO2 level as measured at Mauna Loa since 1959 has a correlation with temperature of .2 which is not much in the way of a correlation which again shows this study and the article are just this side of horse manure.
Stevepidge
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
[q

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://thenatural...me-fate/

So.. questioning the Gardasil vaccine is conspiratorial? Not to mention cervical cancer is a LATE life and RARE condition. No need to give it to young girls. But hey, its science right. Science is no better than the money behind it. Why don't you go jab your daughters with HPV vaccines and see what happens. You got faith right? Oh that's right faith is for weak individuals.
truthmonger
1.1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
A few definitions please. What does a positive feedback operating in climate change mean?

may amplify? Might amplify or not, which is it.

Our new results confirm the prediction of positive feedback from the climate models. New models? Whats wrong with the old ones?

"Correlations can come and go as mirages, and cause and effect can go both ways as in a kind of chicken and egg problem, and this requires a fundamentally different way to look at the data." So the old way does not show climate change so we need to use a new way?

what a bunch of double speak BS.

gkam
2.4 / 5 (29) Mar 30, 2015
Direct Evidence, Stevie.

From the professionals who did the studies.

What you got?

Oh, and what were the ten hottest years in history? Get back to us on that.

And try this on for size:
http://ecowatch.c...ay-ever/
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Stumpy, here's another article you might find interesting. It's a bit off topic for this article, but I thought you might like it. http://motherboar...rce=mbfb
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2015
you wrap yourself in a garb of knowledge which you claim superiority
@stevie TROLL
i make NO such claims
i simply follow the EVIDENCE...
EVIDENCE being the KEY WORD there, bubba
Faith in something greater than yourself is not weakness, blah blah blah
faith in something that is NOT provable is a delusion, NOT information, evidence or anything else
and it SURE as h*ll isn't anything to be proud of
In 100 years your self righteous aggrandizing will be viewed as the ignorant drivel of sycophants whom licked the boots of uniformitarian heresy
logical fallacy and blatant stupidity
in 100 years, i will be seen exactly as i am: following the evidence
it is YOU who will be villified and proven to be the "stupid" one, as i have already demonstrated that you are above
again, i point out: SCIENCE follows the evidence

ignoring the evidence is nothing more than conspiracy theory combined with a healthy dose of stupidity (NOT ignorance)
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2015
A few definitions please. What does a positive feedback operating in climate change mean?
A positive feedback is one that enhances the original driver. A driver may enhance or retard, depending on what it is.
may amplify? Might amplify or not, which is it.
Well, can be both, just not at the same time. See above.
Our new results confirm the prediction of positive feedback from the climate models. New models? Whats wrong with the old ones?
No, not new models. New results from the same models.
"Correlations can come and go as mirages, and cause and effect can go both ways as in a kind of chicken and egg problem, and this requires a fundamentally different way to look at the data." So the old way does not show climate change so we need to use a new way?

what a bunch of double speak BS.
Comprehension requires the ability to read. There was no double speak in that sentence, other than what you added.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2015
Stumpy, here's another article you might find interesting. It's a bit off topic for this article, but I thought you might like it. http://motherboar...rce=mbfb
THANKS Maggnus! appreciate it!
reading it now!

No need to give it to young girls
@steve TROLL
how does that relate to climate science? you saying PMS and cervical cancer are the same as AGW or related?
and NO, i do NOT agree with that particular vax, because the SCIENCE says it is more dangerous than necessary to youthful girls... however i DO think vax's for transmissible disease should be mandatory for the sake of the herd protection
again, because the SCIENCE says that is the best way to protect EVERYONE
jab your daughters ...You got faith right? Oh that's right faith is for weak individuals.
you are confusing FAITH with SCIENCE again
YOU have a belief in something sans evidence = FAITH
I follow the SCIENCE/EVIDENCE = proof
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 30, 2015
Positive feedback results in amplification, and resonant conditions often result. Especially interesting to aircraft and mechanical engineers and Jimi Hendrix.
lonnie_kempf
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
I thought the interesting part from the abstract was the following statement, "We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice-core data that, over glacial–interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms..."
http://www.nature...568.html

The study is behind a paywall (our tax dollars hard at work). Figure 1. Causation inferred from time series of insolation, temperature and GHGs clearly shows the temperature of the previous three interglacial maximums higher than present while Co2 was at ~280ppm.

Figure 2 showing model comparisons. Meh...
SapientHetero
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2015
ROFL. Silly alarmists continue to imagine they can spew any kind of nonsense whatsoever and people will buy it. The fact that temperatures drive greenhouse gas levels doesn't reflect a "feedback mechanism", it means that greenhouse gas levels are in large part driven by temperature, rather than the other way around.

This is consistent with previous IPCC reports, which present graphs clearly indicating that temperatures often (but not always!) increase BEFORE greenhouse gas concentrations. As any practitioner of automatic control theory will recognize, this is NOT a characteristic of a system in which greenhouse gases "cause" temperature increases.

Sorry, but anthropogenic warming (or cooling, or "climate change") remains the biggest hoax ever attempted. If alarmists cared at all about science, they'd drop their 100% inaccurate models and investigate the much more scientifically promising hypotheses involving solar cycles.
craig james
2 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
it is well established that the oceans contain far more CO2 than the atmosphere and that heating the ocean causes CO2 to leave the solution as anyone who has opened a warm carbonated beverage knows. So yes, heat can increase atmospheric CO2.
However, CO2's "well understood effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth's temperature," is not so well understood concerning CO2's contribution to forcing as the hiatus is proving every day. CO2 is simply not affecting temperature as much as predicted.
Ice core data from Antarctica, Greenland, and Vladivostok all show that every rise in CO2 in the last 600,000 years always follows a rise in global temperature. Always. The "slight lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 variations" has quite a bit of data that tends to agree. In fact it has all the data.
acronymous
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
So, the question remains. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's warmer, or is it warmer, because there's more CO2 in the air? Choose your assumption and you can prove either argument. It's sad what is considered to be science today.

We know quite well that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere because we're burning a lot of coal and oil. And natural gas, though that's not as big a factor.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 30, 2015
craig, they have found the gases migrate upward before the snow is compressed to ice. And when ice forms, the gases are forced out the surfaces.

Ever wonder why some ice cubes have their cloudy gases in the middle, and others not? It is because the ice forms at the lowest temperature, which are the surfaces in them, and the gases are forced away, until they meet in the center,making that ugly white cloud.
danny_easterling
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
For the last few decades the alarmists have been screaming co2 determines temp. Now its the opposite.

They do believe everyone is a fool to swallow this bilge.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 30, 2015
Danny, it is true, and we are now even under your bed.

But do not worry, go here:
http://motherboar...rce=mbfb
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2015
So, the question remains. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's warmer, or is it warmer, because there's more CO2 in the air? Choose your assumption and you can prove either argument. It's sad what is considered to be science today.

We know quite well that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere because we're burning a lot of coal and oil. And natural gas, though that's not as big a factor.


Man contributes such a small amount of co2 its negligible. Divide 39gt by 795gt to have the answer. Its about 3.2%. Nature overwhelms what man contributes. And one cannot control the climate by fiddling with less than 1% of the co2. Impossible.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Mar 30, 2015
Did you decide that yourself?
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
Did you decide that yourself?


You need to educate yourself where co2 comes from. Most is from the biosphere. Easily looked up on google. But then again, I bet you have trouble.

Here's a link to the epa table showing the figures. IPCC used them too.

http://postimg.or...d0o7gdp/
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
" Idiots, we all die of something."
---------------------------------------

- Written on the gas chamber walls, Sobibor.

gkamTard
Seriously, you have confirmed your ignorance ad infinitum, but to have no shame also.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Mar 30, 2015
Look up the word: "Threshold".

Then look into Catastrophe Theory, which is really the understanding and graphical representations of complex systems and their potential stable states.
Earth Scientist
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2015
IS IN NOT THE SAME WHEN WATER TEMPS RISES, CO2 IS RELEASED FROM SEA WATER JUST AS BEER WARMS CO2 IS RELEASED. THAT THIS EFFECT IS CLEAR AND MEASURABLE UNLIKE THE WARMERS OPINIONS THAT SMALL CHANGES IN CO2 CAUSES SIGNIFICANT WARMING?

AS CO2, MOISTURE AND TEMPERATURES INCREASE SO DOES PLANT GROWTH, THUS REDUCING ATMOSPHERIC CO2? (sorry, caps were accidental)

There are a number of natural actors balancing global temperatures with certain limits, otherwise long ago, warming or cooling would have long ago pushed warming or cooling to extreme's making life on earth impossible as we know it.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 30, 2015
Noumenon likes to try and pigeon hole people into a position, then attack that position.

Maggnus , you're going to need to give even me some slack here,.... the guy just stated that "It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us",...... if that is not laughable alarmism, then what is.

The reality is that there will be a whole range of different actions, technologies and methods by which the issues of global warming and CO2 are dealth with.

We agree. I want more nuclear. Did you know that gkam thinks nuclear is a greater threat than AGW?
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
Look up the word: "Threshold".

Then look into Catastrophe Theory, which is really the understanding and graphical representations of complex systems and their potential stable states.


Of which you are woefully ignorant to make such inane comments.
ppnlppnl
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
So, the question remains. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's warmer, or is it warmer, because there's more CO2 in the air? Choose your assumption and you can prove either argument. It's sad what is considered to be science today.


Well since the increase of co2 in the atmosphere is only about half of the extra co2 we have pumped into the atmosphere it is hard to avoid that we and not the climate is the cause of rising co2. I mean do the math. It is sad what constitutes valid criticism of science today.

This is an argument usually made against the link between co2 and the climate millions of years ago. Not really a good argument there either.
Vausch
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2015
So, the question remains. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's warmer, or is it warmer, because there's more CO2 in the air? Choose your assumption and you can prove either argument. It's sad what is considered to be science today.


Because it's impossible for something to both be a cause and effect! Seriously, this is akin to saying kinetic energy can produce heat but heat can't produce kinetic energy.
tearl_2002
1 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
Climate Change is an eternal natural event. Using it fraudulently for political gains and the UN's goal of taxation, regulation, and energy control over it's nations citizens is a total lie and deception of which governments employ grants, false scientific reports and data, and medias scare and deception propaganda in an effort to gain support to accomplish their fraudulent goals.

The only reason for the barrage of this crap is to influence YOU the people to actually believe this lie and they are using YOUR tax dollars and the media to try and do it.
ppnlppnl
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2015
" Idiots, we all die of something."
---------------------------------------

- Written on the gas chamber walls, Sobibor.


All i hear here is a bunch of pansies crying about climate change. Just let evolution do it's thing, you know create species better adapted to their environment. SCIENCE!!! get used to being a poorly adapted organism. Evolve or GTFO!


Yeah, that's... not really a good plan. It would work in a brutish kind of way.

Whales? Hunt them to extinction. Just evolution in action right? Tuna? fish them to extinction and auction off the last tuna-fish sandwich on Ebay. Every species we drive to extinction just makes more room for us. Who needs global warming when we can do it up close and personal. Excuse me while I go out and hunt a Florida panther to make a nice rug.

runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
gkam - you might as well buy your burial plot now because you've had it. You told us already that the world is dying around you and you can see it with your own two eyes.

Do you think that China or India or Russia wherein lies most of the world's population is going to stop their economic expansion just to save you? Or would you rather blame the US because you are totally unaware of what is going on in the world?

The fact is that we do NOT know that there is climate change per se' and cannot know for a MINIMUM of a century or so. But you've your own proof in your imagination.

Here's your proof positive of global warming:

https://wattsupwi...ate1.jpg

No ... this is the correct graph.
You do have to getb the end bit right my friend.
http://earthobser...tion.png

kminotaur32
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.


Sad but true...I couldn't have said it better myself.
Cause, and effect...
The laws of thermodynamics also clearly explain what we are doing, and how. Essentially, the deniers are just illiterate, and unfortunately, their denial effects us all.
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
gkam - you might as well buy your burial plot now because you've had it. You told us already that the world is dying around you and you can see it with your own two eyes.

Do you think that China or India or Russia wherein lies most of the world's population is going to stop their economic expansion just to save you? Or would you rather blame the US because you are totally unaware of what is going on in the world?

The fact is that we do NOT know that there is climate change per se' and cannot know for a MINIMUM of a century or so. But you've your own proof in your imagination.

Here's your proof positive of global warming:

https://wattsupwi...ate1.jpg



Data ajustments added to the data set to make it look like warming is catastropphic.

http://postimg.or...fcywo8d/
kminotaur32
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
The only positive feedback that is likely to kill us is the progressive ignorance taught in our schools. Ignorant biased teachers create even more ignorant and biased future teachers.


Sounds like you are just a backwoods, inbred, hill jack, religious cultist, who don't know squat about the facts. The founders of our country were progressives in their time. Oh, and in economics, you have to have constant reform. Otherwise, any system is doomed to fail.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
So, the question remains. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere because it's warmer, or is it warmer, because there's more CO2 in the air? Choose your assumption and you can prove either argument. It's sad what is considered to be science today.

We know quite well that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere because we're burning a lot of coal and oil. And natural gas, though that's not as big a factor.


Man contributes such a small amount of co2 its negligible. Divide 39gt by 795gt to have the answer. Its about 3.2%. Nature overwhelms what man contributes. And one cannot control the climate by fiddling with less than 1% of the co2. Impossible.

Because you say so? It really is very basic physics, even you can look it up and calculate how it can work.

Oh, right, impossible.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2015
Man contributes such a small amount of co2 its negligible. ..... Nature overwhelms what man contributes. .........

Nature does produce far more than man, however that is naturally sunk into the oceans etc.
Anthro CO2 is outside of that equation and is accumulating.
You have seen the Co2 monitoring station graphs?
You know that Anthro CO2 content can be measured?

"Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring.The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions."

https://www.skept...php?r=41
http://cdiac.ornl...logr.jpg
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
And I restate what I said earlier. For decades warmists screamed co2 produced heating, now its the opposite. The schools have turned out generations bereft of critical thinking skills. Maggnus go to the head of the class.

Pseudo-scientific bilge.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (29) Mar 30, 2015
Maybe danny_ gets his science from Fox or the other Bible.
lonnie_kempf
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
Wow, more people intent on arguing rather than focusing on what the study abstract said eh?

"...climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms..."

Which, as we all know, is another term for 'internal variability'. The inference here is that; positive feedbacks or not, the climate is driven by internal variability: nothing that we can control...like stopping an ice-age, or an ice-free planet.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2015
My only question is: now that the global warming cultists are FINALLY ADMITTING THIS, how will they find a way to spin this rediscovered feedback with acidification? How can CO2 degas from sea water to be counted as a feedback for warming AND build up in seawater at the same time? Paradoxes in their logic have never stopped them before.

Admit what?
Why is it so difficult to realise that 99% of the atmosphere is transparent to exiting IR.
The ~1% remaining has been increased by man by ~40%.
Certainly not miniscule.
You would need to understand the W/m2 forcing value of a doubling of Co2 for that.

How can CO2 degas from sea water to be counted as a feedback for warming AND build up in seawater at the same time?

You conflate the past with the present.
It's NOT degassing now. It's being absorbed but at a higher rate

In the past CO2/temp/ocean ph were in (dynamic) balance. Out<>into Oceans.
Now excess CO2 is >Oceans and >atmosphere (WE ARE MAKING IT).
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2015
Which, as we all know, is another term for 'internal variability'. The inference here is that; positive feedbacks or not, the climate is driven by internal variability: nothing that we can control...like stopping an ice-age, or an ice-free planet.

No it's not1
It is driven by the total energy in the system.
Warming or cooling due to the total TSI absorbed.
Internal variability does NOT drive it - it only follows and temporaily, as no know internal cycle is much longer than around 30 years.
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
Not to mention the earth is greening up and using that extra co2. Too much willfull blindness here.
jeffensley
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
I'm going to throw out a crazy idea here and I'm curious as to what you all think of it. I've read somewhere that the planet has gone through a warming cycle before. I've even heard that it's been way warmer than it currently is now. Since we weren't here with science to save it from overheating, how did it survive? Is it just the teensiest bit possible that the Earth already has mechanisms in place to deal with CO2 and heat? And doesn't life have a way of acclimating to change? No matter how much you panic, how many taxes you pass, we aren't going to be reducing the CO2 concentration nor dialing back the thermostat we believe we possess. What happens is WE adapt. Great cities get lost to the sea, new ones will get built. Technology will continue to advance so that our impact on resources is minimized. Nature smacks us around a little so that we gain some humility and the desire to live more lightly. The end isn't near people. Something far bigger than us is in control.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
"It can be highly misleading to use simple correlation to infer causality in complex systems," says George Sugihara from Scripps Institution of Oceanography (USA). "Correlations can come and go as mirages, and cause and effect can go both ways as in a kind of chicken and egg problem, and this requires a fundamentally different way to look at the data."

Thank you Mr. Sugihara. I'm glad to know there are still rational people involved in climate science.
tearl_2002
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
The only positive feedback that is likely to kill us is the progressive ignorance taught in our schools. Ignorant biased teachers create even more ignorant and biased future teachers.


Sounds like you are just a backwoods, inbred, hill jack, religious cultist, who don't know squat about the facts. The founders of our country were progressives in their time. Oh, and in economics, you have to have constant reform. Otherwise, any system is doomed to fail.



You sir are one duped fool.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (26) Mar 30, 2015
"The only reason for the barrage of this crap is to influence YOU the people to actually believe this lie and they are using YOUR tax dollars and the media to try and do it."
------------------------------------------

Because you would do that? Sorry, Toots we must have worked in different fields, with very different ethics.

I earned a Master of Science in this field and have watched as our fears became realized. Now, we have to debate The Ignorati, those who have been emotionally-manipulated, like they were with "WMD!", and by the same oil interests.

How did you arrive at your opinion?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
Wow, hasn't everyone been claiming this stuff was all proven?
And they don't answer the big questions, the important ones.

Which is more important, water vapor or clouds? What is the trade off? And what is this about temperature leading CO2? I thought we had slain that vampire? You AGWers are sleeping on the job.

Fortunately, my humble model is still working!

Eat your heart out.

Oh, yeah, claim it doesn't work, you skeptigoons challenged me to predict this Winter, now no one can seem to remember:

I PEGGED IT!

Though, it's not like it wasn't obvious.
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
"The only reason for the barrage of this crap is to influence YOU the people to actually believe this lie and they are using YOUR tax dollars and the media to try and do it."
------------------------------------------

Because you would do that? Sorry, Toots we must have worked in different fields, with very different ethics.

I earned a Master of Science in this field and have watched as our fears became realized. Now, we have to debate The Ignorati, those who have been emotionally-manipulated, like they were with "WMD!", and by the same oil interests.

How did you arrive at your opinion?


The "ignorati"--laughable, when one has no valid facts or arguments the rhetorical attacks occur. LOL You obviously have no hsitorical idea of the number of times doom has been predicted. The 1970's cooling scare was one of them with glaciers over kansas city by 1995. FAIL!

gkam, keep clicking your hells together and say "we are right this time." Auntie Em will save you.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 30, 2015
"gkam, keep clicking your hells together and say "we are right this time." Auntie Em will save you."
---------------------------------------------

Yeah, them old predictions of doom from Reverend Pat and the other Bible kooks are right on the same level as professional predictions made by scientists.
wenkl2
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Positive feedback mechanisms usually have bad outcomes, unless you are full term pregnant and you really need to get the baby out NOW! We can only hope the world is ready to birth a new paradigm of life and that we will be able to make a smooth transition when it happens.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
I've been wondering about when the methane feedback would happen, and apparently it's now with just a 0.6C rise from pre-industrial ages. OH boy I can not wait until we hit a full blown 2C rise in global average temps. We might as well rename the human race the toast race! We will all look like burnt toast; Including the almighty and steamy hot waterprofit. How hot and steamy do you like it water?

The point being; deniers are total idiots that just deserve a kick in the butt for being so freaking stupid. Deniers just need to do a FACE PALM! How can I be so stupid.
bradalb0
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Mathematicians playing with data but they still don't understand the underlying mechanisms. First, correlation is not the same as causality. Second, the sample manifold shown uses just 3 variables. We don't have the capacity to construct a manifold consisting of the thousands of variables that would go into all of the potential control mechanisms associated with our global climate. Nor do we have even a rudimentary understanding of most of these mechanisms. But then, I'm trying to make a point to an audience that has an almost religious belief that CO2 is the beginning, middle and end of all possible climate affects. Oh, and finally, the inconvenient observation that CO2 concentration has a lagging correlation to global temperature changes.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Fortunately, my humble model is still working
@alkie/pffffft/positum stultum prophetam
for starters, you have NO empirical evidence that you can or have a model that predicts climate
Your "brass bowl" claims are not only farcical, but have been debunked by simple demonstration as well as physics
Oh, yeah, claim it doesn't work...
and this only demonstrates that you still confuse climate with weather

i will say it AGAIN, because you seem to be unable to get the point:
You have NO historical empirical evidence supporting the conclusions that you-
1- have a viable model
2- have made accurate predictions to the climate
3- have made ANY beneficial scientific claims or even Accurate claims WRT climate
and especially WRT CO2 and it's feedback/forcing mechanism with WV

I also ask: where is the equivalent peer reviewed reputable publications that debunked the studies that i've refuted your claims with?

still nothing?
like uba?

imagine that...
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Deniers just need to do a FACE PALM! How can I be so stupid.

I have to say, I agree with this guy 100%. Only a wingnut bozo would like to see a 2C rise in global warming, but the dips are still there. Just look at how many of the dumb fish bit the line in this thread and exposed their ignorance. Check out the nimrod @bradalb0 ... "duhh peoples is just stupid..." comment.

When it comes to climate, math, graphs and stuff, Deniers will have it wrong. Oh but if it's socialism, communism or anything that hints of liberalism they will bitch that action on climate change supports the leftist union position. The fact of the mater is does it concern you if your planet will be slowly destroyed over the next 100 years by excessive fossil fuel consumption? So far we are seeing a lot of damage from it but deniers close their eyes and say "nananana"

I just wish the deniers would get a clue and read these Phys.org articles with an objective view instead of being such twits.
animah
5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
it is a strength unparalleled

Citation needed. Please provide examples, in the last 100 years, where the strength of religious faith has tipped the balance of outcomes and positively altered history.

In 100 years (...) uniformitarian heresy.

Hold on... You believe we'll have a theocracy in 100 years? For real?
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
"gkam, keep clicking your hells together and say "we are right this time." Auntie Em will save you."
---------------------------------------------

Yeah, them old predictions of doom from Reverend Pat and the other Bible kooks are right on the same level as professional predictions made by scientists.


Such ignorance, predictions of doom have mostly been the domain of scientists starting before Malthus and ending today with the CC alarmists. But thanks for confirming you are historically nescient.

Educate yourself and dispel the pall. http://rationalwi...he_world
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.


gkam,

I think that you may have put the shoe on the wrong foot.

While it is true that all this denierside diddlysquat do nothing has likely doomed us to dire times ahead, and that agriculture will probably be damaged to the point of inadequate provision, there is still hope!

It is my understanding that, ironically, the continuous fossilized denierside rhetoric uttered by its proponents induces subtle metabolic changes which produce some of the most well-marbled and tender flesh to be found on the entire planet, and hundreds of gigatonnes of it, at that.

So, while there may not be any wine, or bread, or cheese, or even clean water to go with it --at least there will be plenty of meat.

Revenge, it appears --while maybe not sweet, in this particular case-- will at least be nutritious.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Such ignorance, predictions of doom have mostly been the domain of scientists starting before Malthus and ending today with the CC alarmists
@danny
actually, the predominant amount of historical predictions of doom are mostly RELIGIOUS, and that is proven by your link

Also, don't forget that in our historical past, religious orders were where educated people were, and where one got their education, therefore, even the "sciences" were required to pay lip service to religious dogma

So you are arguing apples and Dog Manure for starters

Secondly, there is a huge difference between doom shouting (like religions do) and the scientific predictions using empirical evidence and the knowledge of physics

As you can see, there is this thing called "error bars" that, if you learned anything about the scientific method, you would know are included in probabilities

just because you refuse to acknowledge the science doesn't mean it isnt real or true
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Revenge, it appears --while maybe not sweet, in this particular case-- will at least be nutritious
@Caliban
Well, not so sure about that
if cooked human flesh taste anything like it smells when burning then it is a little sweet too!
as are a lot of purely predatory species
:-)
So, while there may not be any wine, or bread, or cheese, or even clean water to go with it --at least there will be plenty of meat.
can i hear an amen?
ROTFLMFAO
had to
sorry

PS, large amounts of adrenaline dumped into the body before death makes the meat sweeter when cooked
petepal55
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.

Oh, bull, we all did it. The deniers may have slowed the implementation of some piddling responses, but nothing we would have done if they didn't exist would have made a bit of difference, just as nothing we do now will either. There is NO way the pols will move fast enough and take drastic enough measures that might make enough of a difference. We have screwed up royally and now our kids are going to pay for it.
Excuse me, YOUR kids, I listened to the scientists back in the 60's that said there were way too many humans on the planet and decided not to have kids. What happens when any given animal(plant?) population breeds so much they destroy their own habitat?
We asked for it, we got it!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
.............. You obviously have no hsitorical idea of the number of times doom has been predicted. The 1970's cooling scare was one of them with glaciers over kansas city by 1995. FAIL.......

"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century."

AGW denier myth #wxyz

http://en.wikiped..._cooling
michael_733
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
The story says "well understood effects" of greenhouse gas. If that is the case then why did the model not predict the "pause"? Because they are LYING.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 31, 2015
It may be too late: The Deniers may already have killed us, and we are just waiting for the Environment to respond.

Oh, bull, we all did it. The deniers may have slowed the implementation of some piddling responses, but nothing we would have done if they didn't exist would have made a bit of difference, just as nothing we do now will either.


Finally, someone with commen sense decides to post here.

The "deniers" and the oil/coal industry have nothing to do with WAY the world continues to consume oil/coal. The AGW-Enthusiasts alarmism is scientifically unfounded.

Because the world is not in fact embracing their particular brand of leftist solutions, they must construct strawmen with "deniers" and conspiracy theories with the influence of oil/coal industry.

The "collective genius" of mankind is not nor will, change it's behavior nor embraced left-wing anti-capitalist ideology, to an extent that matches the alarmists rhetoric.
Ironwood
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
I fear an ice age far more than a few degrees of warming. I'll start taking the pause, I mean the warming, seriously when the warm mongers stop buying beachfront property and jetting around in their private jets. Paint your tiny house's roof white, drive a solar recharged electric car, encrypt your "hide the decline" emails better, vow to never set foot on an airplane again and people might start to believe you. If it is a crisis, act like it!
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 31, 2015
Man contributes such a small amount of co2 its negligible. Divide 39gt by 795gt to have the answer. Its about 3.2%. Nature overwhelms what man contributes. And one cannot control the climate by fiddling with less than 1% of the co2. Impossible.


Because you say so? It really is very basic physics, even you can look it up and calculate how it can work. - Maggnus


Actually, no, it is not basic physics. Basic physics is that the CO2 molecule absorbs electromagnetism in the infrared spectrum, that it also increases its kinetic energy which transfers to other atmospheric molecules.

That CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere and increase global temps, ... is actually a very complex analysis of data and application of physics and does not of itself follow from any basic physical theory,... albeit the best explanation at present.

Now, do you think gkam is being an alarmist? People like him generate skeptics simply by opening their mouth.
danny_easterling
2 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
[As you can see, there is this thing called "error bars" that, if you learned anything about the scientific method, you would know are included in probabilities

just because you refuse to acknowledge the science doesn't mean it isnt real or true


LOL, Science shows that alarmiist catastrophic predictions are fundamentally wrong. And my education in modeling and stats most likely exceeds most of the posters on here.

Measurement error on land data stations is so large every data set is unreliable, about the most reliable is satellite data. Furthermore when one constructs models with hundreds of variables that may confound each other along with profound case of confirmation bias pushed by questionable assumptions pollutes the whole so-called science.
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Mathematicians playing with data but they still don't understand the underlying mechanisms. First, correlation is not the same as causality. Second, the sample manifold shown uses just 3 variables. We don't have the capacity to construct a manifold consisting of the thousands of variables that would go into all of the potential control mechanisms associated with our global climate. Nor do we have even a rudimentary understanding of most of these mechanisms. But then, I'm trying to make a point to an audience that has an almost religious belief that CO2 is the beginning, middle and end of all possible climate affects. Oh, and finally, the inconvenient observation that CO2 concentration has a lagging correlation to global temperature changes.


Thank you, sir. Except I would go so far to say it IS a religious belief and the God is Science. Pointing out flaws/limitations in methodology or asking simple questions gets you labeled "denier", which feels much like "blasphemer".
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
The story says "well understood effects" of greenhouse gas. If that is the case then why did the model not predict the "pause"? Because they are LYING.
Dum dum dum dum dum -- CONSPIRACY!!!
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
I fear an ice age far more than a few degrees of warming. I'll start taking the pause, I mean the warming, seriously when the warm mongers stop buying beachfront property and jetting around in their private jets. Paint your tiny house's roof white, drive a solar recharged electric car, encrypt your "hide the decline" emails better, vow to never set foot on an airplane again and people might start to believe you. If it is a crisis, act like it!

"There is no global warming because people fly in jets!!!"
Science Officer
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Well, this proves higher CO2 concentrations cause global warming, or, that global warming causes CO2 concentrations to rise. Choose the assumption of your choice, either argument can be proven.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
I fear an ice age far more than a few degrees of warming. I'll start taking the pause, I mean the warming, seriously when the warm mongers stop buying beachfront property and jetting around in their private jets. Paint your tiny house's roof white, drive a solar recharged electric car, encrypt your "hide the decline" emails better, vow to never set foot on an airplane again and people might start to believe you. If it is a crisis, act like it!

It is smart to fear an ice age - if is was about 3500 years from now and the Laurentian ince sheets were starting to grow again. The one good thing about what we have been doing to our environment is that we have probably staved off or at least delayed, the next ice age.

The rest of your post is bunkum and the usual in denialist claptrap. "There is no global warming because Al Gore fies in a jet!"
EnricM
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
"estimating the actual strength of this effect is challenging, because it involves a plethora of mechanisms that are difficult to quantify and sometimes oppose each other."

In other words, the idea this is settled science is garbage. All you have to do is read all the articles on this one website that totally contradict themselves.


like which ones? And how exactly?
maybe the one about the nanotubes? Or was it the one about quantum computing?
EnricM
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Because they are LYING.
Dum dum dum dum dum -- CONSPIRACY!!!


LYING, Lowering Yoga Into Nothing but a Game.

So, now we found the truth, Climate Scientist have set up the whole conspiracy to blacken the reputation of the ancient discipline of Yoga!!

Basterds!!!
EnricM
4 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2015
Because they are LYING.
Dum dum dum dum dum -- CONSPIRACY!!!


LYING, Lowering Yoga Into Nothing but a Game.

So, now we found the truth, Climate Scientist have set up the whole conspiracy to blacken the reputation of the ancient discipline of Yoga!!

Basterds!!!
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Actually, no, it is not basic physics. Basic physics is that the CO2 molecule absorbs electromagnetism in the infrared spectrum, that it also increases its kinetic energy which transfers to other atmospheric molecules.

That CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere and increase global temps, ... is actually a very complex analysis of data and application of physics and does not of itself follow from any basic physical theory,... albeit the best explanation at present.
Yea, that's pretty basic physics. The rate of warming, the effect it will have on the atmosphere and oceans, and other aspects are complicated. The basic physics of CO2 driven warming has been known since at least the 1890s.

Now, do you think gkam is being an alarmist? People like him generate skeptics simply by opening their mouth.
I would rather see opinions like his than danny-easterling or michael733. Because, you know, scientists lie and all.
EnricM
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
" I don't fear death. I've died nearly twice in catastrophic interstate accidents, I've had passengers in my vehicles, FRIENDS contorted in inhuman ghastly ways due to errant truck drivers trying to make time. I don't give two sh!ts about your paper or maths."

But he is going to fight the Evil SPECTRA conspiracy of Climate Scientists bare chested in armed only with a Mexican wrestler mask and a pink speedo!!! OMG!!
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (20) Mar 31, 2015
Now, do you think gkam is being an alarmist? People like him generate skeptics simply by opening their mouth.

I would rather see opinions like his than danny-easterling or michael733. Because, you know, scientists lie and all.

That is not an answer to my question. You shouldn't because such over the top hysteria (of which we see from the UN as well) leads reasonable people who are not climatologists, to not take the issue seriously, because it lends credence to the skeptics arguments.

EDIT: "The "deniers" and the oil/coal industry have nothing to do with [WHY] the world continues to consume oil/coal."
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2015
ubavontuba LIED & FAILED again claiming
..Thermodynamics, Caliban, Mike_Massen, Captain Stumpy, ThomasQuinn, mooster75, Vietvet, howhot2, and runrig, et al, all swear it is all about CO2, all the time
No. You twisted = u r feeble

CO2 Adds thermal resistivity, u BOTH fail to understand ADDITION ?

ubavontuba asked
How can it possibly be otherwise?
Try the best u can please to find anything which adds 1.5W/m^2 radiative forcing, Naive Water_Prophet also FAILED, so sad.
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Deniers on phys.org FAILED anywhere to address a straightforward Question

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 eith known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"

CO2 STILL rising, not denied
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2015
Science Officer with some schizophrenia
Well, this proves higher CO2 concentrations cause global warming, or, that global warming causes CO2 concentrations to rise. Choose the assumption of your choice, either argument can be proven.
No. It should be clear, the rise in CO2 the last 150 or so years is primarily from combustion of oi/coal/gas, here is a graph from a site often used by uneducated feeble deniers:-
http://www.woodfo...ormalise

From ubavontuba who has zero understanding of his link:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

CO2 has particular well know thermal properties, this FACT & given huge amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere, um, you have heard of addition in maths yes/no ? Then its clear the causal factor as to WHY humans liberate CO2 from combustion is not correlated with earlier temps.

If u understand, show Y please ?

Y is "Science" in your nick at all ?
dadpt
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
If you increase CO2 level to 5%, the atmosphere absorbs all the low temperature radiation from the planet earth in 29 instead of the 30 meters. NASA's original conclusion was so what. I agree with that conclusion. Current data doesn't support the designed to scare made up theory that shows temperature rise stops if man stops putting CO2 into the atmosphere. If you think climate change stops after man stops putting 1% versus the 99% natural CO2 being added to the air you are truly a believer. A believer in made up magic that hasn't been validated. Flat earthers used to believe too. Probably some still do.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
The fact is that AGW/Climate Change will never be disproved since there will always be another computer simulation that "proves" increased Co2 is causing the weather disturbance de jour.

The fact that Co2 in the atmosphere traps a certain amount of heat is undeniable but that does not prove that this is a linear phenomenon or that there are not 100s of other negative feedback loops that counteract Co2 levels.

The proof of this is obvious. We are here after millions of years of climate history.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
That is not an answer to my question.
You're right, sorry I didn't read it right. Yes, I think gkam is being an alarmist.
You shouldn't because such over the top hysteria (of which we see from the UN as well) leads reasonable people who are not climatologists, to not take the issue seriously, because it lends credence to the skeptics arguments.
Just to those that think there is some conspiracy. And I would still rather gkam's alarmism over the various "it's all a scam" idiocy.

EDIT: "The "deniers" and the oil/coal industry have nothing to do with [WHY] the world continues to consume oil/coal."
Non-sequitur. Furthermore, it is not the consumption that is the problem, it is the failure to deal adequately with the waste from the consumption.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2015
If you increase CO2 level to 5%, the atmosphere absorbs all the low temperature radiation from the planet earth in 29 instead of the 30 meters. NASA's original conclusion was so what. I agree with that conclusion. Current data doesn't support the designed to scare made up theory that shows temperature rise stops if man stops putting CO2 into the atmosphere. If you think climate change stops after man stops putting 1% versus the 99% natural CO2 being added to the air you are truly a believer. A believer in made up magic that hasn't been validated. Flat earthers used to believe too. Probably some still do.

Yea, cause them scientists they don't know nothing and they're all lying anyway, and why should we listen to people who have been trained to make observations and they're all liars anyway!

You are an idiot.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2015
"The proof of this is obvious. We are here after millions of years of climate history. "
-------------------------------------------

Including climate extremes such as Ice Ages. Do you want to go back to extreme conditions?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (21) Mar 31, 2015
Delayed the next ice age
Yah know, I think AGW people are a little too optimistic and a little too shortsighted. There is this idea that if man wasn't busy destroying the climate, the earth would continue on indefinitely as an Eden of static pleasantness.

But evidence tells us that this quiet period we have had the luxury of developing in is the exception, not the norm. All sorts of cataclysmic natural events have happened here in the recent past, geologically speaking, and have extincted many species more tenacious than us.

And most all of these events have the potential to cool the atmosphere by filling it up with crud for decades or centuries.

No matter what we do, in a few hundred years fossil fuels will run out and the CO2 will dissipate. And we may see impacts, supervolcanos, shelf collapses, etc which will make us forget all about how hot it used to be for a few gens.

We will however be grateful for all the essential tech developed during that period.
BenB766
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2015
So much Dunning-Krueger effect, so little time... It's amazing how many people think they know better than virtually all the climatologists of the world...
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
Yah know, I think AGW people are a little too optimistic and a little too shortsighted. There is this idea that if man wasn't busy destroying the climate, the earth would continue on indefinitely as an Eden of static pleasantness
I don't know who you think would hold that idea, and I think this illustrates a deep misunderstanding that "denier people" have about the concern of global warming.

The planet's climate changes. The problem with what is happening today is the speed of the change. The concern is that species do not have time to adapt, such that many will simply die out. We are already seeing some of that.

Certainly the possibility exists for there to be a catastrophic event that will create the conditions whereby the current warming will be made moot. That possibility goes both ways though - in fact, there is a higher possibility no such event will occur.

Either way, it makes no sense to sit and do nothing.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
". It's amazing how many people think they know better than virtually all the climatologists of the world..."

And who do you think pays these climatologists? 90% of these people are paid by the UN, individual governments or university grants. ALL of these establishments are intent on stripping you of your freedoms and wealth. After all, all of them know better than you how you should act or how your money should be used.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 31, 2015
"ALL of these establishments are intent on stripping you of your freedoms and wealth."
-------------------------------------------

OMG - you and Ryggy take your political paranoia somewhere else, please.

Go here and wonder:
http://ngm.nation...ach-text
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2015
So Gkam, if given the chance, do you think that you could do a better job than I making decisions about what energy sources I purchase, which political movements I support and where I choose to invest my money?????????????
BenB766
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
@MR166

Actually if it turns out that scientists are wrong about climate change they'll just go on studying some other aspect of climate and they will still be financed by the Evil UN, Big Bag Gubmint and the temples of ignorance that are universities... So they don't do what they do to "strip us of our freedom and our wealth", they do so because that's where the evidence leads.

And yes, when it comes to climatology, climatologists know a lot more than you or I do. So I'm still going to take their word over that of some random Internet conspiracy theorists or graduates of the university of Google.
danny_easterling
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
"ALL of these establishments are intent on stripping you of your freedoms and wealth."
-------------------------------------------

OMG - you and Ryggy take your political paranoia somewhere else, please.

Go here and wonder:
http://ngm.nation...ach-text


Says he who is very unfamiliar with the goals of the un. America is the last bastion of freedom on earth, once we are gone everyone will walk in lockstep to masters. AGW policy is an attack on property rights pure and simple.

Besides that after 20+ years and billions of dollars of propaganda, governmental and media driven less americans believe its a concern than ever before. Its way down on the list, as it should be.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
@MR166 Re: who pays them

Any scientist anywhere knows if you want to make money you work for industry. Government spending on science is a pittance in comparison to industry. And if you want to make the most money, you get into the petroleum industry. They pay the best.

So if you're alleging that climate scientists are "just in it for the money" then they're pretty darned bad at being greedy.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
> AGW policy is an attack on property rights pure and simple.

Absolutely untrue. There are many ways in which we can help balance the carbon equation that don't "attack property rights." Namely, we should include *all* the costs of fossil fuel useage. Right now we defer a solid portion of the costs to the future. We pay for extraction and processing now... and remediation and consequences later.

Except that the people paying later don't get the benefits of the cheap energy now, really. And they may be in countries or regions of the world that also don't have access to the cheap energy the developed world has.

So, ethically speaking, the people using carbon should be the people paying the full cost of it. I can't just pay for half a sandwich and tell the cashier that the next guy in line will pay the rest. Why should I pay for half the costs of coal, and tell them my grandchildren will cover the rest?
gkam
2 / 5 (25) Mar 31, 2015
danny,what makes you think I an unfamiliar with the goals of the UN? Because you are SCARED of them?

Yeah, AGW is just a scheme to take your crappy property. We planned it for a long time.

We even have somebody under your bed, . . right now!
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2015
"Any scientist anywhere knows if you want to make money you work for industry. Government spending on science is a pittance in comparison to industry. And if you want to make the most money, you get into the petroleum industry. They pay the best..............."

So Shavera what percentage of climate scientists are paid by the government and are you trying to claim that they are "Pure" because they are government funded? BTW on a only $$$ basis, what percentage of science is funded by governments or universities vs. corporations and where does the real money exist?
gkam
2 / 5 (26) Mar 31, 2015
166, your mind is made up, and no amount of facts will change it. You WANT to believe in conspiracies that the poor people are really running things, and are evil, not like the good rich folk, who have polluted our Earth and made us wage-workers, . . . when they let us.

This thread is about a proven link, a true sign of positive feedback. That leads to things coming apart. Positive feedback leads to amplification, then to finding a stable state, a resonance.
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
"Any scientist anywhere knows if you want to make money you work for industry. Government spending on science is a pittance in comparison to industry. And if you want to make the most money, you get into the petroleum industry. They pay the best..............."

So Shavera what percentage of climate scientists are paid by the government and are you trying to claim that they are "Pure" because they are government funded? BTW on a only $$$ basis, what percentage of science is funded by governments or universities vs. corporations and where does the real money exist?


Government directly spends $55 B a year on climate research. Absolutely dwarfs what private industry spends. Obama's budget for 2014 called for $255B and $225B in 2015. On the whitehouse dot gov website.

Just some facts to consider sans rhetoric.

http://pjmedia.co...cs-file/
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2015
I want danny to tell me about the UN,and how they are trying to take what we have.

danny, which side of the political spectrum imposed the Conservative Police State on us, after their Criminal Negligence on 9/11?
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
danny,what makes you think I an unfamiliar with the goals of the UN? Because you are SCARED of them?

Yeah, AGW is just a scheme to take your crappy property. We planned it for a long time.

We even have somebody under your bed, . . right now!


You must be a pervert to want to invade someone's home and watch.
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
I want danny to tell me about the UN,and how they are trying to take what we have.

danny, which side of the political spectrum imposed the Conservative Police State on us, after their Criminal Negligence on 9/11?


Troll someone else.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2015
"You must be a pervert to want to invade someone's home and watch."
------------------------------

Nope, got my fill in the Air Force, doing "Electronic Reconnaissance" in the Vietnam War.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
I would definitely agree that government spending of "Climate Research" pales in comparison to private industry. Because there's no profit to be made in climate research.

My point is that, more broadly, if you're in science for money, you get into something like Chemical engineering (not that everyone in that field is in it for the money, just that it's one of the more lucrative fields). If you're interested in how the world's climate works, you get into climate science. You can't get a job in industry doing basic scientific research (no profit in it), so you are generally funded by the government.

But how much money exists to fund anti-climate change propaganda? How much money exists to pay people who aren't scientists to ask irrelevant and misleading questions to dissuade the public at large?
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
"Nope, got my fill in the Air Force, doing "Electronic Reconnaissance" in the Vietnam War."

Gkam are you admitting that the government is the problem when addressing individual rights and freedoms? I thought not. In your mind the real problem is lack of government control and the harm to the "Collective Good" that these individual freedoms cause.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 31, 2015
My complaint is many folk assume all fields have the same standards of proof and conduct. They vary vastly. In science, your work must be verifiable, reproducible, and lead to predictability. There are hordes of others waiting to take apart everything you say and demanding proof. All must conform to the Laws of Nature, which are unchangeable.

In the fields we invented, the games we made up, such as money, finance, business, law, religion, politics, we made up the rules and change them at our convenience. Lying may be rampant in business finance, politics, religion, but not in science. In science, even fudging is professional death.

Those of you who work for the money only and not the advances to be made for all of us may not understand it.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
"My complaint is many folk assume all fields have the same standards of proof and conduct. They vary vastly. In science, your work must be verifiable, reproducible, and lead to predictability. There are hordes of others waiting to take apart everything you say and demanding proof. All must conform to the Laws of Nature, which are unchangeable."

So you are saying that those computer simulations that much of climate science are based on are infallible and conform 100% to "The Laws of Nature".

In reality there is not much difference between the infallibility of a computer simulation and the infallibility of the Pope..
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 31, 2015
"Gkam are you admitting that the government is the problem when addressing individual rights and freedoms?"
-------------------------------------------

All power can be misused. Do you think we would have been in Vietnam for so long without Brown and Root? Know who they are now?

MR166
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
Yup, Al Gore is pretty much the Pope of the movement. Whether or or not Michael Mann is a Cardinal or a Bishop is pretty much inconsequential.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2015
No, it's Saul Alinsky, your own personal Satan. No liberals know who he is, but he sure SCARES the conservatives. What did he do to you?

Our concern comes from the science. Do you get yours from political prejudice? Not a good way to make rational decisions, is it?
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
>So you are saying that those computer simulations that much of climate science are based on are infallible and conform 100% to "The Laws of Nature".

They're not infallible, no one serious is saying that. But when you do a lot of different simulations in a lot of different ways, each of them conforming, within the constraints of the computation to "The Laws of Nature" and they all keep saying the same thing... It's pretty darned hard to think they're all of them wrong.

If you have a better climate model, put up or shut up. Seriously, if anyone came out with a solid model, based on real world physics, that showed there wasn't going to be global warming, they'd be hailed as groundbreaking scientists. Sure, there'd be skepticism for a while as their results were verified by others... but it wouldn't be too long before it would be 100% clear that everyone else was wrong.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
Gkam try as you may you will never become more than an Altar Boy in the AGW religion.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2015
We are not subject to the emotional manipulation used to get to the religious in line. We live in a world of rationality, not fantasy derived from fear and political prejudice.

Those who need that fantasy of the Sky Fairies do not understand the rest of us do not need it.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2015
166 wants to talk about computer models, not having read any of the actual studies and the technical details of the studies.

I suggest he simply look up the ten hottest years in all of history and get back to us.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
Gkam I have a pretty vivid recollection of life and how it has changed since the 50s and you know what, climate wise it has not really changed all that much but socially and morally we have been plummeting in a downward spiral faster than that German airplane. A few PPM of Co2 are the least of our worries.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
"ALL of these establishments are intent on stripping you of your freedoms and wealth."
-------------------------------------------

OMG - you and Ryggy take your political paranoia somewhere else, please.

Go here and wonder:
http://ngm.nation...ach-text


Says he who is very unfamiliar with the goals of the un. America is the last bastion of freedom on earth, once we are gone everyone will walk in lockstep to masters. AGW policy is an attack on property rights pure and simple.

Besides that after 20+ years and billions of dollars of propaganda, governmental and media driven less americans believe its a concern than ever before. Its way down on the list, as it should be.

Dum dum dum dum dum CONSPIRACY!!!
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2015
Most of our worries now are really from the disease of superstition, as we kill each other over whose Imaginary Companion is the "real" one.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 31, 2015
if anyone came out with a solid model, based on real world physics, that showed there wasn't going to be global warming, they'd be hailed as groundbreaking scientists. [....] but it wouldn't be too long before it would be 100% clear that everyone else was wrong.


Given how the subject has been politicized, I seriously doubt that person would be taken seriously or that he/she would not be branded a "denier" right off. Today, to be a climatologist de facto means to accept AGW as is.
danny_easterling
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
My complaint is many folk assume all fields have the same standards of proof and conduct. They vary vastly. In science, your work must be verifiable, reproducible, and lead to predictability. There are hordes of others waiting to take apart everything you say and demanding proof. All must conform to the Laws of Nature, which are unchangeable.


Which AGW is not. Mann of the hockey sued to keep his "science" from being looked at. The EPA will not allow outside replication.

http://www.ucsusa...vkBrRLeg
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 31, 2015
"Today, to be a climatologist de facto means to accept AGW as is."
----------------------------------

Nope, any Climatologist who accurately gets it right will be a hero, no matter the final formulation.
gkam
2 / 5 (25) Mar 31, 2015
danny, did you actually READ the link you sent us?

PLEASE DO!

It reports how the Bush Administration tried to cover up reports of AGW for political reasons.

Thanks for the source!!
danny_easterling
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
danny, did you actually READ the link you sent us?

PLEASE DO!

It reports how the Bush Administration tried to cover up reports of AGW for political reasons.

Thanks for the source!!


You don't get it, both sides lie, the government lies, and alarmists lie. To not see that you are willfully ignorant.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
"Most of our worries now are really from the disease of superstition, as we kill each other over whose Imaginary Companion is the "real" one."

Yea, Belief in God is the real problem facing this nation. Just like that fact that 90% of the black homicides are due to the whites not preventing black on black shootings.

Yup, the Progressive system has been stifled at every turn by right wing religious values and that is the reason the society is in a state of unprecedented decay. Yup, that is why no bankers are in jail for violating all of our laws, the right wing extremist have been in charge for the last 6 years. Yup that is why the US is supplying arms to both sides of the Middle East wars, the Republicans are in power.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 31, 2015
We got astray. Deniers do not want to discuss the proven link for positive reinforcement, of positive feedback, and where it leads.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Does anybody find it the least bit ironic that we have been led to the verge of WWIII by the very same man that was given the Pulitzer Peace Prize before he even became president?
danny_easterling
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
We got astray. Deniers do not want to discuss the proven link for positive reinforcement, of positive feedback, and where it leads.


One study does not "prove" a finding. But mechanisms that interrupt this cycle may be in place. There are too many confounding variables as well as unknown inter-variable connections. Reading the whole study will give a clue as to whether the authors found that which they were looking for or not.

Confirmation bias rears its ugly head from all sides.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Mar 31, 2015
Does anybody find it the least bit ironic to see that post right under mine, warning about it?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (23) Mar 31, 2015
"One study does not "prove" a finding. But mechanisms that interrupt this cycle may be in place. There are too many confounding variables as well as unknown inter-variable connections. Reading the whole study will give a clue as to whether the authors found that which they were looking for or not."
---------------------------------------

Good post. What are the mechanisms, and their influence? Where and how do they act?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
"One study does not "prove" a finding. But mechanisms that interrupt this cycle may be in place. There are too many confounding variables as well as unknown inter-variable connections. Reading the whole study will give a clue as to whether the authors found that which they were looking for or not."
---------------------------------------

Good post. What are the mechanisms, and their influence? Where and how do they act?


So once there is no warming it is due to "mechanisms that interrupt this cycle". This statement infers that warming is the accepted norm and that lack of warming is an anomaly.

Yup, this is about as unbiased as climate science can get.


gkam
2 / 5 (25) Mar 31, 2015
"Yup, this is about as unbiased as climate science can get."
------------------------------

Perhaps you'll feel better discussing "climate science" at Free Republic.
danny_easterling
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Good post. What are the mechanisms, and their influence? Where and how do they act?
So once there is no warming it is due to "mechanisms that interrupt this cycle". This statement infers that warming is the accepted norm and that lack of warming is an anomaly.

Yup, this is about as unbiased as climate science can get.


Climate is dynamic and as such is hard to model, predict, or pin down. The large amount of uncertainty is unacknowledged by climate alamists. Forecasting is iffy in the best of circumstances. Especially when forecasting principles are violated to arrive at the answer the IPCC wants--that of catastrophic warming. 95% certainty 50 years out is just hogwash.

More realistically, the climate will rock along warming at the rate it has for many centuries--about .7 Degrees C each century, which is normal for emerging out of an ice age, which is still occurring.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Mar 31, 2015
Well, let us not depend on climate models, and just look outside.

What were the ten hottest years in history?

What is happening to the oceans with regard to pH, and what are the implications?

We can start there.
danny_easterling
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Well, let us not depend on climate models, and just look outside.

What were the ten hottest years in history?

What is happening to the oceans with regard to pH, and what are the implications?

We can start there.


According to the epa the hottest year on record was 1934.

http://postimg.or...rb68qlp/
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Mar 31, 2015
I asked for the ten hottest years. You gave some silly heat wave index, not temperatures. Go look those up.

Now, let's discuss ocean acidification. What are the implications for the Marine Food Chain, which provides us with not only half our food, but half of our Oxygen?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Government directly spends $55 B a year on climate research. Absolutely dwarfs what private industry spends. Obama's budget for 2014 called for $255B and $225B in 2015. On the whitehouse dot gov website.
Meanwhile, government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry total about 1 TRILLION annually: http://priceofoil...bsidies/
Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions.
And, unlike your bs blogger's unsupported opinion, there is actual evidence of the subsidies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (19) Mar 31, 2015
The concern is that species do not have time to adapt, such that many will simply die out
Like I say, the tacit assumption is that without AGW, species will have time to adapt. But catastrophe is the norm, not the exception.
Certainly the possibility exists for there to be a catastrophic event that will create the conditions whereby the current warming will be made moot
Not possibility - certainy.
That possibility goes both ways though - in fact, there is a higher possibility no such event will occur
??? There is the absolute certainty that these events WILL occur. Impacts WILL happen. Supervolcanos WILL happen. Megaquakes WILL happen. And the ice age WILL return.
Either way, it makes no sense to sit and do nothing
But if we do reduce AGW and then find out in a few gens that it would have saved the species, what then?

Thats why I think the CO2 should be saved underground for future use, like a thermostat. THAT would be doing something prudent.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Well, this proves higher CO2 concentrations cause global warming, or, that global warming causes CO2 concentrations to rise. Choose the assumption of your choice, either argument can be proven.

Correct both apply. The former is the case now and the latter when humans weren't doing the former.
It's quite simple ..... CO2 sinking/sourcing reponds to temps. And temps respond to atmospheric concentration of CO2. It matters not which comes first.
tearl_2002
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Why are the denial comments just so unbelievably stupid? It's just depressing.. they are really this dumb or they are just deliberating being stupid. Either way... it's depressing. I'm waiting for them to tell me gravity doesn't exist.


You apparently have your mind make up and have a deaf ear turned. You sir/maam/it are a duped fool.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
According to the epa the hottest year on record was 1934.

http://postimg.or...rb68qlp/

That's grand, a Steven McIntyre talking point. I would suggest that you look up information on your own and fact check your heroes before you post their incorrect bull, but you won't. First, 1934 was a hot year in the US. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but the US only makes up about 4% of the globe!
2nd, it was only the 5th hottest year in the US - but who cares. It was a single year, an outlier, and those happen. The trend is the important thing, and 14 of the last 15 hottest years over the globe all occurred since 2000. (That's that globe thing again danny.)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Why are the denial comments just so unbelievably stupid? It's just depressing.. they are really this dumb or they are just deliberating being stupid. Either way... it's depressing. I'm waiting for them to tell me gravity doesn't exist.


You apparently have your mind make up and have a deaf ear turned. You sir/maam/it are a duped fool.

And you, idiot, are an anti-science spouting rube. Talk about gullible; only someone as stupid as a denier would think the scientists of the world are united and out to get you.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Mar 31, 2015
" And the ice age WILL return. . . . Thats why I think the CO2 should be saved underground for future use, like a thermostat. THAT would be doing something prudent."
-----------------------------------

Interesting argument. We could also start submarine landslides and come out of it with great releases of hydate and clathrate-bound methane, as it appears happened in the past.
tearl_2002
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
Some of you people seem to not realize that this whole agenda started in the late seventies under the claim of global cooling. This whole issue is not about the climate, it IS about UN socialist governments wanting more control over you. Please put the pieces together and quit letting false fabrications sway you otherwise. Letting them push their agenda through the disguise of actual concern and the co-opting through grants along with environmental whackos supporting this false climate movement for a paycheck is seen through unless you are an uneducated fool or a left wing political zealot.

Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy theory. Reading about it and understanding their goals and how they go about achieving these goals will give you knowledge of how to put the pieces together, about how a government takes control of every aspect of your life. You've seen the government run heath care takeover being implemented to a large degree, now controlling and taxing your energy is next.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Like I say, the tacit assumption is that without AGW, species will have time to adapt. But catastrophe is the norm, not the exception.
It is true that catastrophe is the norm, but that is beside the point. The point is that CO2 loading of the atmosphere is something that we, collectively, are doing, and something that we, collectively, can fix. Furthermore, the energy being added to the climate system is not going to destroy this planet, it is going to destroy much of the life currently on this planet. There is a reason science is suggesting we are currently, right now, in the midst of the 5th Great Extinction event.
There is the absolute certainty that these events WILL occur. Impacts WILL happen. Supervolcanos WILL happen. Megaquakes WILL happen. And the ice age WILL return.
You have a funny idea of the meaning of the word "certainty". You also seem to not understand that only one of those is an ELA.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
Some of you people seem to not realize that this whole agenda started in the late seventies under the claim of global cooling.
No, it didn't, you have been mislead. (http://www.skepti...ng.html)
it IS about UN socialist governments wanting more control over you
Dum dum dum dum dum dum CONSPIRACY!!!

Idiotic drivel, spouted by an idiotic conspiracist.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (29) Mar 31, 2015
"Letting them push their agenda through the disguise of actual concern and the co-opting through grants along with environmental whackos supporting this false climate movement for a paycheck is seen through unless you are an uneducated fool or a left wing political zealot."
--------------------------------------------

Please take your pathetic political nonsense to Free Republic. They are paranoid, too.

And we have spies under all your beds.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
danny, did you actually READ the link you sent us?

PLEASE DO!

It reports how the Bush Administration tried to cover up reports of AGW for political reasons.

Thanks for the source!!


You don't get it, both sides lie, the government lies, and alarmists lie. To not see that you are willfully ignorant.

And you are painfully paranoid.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
So much Dunning-Krueger effect, so little time... It's amazing how many people think they know better than virtually all the climatologists of the world...

Yes it's easy to know with certainty when you know nothing of the science and you are invested in the one outcome due to ideology and peer-group think.

If the world were run like that then no rational thought would occur. And we know some parts of the world where rational thought is absent.... dont we?

Rational thought shows us that we should let those that know, pass that knowledge onto those that are elected to act (or not) on it. And leave it at that. But human nature comes in and bu**ers up that process.
danny_easterling
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
According to the epa the hottest year on record was 1934.

http://postimg.or...rb68qlp/

That's grand, a Steven McIntyre talking point. I would suggest that you look up information on your own and fact check your heroes before you post their incorrect bull, but you won't. First, 1934 was a hot year in the US. I know this is a foreign concept to you, but the US only makes up about 4% of the globe!
2nd, it was only the 5th hottest year in the US - but who cares. It was a single year, an outlier, and those happen. The trend is the important thing, and 14 of the last 15 hottest years over the globe all occurred since 2000. (That's that globe thing again danny.)


Such rancor. Is your husband giving you enough affection?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015

Such rancor. Is your husband giving you enough affection?
Rancor? I would have said frustration. That's that thing reasonable people feel when confronted by conspiracist denialists spouting zombie arguments from years ago like they are somehow new and relevant.

I'm not married, but yes, thank you, I get plenty of affection. So apparently you are homophobic too!
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Why are the denial comments just so unbelievably stupid? It's just depressing.. they are really this dumb or they are just deliberating being stupid. Either way... it's depressing. I'm waiting for them to tell me gravity doesn't exist.


You apparently have your mind make up and have a deaf ear turned. You sir/maam/it are a duped fool.

And you, idiot, are an anti-science spouting rube. Talk about gullible; only someone as stupid as a denier would think the scientists of the world are united and out to get you.

Infamy, infamy.... they've all got it infamy!

https://www.youtu...4bOMv5Xw

danny_easterling
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015

Such rancor. Is your husband giving you enough affection?
Rancor? I would have said frustration. That's that thing reasonable people feel when confronted by conspiracist denialists spouting zombie arguments from years ago like they are somehow new and relevant.

I'm not married, but yes, thank you, I get plenty of affection. So apparently you are homophobic too!


Blather backed up by no facts. I posted the corrected EPA graph. Frustrated? because agw is neither verifiable, replicatable, nor believed in but by zealots. Stop calling names like a 4 year old and argue with some facts for a change, Magnnus.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
"Meanwhile, government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry total about 1 TRILLION annually: http://priceofoil...bsidies/"

Yea Maggnus why stop at Trillions. If you are going to post BS links go all the way, 10 or 100s of trillions is better. Perhaps 2x of the entire worlds GDP is a better figure for fossil "subsidies".
gkam
2.2 / 5 (29) Mar 31, 2015
Yeah, if you can't argue against facts, try using sarcasm.

Sorry. No sell.
animah
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
Blather backed up by no facts.

Okay Steve then answer the bloody question already: What were the 10 hottest years in recorded history?

Here's a hint: https://www.googl...+history
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Even the link does not get close to 1 trillion of real subsidies. Even the ones listed include normal tax breaks that all companies get. As I said pure BS.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2015
Blather backed up by no facts. I posted the corrected EPA graph. Frustrated? because agw is neither verifiable, replicatable, nor believed in but by zealots. Stop calling names like a 4 year old and argue with some facts for a change, Magnnus.
Blather? Is that like taking a Steve McIntyre talking point from 2006 and using it here without referencing him and in such a manner as to suggest it is something new? Or is it more like claiming that because man's contribution to the CO2 level of the planet is small, that it doesn't have an effect? Or claiming an unattributed EPA graph of heat waves in the US is somehow equates to temperatures around the entire globe? Is that the blather you mean?

Or maybe you mean something similar to tearl and his "the socialists are out to get you" BS?

Tell you what. Put up some actual facts, and we can talk about them.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 31, 2015
166, you got your charge, now let's see your response.
danny_easterling
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
[you mean something similar to tearl and his "the socialists are out to get you" BS?

Tell you what. Put up some actual facts, and we can talk about them.


Blather again, The graph is from an epa statement on climate change. The fact that you can't find it to substantiate your contentions leads me to believe you are just another alarmist nut spewing bile.

I laugh at you, Magnnus
gkam
2.2 / 5 (29) Mar 31, 2015
danny, if you do not understand the difference between your claims and your graph, your laughter and opinion are irrelevant.
animah
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
So Danny-wants-facts, what were the 10 hottest years in recorded history again?

Somehow I don't think you'll post the list.

I laugh at you, Magnnus

Thank you for revealing something about you. Says nothing about Maggnus though.
paulfay357
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
I signed up for this forum hoping for some thoughtful debate...looks like a bunch of sarcasm and name calling to me.
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Hey you new guys,
Maggnus, and a few others exist to run intelligent thought off this sight. Some regulars thing their at least part bot.

They ever provide anything relevant.

Try the "ignore" button. It increases the IQ of the sight by about 90 points.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 31, 2015
What were the 10 hottest years in recorded history?

It's official: 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history! Ever! And it's from green house gas caused global warming from fossil fuel combustion (ie, Coal, Oil, Natural Gas) also cement is a big contributor. But in order they are;

2014
2010
2005
1998
2013
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007

Amazing isn't it how hot it's been lately?



danny_easterling
1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
What were the 10 hottest years in recorded history?

It's official: 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history! Ever! And it's from green house gas caused global warming from fossil fuel combustion (ie, Coal, Oil, Natural Gas) also cement is a big contributor. But in order they are;

2014
2010
2005
1998
2013
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007

Amazing isn't it how hot it's been lately?


Yeh, 2014 by a whole .002 degree c with a 38% probability (Nasa's footnote). LOL Means 62% probability it wasn't the hottest year.

Measurement error swamps the estimate.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (29) Mar 31, 2015
" Some regulars thing their at least part bot. They ever provide anything relevant. Try the "ignore" button. It increases the IQ of the sight by about 90 points."
------------------------------------------
It's the spelling which gives the clue to education.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
Yeah, howhot, I remember 1998. I remember all the heat deaths and power outages and ancillary problems like from bad water resulting, all over the world.

Funny, I am not remembering that recently, or hearing about it from the rest of the world. Australia lost some Kangaroos, I think, but under those peculiar conditions it was understandable.

So, where is was all the heat related news? The brown-outs, the "no end in sights." Try looking for "heat wave 2014," in Spanish, French, Russian, any old language you like.

Let me know what you find. Knowing I've already done it...
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
" Some regulars thing their at least part bot. They ever provide anything relevant. Try the "ignore" button. It increases the IQ of the sight by about 90 points."
------------------------------------------
It's the spelling which gives the clue to education.

That IS an awful lot... it would be difficult to make that blend...odd.

Some regulars think they're at least part bot. They never provide anything relevant. Try the "ignore" button. It increases the IQ of the site by about 90 points.
animah
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2015
by a whole .002 degree


Compared to the next hottest (2013), thank god it's not more. A planet-wide +1 degree record over one year would indicate catastrophic variability!

Deviation to the mean is what matters, but nobody here expects you to get it.
danny_easterling
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
by a whole .002 degree


Compared to the next hottest (2013), thank god it's not more. A planet-wide +1 degree record over one year would indicate catastrophic variability!

Deviation to the mean is what matters, but nobody here expects you to get it.


You don't get it. .002 hotter is not significant statistically. No different than 0 hotter. Thanks for confirming your lack of statistical education, Animah. Don't be so ready to parrot meaningless statistics.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (27) Mar 31, 2015
"You don't get it. .002 hotter is not significant statistically."
----------------------------------------

We are not talking statistics. We are talking environment and growing areas. How much farther north did that move tropical pests and diseases? Did you know tropical diseases have shown up in Alaskan birds?
animah
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
Actually my bad - even your 0.002 degree number is bogus:

Year Global Land Ocean
2014 +0.69 +1.00 +0.57
2010 +0.66 +1.06 +0.50
(...)
2013 +0.62 +0.99 +0.48

So you're off by a factor of ten to 40 whichever way you interpret the data.

You have an incorrect number wrapped in defective logic - because in any case, what matters is deviation to the mean. The MEAN means *relative to the time series*.

What a joke.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2015
Actually my bad - even your 0.002 degree number is bogus:

Year Global Land Ocean
2014 +0.69 +1.00 +0.57
2010 +0.66 +1.06 +0.50
(...)
2013 +0.62 +0.99 +0.48

So you're off by a factor of ten to 40 whichever way you interpret the data.

You have an incorrect number wrapped in defective logic - because in any case, what matters is deviation to the mean. The MEAN means *relative to the time series*.

What a joke.

That is typical of the deniers isn't it; trying to bend numbers to make a lie seem real. Here is the most shocking truth... Twenty of the warmest years in known history have now occurred in the last 20 years!!! I hope my denier friends will chew on that factoid for a moment explain why that has happened.

Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2015
Yeah, howhot, I remember 1998. I remember all the heat deaths and power outages and ancillary problems like from bad water resulting, all over the world.

Funny, I am not remembering that recently, or hearing about it from the rest of the world. Australia lost some Kangaroos, I think, but under those peculiar conditions it was understandable.

So, where is was all the heat related news? The brown-outs, the "no end in sights." Try looking for "heat wave 2014," in Spanish, French, Russian, any old language you like.

Let me know what you find. Knowing I've already done it...


here you go, Whiff'n'Poof: remember 2003? 2010? No? Well here's a little refresher, and the 2010 figures weren't even finalized yet. Our Russian brothers and sisters were hit hard.

Say --you don't happen to live in Russia, do you? If you do, then you'd better pack up and get out, after what you've said.

http://www.amos.o...ws/id/83

Read it and weep, moron.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2015
I signed up for this forum hoping for some thoughtful debate...looks like a bunch of sarcasm and name calling to me.

Then try adding something thoughtful to debate.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2015

Such rancor. Is your husband giving you enough affection?
Rancor? I would have said frustration. That's that thing reasonable people feel when confronted by conspiracist denialists spouting zombie arguments from years ago like they are somehow new and relevant.

I'm not married, but yes, thank you, I get plenty of affection. So apparently you are homophobic too!


Blather backed up by no facts. I posted the corrected EPA graph. Frustrated? because agw is neither verifiable, replicatable, nor believed in but by zealots. Stop calling names like a 4 year old and argue with some facts for a change, Magnnus.
Look! Here's another EPA graph! http://www.sfgate...S9-9.jpg
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2015
Hey danny boy - this posting random unexplained graphs thing is the sh$t!! Here's another one!! http://www.epa.go...aph2.gif

and ANOTHER!! http://www.epa.go...ural.jpg

Wow I'm so glad you could pint out how to do science just by posting random graphs!!
danny_easterling
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2015
Lemmings believe anything. Here is the real temp graph and the adjustments NASA and NOAA apply to the data. LOL

There has been .8 Degrees C warming since 1850. The data adjustments were mathmatically backed out by a statistician. I know you lemmings won't believe either as they undercut your dearly held religion. However, none of you will be able to refute either with facts....

http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/

http://postimg.or...fcywo8d/
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2015

Blather backed up by no facts. I posted the corrected EPA graph. Frustrated?.......

Lets have the full story from the EPA shall we?

"Heat waves occurred with high frequency in the 30s, and these
remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record
(Fig1). Many years of intense drought ("Dust Bowl")
contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and
reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.
• There is no clear trend over the entire period tracked by the index.
Although it is hard to see in Fig1 (because of the extreme
events of the 1930s), heat wave frequency decreased in the 60s
and 70s but has risen since then (Fig1).
• Like the heat wave index, the percentage of the United States
affected by heat waves has also risen steadily since the 70s (
Fig2,3) The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished
by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures."

http://www.epa.go...aves.pdf
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2015
Lemmings believe anything. Here is the real temp graph and the adjustments NASA and NOAA apply to the data. LOL

There has been .8 Degrees C warming since 1850. The data adjustments were mathmatically backed out by a statistician. I know you lemmings won't believe either as they undercut your dearly held religion. However, none of you will be able to refute either with facts....

http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/

Yes, it's amazing what .8C looks like when you shrink the graph by an order of magnitude.
However....
http://earthobser...tion.png
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2015
Lemmings believe anything. Here is the real temp graph and the adjustments NASA and NOAA apply to the data. LOL

There has been .8 Degrees C warming since 1850. The data adjustments were mathmatically backed out by a statistician. I know you lemmings won't believe either as they undercut your dearly held religion. However, none of you will be able to refute either with facts....

http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/

Oh, and also - here are the GHCN data Raw vs adjusted.....

OK - I'll take the raw. Looks good to me (unless you want to argue about 0.002C dif (sarc)) for the period after ~1950.
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2015
Lemmings believe anything. Here is the real temp graph and the adjustments NASA and NOAA apply to the data. LOL

There has been .8 Degrees C warming since 1850. The data adjustments were mathmatically backed out by a statistician. I know you lemmings won't believe either as they undercut your dearly held religion. However, none of you will be able to refute either with facts....

http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/]http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/[/url]

Anomalies are not temp. Repeat of the temp record. Showing you lack of education in stats. Besides temp does not stay flat and then shoot up unless the data is "adjusted."

http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/]http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/[/url]

gkam
2 / 5 (25) Apr 01, 2015
Hey, danny, let's discuss the acidification of the seas, another CO2 event.
ubavontuba
3.7 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2015
@danny_easterling
Lemmings believe anything. Here is the real temp graph and the adjustments NASA and NOAA apply to the data. LOL

There has been .8 Degrees C warming since 1850. The data adjustments were mathmatically backed out by a statistician. I know you lemmings won't believe either as they undercut your dearly held religion. However, none of you will be able to refute either with facts....

http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/

http://postimg.or...fcywo8d/
Although I sympathize with your argument, posting images from an image hosting site without context is not constructive. Worse, your first link claims its data source is "Derived from the US Bureau of Meteorology Data" (which doesn't exist) but then gives an expired address from Australia's Bureau of Meteorology.

You need to provide better references.

denglish
2 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2015
(The Earth experiences climate fluctuations naturally)

Human beings think far too highly of themselves. Unfortunately, the practice of the wolves terrorizing the imaginations of the sheep in order to enrichen themselves will never end.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2015
repost including link to graph of raw vs adjusted data.
Lemmings believe anything. Here is the real temp graph and the adjustments NASA and NOAA apply to the data. LOL

There has been .8 Degrees C warming since 1850. The data adjustments were mathmatically backed out by a statistician. I know you lemmings won't believe either as they undercut your dearly held religion. However, none of you will be able to refute either with facts....

http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/

Oh, and also - here are the GHCN data Raw vs adjusted.....

http://www.skepti...sis.html

OK - I'll take the raw. Looks good to me (unless you want to argue about 0.002C dif (sarc)) for the period after ~1950.

Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2015
runrig,
Skeptiscience is rubbish. I am not sure how to get you to stop embarrassing yourself...

The author has a booby-prize in physics, aka a BS, in a field where a Masters is considered "so you weren't good enough for a PhD," and couldn't hack engineering or being a technician so became an artist. Yeah, an artist!

This is the person you defer to, when you use skepti as a reference.

Here:
http://www.popula...nce.html

See what I mean, this guys opinion is just as good as "some guy off the street." To make referent "some guy off the street," makes YOU look foolish.

Like Cali, Stumpy, Maggie, Mikey, thermy, and those others who by odd coincidence use John Cook as a referent authority.

If you keep using him, I'll start using as a referent authority someone a little more honest; ScienceOfficer, mind if I use you as a referent? All you have to do is be smarter than John Cook...I know horses that can do that.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2015
runrig,
Skeptiscience is rubbish. I am not sure how to get you to stop embarrassing yourself...

The author has a booby-prize in physics, aka a BS, in a field where a Masters is considered "so you weren't good enough for a PhD," and couldn't hack engineering or being a technician so became an artist. Yeah, an artist!

OK, Curry's place .... same graph and same inconsequential changes from 1950 (globally).

https://curryja.f...ide1.jpg
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
Ah, yes, that is an excellent slide.
Compare it with this most excellent slide:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

Note there is almost perfect correlation between GDP and global temperatures. Note especially the 1970s. So temperature goes up and down with production? If it were CO2, it would just go up or level, right? Or am I misunderstanding you CO2 worshuper facts?

Now don't whine because your graph has more resolution.

By the way, the 5 year smoothing is incorrect, can you see why?

Any explanations other than it is fossil fuels causing the changes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (20) Apr 01, 2015
You have a funny idea of the meaning of the word "certainty". You also seem to not understand that only one of those is an ELA.
ELA...ELA...
http://en.wikiped...wiki/ELA

-Sorry I dont speak tree-hugger. The fact is, any one of those events could happen or begin to happen tomorrow.

"Tambora ejected sulfurous gas that generated sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere, which block sunlight, the eruption created a 'year without a summer"

"An asteroid of considerable (but definitely not unprecedented) size – estimated 440-990 meters in diameter, or around a third of a mile across – YB35 will pass by Earth on Friday, March 27'

"Dozens of small earthquakes over the past few days have rattled the area around Mammoth Lakes, Calif... large enough to be felt by people close to the epicenter but too small to cause damage..."

-And Im sorry but hollywood is never wrong.
https://www.youtu...G4BSyIos
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 01, 2015
"In a scientific paper published in St. Petersburg last November. Abdussamotiv predicted that "after the maximum of solar Cycle-24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cooling cycle with a little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 14 years." He believes a global freeze "will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions."

... give or take 50 years...

-But Im sure you are aware of all these things yes? The thing is, we have the opportunity to create a planetary thermostat to guard against these things and we should perhaps shift the emphasis from reducing the scope of industry to redirecting it along these lines.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (21) Apr 01, 2015
"Sorry I dont speak tree-hugger."
----------------------------

You have to be educated to speak any language. Read the science, and you will, too.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2015
dadpt claimed
If you increase CO2 level to 5%, the atmosphere absorbs all the low temperature radiation from the planet earth in 29 instead of the 30 meters
Where is evidence for ANY of this esp as u start with an "If" ?

dadpt claimed
Current data doesn't support the designed to scare made up theory that shows temperature rise stops if man stops putting CO2 into the atmosphere
If u understood radiative forcing u wouldn't make such an ignorant statement
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

dadpt claimed
If you think climate change stops after man stops putting 1% versus the 99% natural CO2 being added to the air you are truly a believer
How much of this is non human then, CO2 still rising
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

dadpt claimed
.. made up magic that hasn't been validated
"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2015
Water_Prophet claime
Skeptiscience is rubbish
Their data is valid, prove its not ?

Water_Prophet claimed
aka a BS, in a field where a Masters is considered "so you weren't good enough for a PhD,"
Reminding u failed to prove your "4 technical degrees" - which institute & when ?

Water_Prophet conceded"some guy off the street." To make referent "some guy off the street," This is YOU, obviously because you haven't qualified ANY of your claims & don't write like anyone with education beyond high school !

Water_Prophet claimed
Mikey, and those others who by odd coincidence use John Cook as a referent authority
No. I focus on data & proof of method.

Water_Prophet slows lack of judgment
ScienceOfficer, mind if I use you as a referent? All you have to do is be smarter than John Cook...I know horses that can do that.
Proof again, you cannot have those "4 technical degrees". Anyone relying on an authority would Require they confirm credentials !
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
Pointing out flaws/limitations in methodology or asking simple questions gets you labeled "denier", which feels much like "blasphemer"
@jeff
you are doing none of that, you are pushing and posting known denier rhetoric which has been debunked by numerous studies
You can find a LOT of the debunked arguments with simple searches, and if you had the scientific acumen you are claiming, then you would be able to see the arguments and follow the knowledge
my education in modeling and stats most likely exceeds most of the posters on here
@Danny
and still you fail to recognize your own fallacious rhetoric which has already been debunked
interesting
AGW/Climate Change will never be disproved since there will always be another computer simulation that "proves" increased Co2 is causing the weather disturbance
@Mr166
i expected better out of you, mr
the fact that NO ONE has been able to refute AGW using the scientific method speaks volumes about it's validity
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
90% of these people are paid by the UN, individual governments or university grants. ALL of these establishments are intent on stripping you of your freedoms and wealth. After all, all of them know better than you how you should act or how your money should be used
@Mr166
so we should all fight against PROVEN SCIENCE because you believe in a worldwide conspiracy?
Problem is: YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY OF IT!
Worse still: it is completely illogical to assume that a world wide conspiracy exists between cultures who COMPETE as well as HATE each other, especially considering they can't even agree on the SIMPLE things in life, like a breakfast food... and that is NOT hyperbole- ask any muslim to enjoy some kosher bacon and watch how they react

you refuse to acknowledge the scientific method OR the competition that exist in science BECAUSE of the method
this undermines every argument you post & proves that you are not scientifically literate and fanatical in your belief
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
Troll someone else
@danny
YOU are the one trolling here: you are posting about conspiratorial unproven assumptions and trying to force some relation to the real world but can't because it is based upon your paranoia, not reality
SCIENCE is about being able to validate or support a conclusion based upon evidence
the SCIENCE says you are the idiot trolling with unsubstantiated conjecture on a science site

Al Gore is...
@Mr166
let me finish that properly
"...AN IDIOT"
who cares, he is NOT A SCIENTIST
he has provided NOTHING but a political mouthpiece to the science, and he CAN and WILL get stuff wrong BECAUSE HE IS A POLITICIAN, NOT A SCIENTIST

you are making ASSumptions and you have YET to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence supporting your delusions of worldwide conspiracy

BRING the EVIDENCE and you might be taken seriously
but make sure it is evidence, not just ASSumptions based upon your personal delusions

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
I have a pretty vivid recollection of life and how it has changed since the 50s
@Mr166
not SCIENCE
this is personal conjecture based upon biased recollections (all memory is BIASED- that is why the SCIENTIFIC METHOD does NOT rely upon them! also, look up forensics and check the "validity" of eye-witness testimony, THAT should be enough to show you that your "personal experience" means jack sh*t when compared with scneitific evidence)

The EPA will not allow outside replication
@danny
BULLSH*T
show me where the EPA refuses to accept outside confirmation or replication (and not to a BLOG or personal conspiracy site... something with LEGITIMACY or empirical evidence)

it [EPA] is all about OUTSIDE confirmation and replication, moron!
AGW and climate science is a WORLDWIDE effort, thus there is "outside" replication or confirmation (or refutation)

so you are proving yourself to be a complete idiot WRT the scientific method AS WELL AS reality
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
You don't get it, both sides lie...
@danny-boy
no, YOU don't get it
LYING WRT to science and the scientific method is suicide to credibility as well as future job availabilities... see "NOT a lord monckton" and others as evidence for this

You CANNOT present evidence that is fallacious without SOMEONE finding out that you are a liar and then showing that you faked it: see also Andrew Wakefield for further evidence of this
One study does not "prove" a finding
no, but it validates it...
so you want studies that validate AGW?
i can give you more than 9,000 between 2012 and 2013... and only ONE that says different

http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

BTW - i checked: that "blog" above is based upon the REAL numbers of published studies

So the EVIDENCE says YOU are being "willfully ignorant" ...which is actually STUPIDITY
not any kind of "ignorance"
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
I posted the corrected EPA graph
@danny
no, you posted a US annual heat wave index 1895-2013
NOT heat temps, nor graphic display of global heat records... that would look like this:
http://www.epa.go...ure.html

notice, this is to the EPA site, not to just a pic link you can not validate
also note: the domination of the latter years WRT heat
http://www.epa.go...2012.pdf
Even pg 26 validates this fact... your graph is likely culled from the initial graph of US only temps (regional, NOT worldwide) AND it is also shown to be false by THIS EPA publication

So even the actual EPA site is calling you out as being either truly STUPID or simply confirmation bias and accepting only sources which you feel you can trust (in this case, it is CONSPIRACY sites)

actual source says you are WRONG, and your cite/source of info is WRONG

care to continue playing?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
Stop calling names like a 4 year old and argue with some facts for a change, Magnnus
@danny
it is HARD to not call you names when all you can provide is proven fallacious arguments!
YOU are the one making it hard to argue with facts because YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT FACTS as evcidence... only your conspiracy claims
Would it make it better if we all agreed that this is a worldwide conspiracy? that the entire world is out to get you?
The graph is from an epa statement on climate change
culled from an OLD publication, not from ANYTHING new or relevant
care to try that BS line again? after all, i GAVE you the ACTUAL EPA SITE AND LINKS

Maggnus, and a few others exist to run intelligent thought off this sight.
@ALKIE/pffft?SOCK commander
No, we are here to run PSEUDOSCIENCE and TROLLS off the site
people like YOU who offer NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE nor ANY substantiating studies supporting your conclusions

BIG DIFFERENCE

where are those studies alkie?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
However, none of you will be able to refute either with facts....
http://postimg.or...tz0cv1p/
http://postimg.or...fcywo8d/
@danny the dunce
you do realize that your "links" are simply links to graphs... there is NO WAY to validate that they came from ANY legitimate site or study... care to expound upon that?
where is the REST of the data that should be with those links?
WHY are you hiding the SOURCE of the links?
the fact that you are hiding the SOURCE points to you being the SHEEP without proper guidance
At least i linked you the SITE and the full explanation behind the studies and graphs... perhaps you are intentionally hiding something because you know it undermines your own point?

THIS is the problem with denier rhetoric and it's clear conspiracy sources
FAILURE to validate claims or to link validating information

ANYONE can post a graphic on the web
RULE 37!
PROVE YOURSELF or it aint real
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
Although I sympathize with your argument, posting images from an image hosting site without context is not constructive
@Uba
Apologies for the downvote on this comment
it is valid and accurate and i meant to give you a 5 star rate
internet and loading problems as of late

Skeptiscience is rubbish
@alkie/pfffft/positum stultum prophetam
almost ALL the articles are written by professionals as well as educated scientists
the problem YOU have with the site is that you cannot refute the evidence

Where are those studies that you claim debunk the links and studies that i have offered to you as evidence supporting my conclusions re: AGW????

I've still not seen ANYTHING supporting your personal positions re: CO2 or AGW
i have also not seen ANY of my studies retracted, altered, modified or challenged

proof that you are talking out your buttocks
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2015
Ah, yes, that is an excellent slide.
Compare it with this most excellent slide:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

Note there is almost perfect correlation between GDP and global temperatures. Note especially the 1970s. So temperature goes up and down with production? If it were CO2, it would just go up or level, right? Or am I misunderstanding you CO2 worshuper facts?

Now don't whine because your graph has more resolution.

By the way, the 5 year smoothing is incorrect, can you see why?

Any explanations other than it is fossil fuels causing the changes?

Sorry team, this got buried by a malicious information warfare attack.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
A new study has confirmed the existence of a positive feedback operating in climate change whereby warming itself may amplify a rise in greenhouse gases resulting in additional warming. There's no stopping it now! The Big Domino, CO2, has fallen. All hail less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere. Next stop: Venus!

howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
Hay @Eddy, TWIRK very often? :"If only the secular Left put as much trust & faith in the people of Indiana as they do in the rulers in Iran." Of course Laura Ingraham would have been better off saying; "f only the secular Left put as much trust & faith in the people of Indiana as they do in... AGW" Instead of AGW it could have been fair wages. Unions,... Advanced Science, ... Education ... Planetary exploration.. Respect,... Justice... Equal Rights... Voting Rights.... Environment... Balanced Budget ... Social Security ... etc... etc.

The list can go on and on... Yet you quip something about VENUS? There are people that are just dumb as rocks, and you just qualified as one.

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
Ah, yes, that is an excellent slide.
Compare it with this most excellent slide:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

Note there is almost perfect correlation between GDP and global temperatures. Note especially the 1970s. So temperature goes up and down with production? If it were CO2, it would just go up or level, right? Or am I misunderstanding you CO2 worshuper facts?

Now don't whine because your graph has more resolution.
By the way, the 5 year smoothing is incorrect, can you see why?
Any explanations other than it is fossil fuels causing the changes?


Sorry team, this got buried by a malicious information warfare attack.


We already saw your post the first time, moron.

It hasn't been rendered true by your paranoia.

Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2015
Eddy Courant offered
A new study has confirmed the existence of a positive feedback operating in climate change whereby warming itself may amplify a rise in greenhouse gases resulting in additional warming
Many positive feedbacks reported in journals for decades,
Eg
https://en.wikipe...i/Albedo
https://en.wikipe...rmafrost
https://en.wikipe...k_carbon

Eddy Courant claimed
There's no stopping it now! The Big Domino, CO2, has fallen
No. CO2 hasnt changed its thermal properties just because of positive feedback.

Eddy Courant claimed
All hail less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere. Next stop: Venus!
Unlikely to go that far. Although positive feedbacks are present they are measurable and with ~7billion people I'm sure we can be managed to provide negative feedback:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Sorry team, this got buried by a malicious information warfare attack
Eh ?
Crap, nonsense !

R u now claiming; someone hacked into your pc, re-sent your phys.org messages from many hours ago all at once, bypassed phys.org flood control & STILL u have TIME to edit ALL of them so could ADD text:-

"Sorry team, this got buried by a malicious information warfare attack"

That is ALSO beyond any credibility u had left, for the simple reason there are moderately complex sequences which would have to be defeated AND your ability to edit posts - LOL !

Instead it looks FAR more like a twisted attempt to garner sympathy !

Why not INSTEAD qualify ALL your claims Eg top are

- CO2 of only 0.00009 W/m^2
- Wiki is in "great agreement" with 0.00009 when theirs is 1.5 - ie 16,666 greater than yours FFS how?
- Those "4 technical degrees"
- Your water bowl model & ice predicts despite MANY experimental failings
- Business uses your calculations

so sad
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
And yet buried by another malicious information warfare tactic: Bury under loads of drivel. Why is what I say worth such attention.
Ah, yes, that is an excellent slide.
Compare it with this most excellent slide:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

Note there is almost perfect correlation between GDP and global temperatures. Note especially the 1970s. So temperature goes up and down with production? If it were CO2, it would just go up or level, right? Or am I misunderstanding you CO2 worshuper facts?

Now don't whine because your graph has more resolution.

By the way, the 5 year smoothing is incorrect, can you see why?

Any explanations other than it is fossil fuels causing the changes?


Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2015
And yet buried by another malicious information warfare tactic: Bury under loads of drivel. Why is what I say worth such attention.
Ah, yes, that is an excellent slide.
Compare it with this most excellent slide:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

Note there is almost perfect correlation between GDP and global temperatures. Note especially the 1970s. So temperature goes up and down with production? If it were CO2, it would just go up or level, right? Or am I misunderstanding you CO2 worshuper facts?

Now don't whine because your graph has more resolution.

By the way, the 5 year smoothing is incorrect, can you see why?

Any explanations other than it is fossil fuels causing the changes?



We already saw your post the first time, moron.

It hasn't been rendered true by your paranoia.

Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
And yet buried by another malicious information warfare tactic: Bury under loads of drivel. Why is what I say worth such attention
No. We should all attend to those liars who make arbitrary claims which have never been qualified and urge people like you get banned for obfuscating the Science and making claims of "4 technical degrees" !

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Profit ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2015
ubavontuba claimed
Although I sympathize with your argument, posting images from an image hosting site without context is not constructive
A 'context' as ubavontuba claims, so posting weather for 18 yrs on woodfortrees is somehow constructive of climate, er no !

Have you yet worked out just why your link is immense proof of global warming:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

and just WHY TLS reduces in concert with lower atmospheric temperatures increase ?

Ever used a blanket to help keep warm attempting to slumber ?

:-)
Bongstar420
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
Who woulda thought that global warming causes global warming...LOL
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
It is hard to even imagine that there are people so frightened by even a little proving them wrong they go through such lengths to bury it. Fossil fuels consumption, not CO2, ARE directly correlated to temperature.
Ah, yes, that is an excellent slide.
Compare it with this most excellent slide:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

Note there is almost perfect correlation between GDP and global temperatures. Note especially the 1970s. So temperature goes up and down with production? If it were CO2, it would just go up or level, right? Or am I misunderstanding you CO2 worshuper facts?

Now don't whine because your graph has more resolution.

By the way, the 5 year smoothing is incorrect, can you see why?

Any explanations other than it is fossil fuels causing the changes?

Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
It is hard to even imagine that there are people so frightened by even a little proving them wrong they go through such lengths to bury it
YOU Water_Prophet, are burying your abject FAILURE to prove your claims with rubbish posts taking up space & NOT addressing ANY proof of your claims - Eg CO2, degrees etc

Water_Prophet muttered
Fossil fuels consumption, not CO2, ARE directly correlated to temperature
Huh ?
You previously STATED temperature is NOT a reliable measure and is 'secondary' not you rely upon it as a metric to support your naive, immature & uneducated mutterings, they ARE mutterings because you have NIL useful logic, you CANNOT be trusted one bit.

Look at enthalpy, specific heat distribution thereof, why can't u focus on essentials as ANY uni graduate with "4 technical degrees" SHOULD be able to do ?

Y not U ?

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2015
Fossil fuels consumption, not CO2, ARE directly correlated to temperature
@alkie/Pfffft/positum stultum prophetam
What you have presented is called CONJECTURE, not definitive proof, evidence or even anything related to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD...

but as you claim to be a highly trained scientists (still unproven conjecture, mind you) you already know that
Your LINK is also to a POLITICAL SITE, not to a peer reviewed journal, nor to a study which shows methodology, predictions, conclusions or anything OTHER Than the speculative personal conjecture of a political and paid for hack wanting to distract away from the reality of the argument

this is TYPICAL of your posts, though
DISTRACTION FROM THE SCIENCE using any and all methodology which is at your disposal
it also substantiates the claims that you are simply paid to obfuscate for the Oil/Big $$ industry

One last thing:
WHERE are the studies that you claim refute or debunk the studies i linked to you?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
Looks like a straightforward calculation to me. Looks like straightforward correlations to me. I think it's been reduced to a level that an intelligent high schooler could reproduce it with confidence. Which should make palatable to you skepticalscience goons.

I swear, you're the only person I know who needs someone to get a journal article for a multiplication. Or needs a climate scientist to say that economic data is correct. And if there is a correlation between economic data and climate data it is wrong because a climate scientist didn't confirm it?

I suppose the converse is true, and if an economic researcher found a correlation between good weather and economics, you claim that wasn't true. Oh wait, it's been done and confirmed.

Stumpy, no offense buddy, but you should just be embarrassed.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2015
Looks like a straightforward calculation to me. Looks like straightforward correlations to me. I think[...] an intelligent high schooler could reproduce it with confidence. Which should make palatable to you skepticalscience goons.


Looks can be deceiving, and you've been deceived by looks.

I swear, you're the only person I know who needs someone to get a journal article for a multiplication. Or needs a climate scientist to say that economic data is correct. And if there is a correlation between economic data and climate data it is wrong because a climate scientist didn't confirm it?


Nah -it's wrong because it is your unsupported speculation.

I suppose the converse is true, and if an economic researcher found a correlation between good weather and economics, you claim that wasn't true. Oh wait, it's been done and confirmed.


CITATION?

Stumpy, no offense buddy, but you should just be embarrassed.


For pointing out your stupidiosity?

Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Looks like a straightforward calculation to me. Looks like straightforward correlations to me. I think it's been reduced to a level that an intelligent high schooler could reproduce it with confidence
But YOU Water_Prophet cannot show the working to prove your claim of CO2's radiative forcing as to WHY is so very low - u are a FAKE !

Water_Prophet claimed
.. And if there is a correlation between economic data and climate data it is wrong because a climate scientist didn't confirm it?
Ignoramus !
U have been shown before there is a rise in GDP correlated generally with rise in CO2 as economic activity necessitates connection with power consumption AND goods delivery !

Water_Prophet muttered
.. but you should just be embarrassed
YOU should be embarassed !

U failed to prove ANY claims:-

1. "4 technical degrees"
2. CO2's radiative forcing 0.00009W/m^2 (which is 16,666x lower than wiki's 1.5)
3. business uses your data
etc
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2015
Here's my proof of at lease one advanced technical degree: which means two.
My perspective is that you have to have been exposed to advanced chemistry or you would not have been able to even set these problems up.
-USERNAME: thermodynamics
Since he's your buddy, not mine, that should suffice.

I agree with your assessment that CO2's radiative forcing is ~0.00009Watts/m2, so I have no idea what you are complaining about.

Your assessment about CO2 is just plain dumb, because temperature has been going up AND down with GDP, whereas CO2 has been just going up. Surely even without a high school degree, you can see that there would be a correlation, but not a 1:1. So it is fossil fuels being burned, not the CO2. Obviously.

So that's proof.

So in general, you should be able to finally understand how you are wrong.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Since he's your buddy, not mine, that should suffice
No. Any person can see that is NOT sufficient
http://niche.iine.../physorg

Water_Prophet claimed
I agree with your assessment that CO2's radiative forcing is ~0.00009Watts/m2, so I have no idea what you are complaining about
No. Never stated that, u are a LIAR & CHEAT, where did I ever say anything even close ?

Water_Prophet claimed
..you can see that there would be a correlation, but not a 1:1. So it is fossil fuels being burned, not the CO2. Obviously.
No. YOU IGNORE specific heat of oceans 4000x greater than atmosphere, heat still rising, ice extent reduces
http://nsidc.org/...ure3.png

But u cannot see that because u are immensely ignorant of Physics !

Water_Prophet claimed
So that's proof.
So in general, you should be able to finally understand how you are wrong.
No. You just showed u r deluded !

Specific heat, Water_Prophet !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2015
You haven't been gainfully employed in a very long time, have you Mike?
Well, I've got leading institutions, in my field of course, so I don't really need thermodynamics, or your approval.

4000x, hey, I rely on that fact, in fact heat rising and ice extent reducing is my bag. Are you really claiming hydrodynamics and hydrothermal effects haven't been my vanguard?

Yeah, so Mikey, you're probably over the hill, weren't much good apparently when you weren't, but get a job.
1. You might learn something.
2. You might stop simply being a parrot (at best) for other peoples thoughts.
3. You'll definitely be more constructive than just quoting what someone says and twisting it like an eight year old.

Still not on single word of jargon from your professed field. That's not telling at all.

:oD
:oD
:oD
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
You haven't been gainfully employed in a very long time, have you Mike?
Beg pardon ?
I am my own boss, self employed for >20 years, you ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Well, I've got leading institutions, in my field of course
Prove it ?

Water_Prophet claimed
4000x, hey, I rely on that fact, in fact heat rising and ice extent reducing is my bag..
You DONT write like uni graduate but as a petulant child who affirms "I don't read citations", this means u refuse to learn !

Water_Prophet claimed
Yeah, so Mikey, you're probably over the hill, weren't much good apparently when you weren't, but get a job
The way u write this, classic profiling, talks about YOU not me !

You STILL haven't proved your claimed "4 technical degrees" - WHY ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Still not on single word of jargon from your professed field. That's not telling at all
Irrelevant, my main field is electronics, see my other posts, drop your ego & learn !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2015
Why don't I prove my 4 technical degrees, 1. because they were proclaimed in an atmosphere of trust to which, someone as slimy as yourself could only be a voyeur to, 2. you'd just do what I did to yours, say they are invalid because you're a weasel.

Self employed huh? Australian welfare pays that long. I'd heard that, it's still amazing.
Still not a word about jargon. It was not irrelevant, it certainly is now, it declares charlatan.

No, Mikey, I am just feeding you some of your own medicine. Since you really are very pathetic, it hurt you much more than it hurt me, obviously, and it only took me a few posts, whereas you've been digging for years now.

Now that your true colors are exposed by your own words and deeds, well the forum can judge.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet LIED with is claim
Why don't I prove my 4 technical degrees, 1. because they were proclaimed in an atmosphere of trust to which, someone as slimy as yourself could only be a voyeur to, 2. you'd just do what I did to yours, say they are invalid because you're a weasel.
No. You claimed in PUBLIC you had "4 technical degrees", U can't recall can U ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Self employed huh? Australian welfare pays that long. I'd heard that, it's still amazing. Still not a word about jargon. It was not irrelevant, it certainly is now, it declares charlatan
/No. I am NOT on welfare, I expect you are. I run my own product development firm - you ?

Water_Prophet claimed
No, Mikey, I am just feeding you some of your own medicine. Since you really are very pathetic, it hurt you much more than it hurt me,
You STILL haven't proven ANY of your claims ?

Y is that ?

Forum can judge indeed, its Evidence :-)

You make claims u have NEVER proven !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2015
Obviously VERY successful, considering the number of posts you have here.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet stated
Obviously VERY successful, considering the number of posts you have here
AND in all that time you have NOT qualified or proven ANY of your claims:-

Y is your writing NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2015
Eye doughn't no, y is ur writing commensurate with a HS txter? Due u no?
Y can't u create a little demo showing how it is > than 0.00009? Can u? Eye thought it wuz EZ.
Eye no y, because to due so, u'd also b showing CO2 effects r as powerful as the Sun's variations over 11 years. Which would immediately prove urself preposterous.

Y doughn't you just look at this?
https://www.googl...;spell=1

All these citations, articles, etc., etc., refer to my work. How many unqualified folks get that kind of recognition? Y didn't u do this urself?

How's that, do I write like someone with technical degrees now?

Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Y doughn't you just look at this?
https://www.googl...;spell=1
No. As anyone who uswes google knows full well the pages are sometimes dynamic and not reliable as they are NOT direct links !

See my other post, there are 6 "Gregory M. Tylers" in USA, 3 have been emailed/msg'ed, others not directly contactable (yet) !

Re your claimed "4 technical degrees" name of institute and years started ?

Water_Prophet claimed
All these citations, articles, etc., etc., refer to my work. How many unqualified folks get that kind of recognition? Y didn't u do this urself?
People with degrees DONT write like that or make immature claims !

You have NO citations, u are a FAKE & LIAR & likely a fake identity, there are negative legal consequences for that !

Do u claim to be "Gregory M. Tyler" as mentioned here:-
http://en.wikiped.../RiskAoA

Yes or No ?

Bear in mind legals re attempted identity fraud !
danny_easterling
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2015
The scientifically illiterate twits have taken over. Polemic rules confounding the scientific method and common sense. CC has become an ideology or more properly a religion.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2015
danny_easterling claimed
The scientifically illiterate twits have taken over
Is infra red radiative forcing and physics somehow "illiterate" ?

danny_easterling claimed
Polemic rules confounding the scientific method and common sense
So u claim there is only attack on the contrary without evidence of overall warming:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

danny_easterling claimed
CC has become an ideology or more properly a religion
The only ideology is Physics, such as radiative forcing, Earth's energy balance, Earth converts Sol's shortwave to longwave, emissions interfered with by greenhouse gases.

Do you have any education in Physics to claim any ideology danny_easterling ?

What is the nature of a religion - does it necessitate reliance on Evidence ?

Answer a straightforward Question pls:-
"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2015
"Answer a straightforward Question pls:-
"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?""

This is how.

http://nov79.com/...tyg.html
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2015
MR166 claimed
This is how.
http://nov79.com/...tyg.html
No.There is no evidence that somehow 10m is any sort of limit, the guy doesn'tt know; Physics ie radiative forcing AND especially evidence to the contrary here (heard of using a blanket to keep warm in bed, think on it please):-
http://images.rem...ies.html]http://images.rem...ies.html[/url]

FACT u havent been advised MR166, is Sol's insolation has highshortwave (SW) ie visible, Earth converts that SW to longwave (LW) & that occurs primarily at ground levels but we also get infra red from Sol as well Eg at altitude.

If there was any sort of 10m saturation claimed, it logically would skew figures from satellite sensing services looking at infra red at different altitudes:-
http://images.rem...ies.html]http://images.rem...ies.html[/url]

Sorry MR166, u have been misled & quite badly so :-(

Consider the number of CO2 molecules between zero and 10 meters, even at 400ppm, there is NO way there is any sort of saturation, ie incomplete !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2015
@MR166

Unfortunately last links got munted, mine re atmospheric temps at altitudes is here:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

In respect of your link http://nov79.com/...tyg.html
His statement of:-

"Saturation is a term physicists use when all suitable radiation gets absorbed, so adding more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything"

NOT true @ 400pm because whilst CO2 & other GHGs absorb radiation they ALSO re-radiate & that means in ALL directions & this also raises humidity !

I hope u notice & ask yourself a question just what does the CO2 do when it absorbs IR, well it re-radiates it, 50% up, 50% down which by virtue of the maths of that distribution means it maintains its effectiveness for Km up in the atmosphere.

Sadly, not knowing that makes u repeat a link where the effect is misrepresented by the author, sad but true, he doesn't know enough eg his is +700ppm.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2015
@MR166
Further to your link:- http://nov79.com/...tyg.html

Author's obtuse wording

"Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters."

If I understand his English it means CO2 absorbs ALL its IR below 10m, so that means its a perfect insulator & NONE is left to go above 10m ?

Have u ever heard of a blanket that doesn't allow any heat out past a certain thickness, that would make it a perfect insulator so consequently you would get VERY hot ?

OR the author means it CANNOT absorb any more in that 10m, so then surely the next 10m & the next & so on continue to absorb - Y not ?

Doesn't it seem there r straightforward logical flaws in his claim, either its a perfect insulator to 10m OR it means IR gets through THEREFORE the next 10m MUST also absorb as well & so on, sort of simple logic - yes ?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
The "saturated gassy argument"
"So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here's all you need to say: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models."
http://www.realcl...rgument/
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2015
"Answer a straightforward Question pls:-
"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?""

This is how.

http://nov79.com/...tyg.html


Because co2 follows the same marginal returns curve other natural phenomena does. After a certain point adding co2 affects very little. Here's the graph.

http://postimg.or...z4eli25/
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2015
Looks like a straightforward calculation to me
@positum stultum prophetam
and therein lies the rub... ONLY TO YOU
you do NOT take into consideration the interactions of CO2 and WV... only your "interpretations" of the data, which are NOT supported by the science

this is like saying that water should blow up when applied to fire because H2 is a flammable gas and O is an oxidizer!
when you look at it, it does seem logical, but it does NOT take into consideration the bond nor the additional properties that are present in the combination which allows MOST fires to be successfully suppressed with H2O

the REASON that i request journal studies from you is simple: YOU IGNORE FAR TOO MANY FACTORS THAT ARE KNOWN AS WELL AS DEMONSTRATED when you post

IOW- as a scientists, you are an epic failure
no offense buddy, but you should just be embarrassed
and as a claimed scientifically literate degree'd professional, YOU should be embarrassed of all you misrepresent
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2015
The author is claiming that only a small percentage of the total solar radiation is absorbed by Co2 and that all of the radiation that is available to be trapped by Co2 is being trapped by the existing Co2 levels. Thus, increasing the Co2 the level is meaningless. He is also claiming that most of the heat trapped by this Co2 is soon re-radiated in wavelengths that are invisible to Co2 allowing the heat to escape into space via normal means.

Equating increased Co2 levels to increasing the insulation in your home or adding more blankets to your bed is meaningless since Co2 can only absorb a small portion of the wavelengths that are heating the earth and that Co2 releases most of the absorbed heat into wavelengths that cannot reabsorb by Co2.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
Or needs a climate scientist to say that economic data is correct
@positum stultum prophetam/Pfffft/alkie
1- correlation =/= causation
2- really? all you are doing is producing yet another tangle of misleading and stupid graphs that offer support only for your own delusions
other non-linked cause graphs that mean nothing: http://www.tylervigen.com/
perhaps you would like to show how falling down stairs is linked to spending on space, science and technology? http://tylervigen...n?id=983
or how nicolas cage starring in a movie is related to people drowning in a pool?

just because you THINK there is a correlation doesn't mean there is

and you are the princess of misdirection and obfuscation
show the CAUSE
PROVE the point

THAT is the reason that i consistently request STUDIES to support your conclusions
because your INABILITY to separate reality from your fantasies or megalomaniacal narcissistic self delusions
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
This is how.

http://nov79.com/...tyg.html
@Mr166
that is not a study, that is what is called personal conjecture and it is not supported by the science
a study looks something like this: http://www.scienc...abstract

That study ALSO shows how the CO2 which is emitted is also tied to the WV as well, and it shows WHY it is so powerful as well as why CO2 is considered the temp control knob...

refutation of said study doesn't exist, regardless of what alkie says, nor is there viable or validated studies that show there is no CO2 problem

What you are using is called confirmation bias, and posting a link to what seems to be logical, but leaves out important details (otherwise it would be a published study, don't you think?)

follow the science and the evidence, not the political arguments

Obviously VERY successful, considering the number of posts you have here.
@alkie/pffffft
the BOSS doesn't have to always be working

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
The author is claiming that only a small percentage ... Co2 is soon re-radiated in wavelengths that are invisible to Co2 allowing the heat to escape into space via normal means.
@Mr166
one more point... you are showing that "the author is claiming"
this is the entire basis of your argument...
HOWEVER
you might as well be saying that "CO2 can't be the real problem because Zephir said so"

The ONLY difference between the two arguments is spelling

not only are you appealing to supposed authority (the author, in this case)
but there is no evidence supporting the authors claims!

and by that i mean validated studies using the scientific method published in reputable peer reviewed journals

there is a HUGE reason that a study holds more weight than conjecture
it is about evidence
as well as validation

follow the evidence and science
NOT the politics
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
Because co2 follows the same marginal returns curve other natural phenomena does. After a certain point adding co2 affects very little. Here's the graph.

http://postimg.or...z4eli25/
@dannybot
this is no different than the graphs that the idiot alkie was posting
where are the STUDIES which validate your conclusions?
where is the scientific evidence... not some ad hoc data flung out there with no reference or correlation to the science

you might as well say that Nicolas Cage starring in movies kills people in pools
http://www.tylerv...n?id=359

or that the number of pool drownings are directly connected to visitors to sea world
http://tylervigen...id=28709

perhaps you should buy a pool and then tell people to stop visiting sea world?

there is speculation and conjecture (what YOU have linked and provided)
and there is SCIENCE

BIG DIFFERENCE

just because you believe in something doesn't mean it is true or even real
Ironwood
1 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2015
I fear an ice age far more than a few degrees of warming. I'll start taking the pause, I mean the warming, seriously when the warm mongers stop buying beachfront property and jetting around in their private jets. Paint your tiny house's roof white, drive a solar recharged electric car, encrypt your "hide the decline" emails better, vow to never set foot on an airplane again and people might start to believe you. If it is a crisis, act like it!

It is smart to fear an ice age - if is was about 3500 years from now and the Laurentian ince sheets were starting to grow again. The one good thing about what we have been doing to our environment is that we have probably staved off or at least delayed, the next ice age.

The rest of your post is bunkum and the usual in denialist claptrap. "There is no global warming because Al Gore fies in a jet!"


I didn't say there was no AGW. I said I don't take it seriously since you warm mongers don't take it seriously.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2015
Capt. in order to prove that Co2 above a certain level actually affects the temperature of the earth you would have to prove that the heat energy escaping the oceans is the same wavelength and magnitude as the heat added to the system by excess Co2. Otherwise you are just talking about a time delay and not a proportional influence.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2015
MR166 stated
The author is claiming that only a small percentage of the total solar radiation is absorbed by Co2 and that all of the radiation that is available to be trapped by Co2 is being trapped by the existing Co2 levels
I see, seems author isn't aware of
http://en.wikiped...bert_law

MR166 stated
Thus, increasing the Co2 the level is meaningless
He is wrong, runrig pointed this out long ago re the path length. Author hasn't indicated relationship between Y the magic 10m & level in ppm, he needs to back it up !

MR166 stated
He is also claiming that most of the heat trapped by this Co2 is soon re-radiated in wavelengths that are invisible to Co2 allowing the heat to escape into space via normal means[/w]Which is WRONG
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

afaik, the absorption/re-radiation is within the frequency range of CO2, ie it CANNOT emit at a wavelength it won't absorb, its a tuned energy relationship.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2015
Ok, I might be wrong. You would have to prove that the wavelengths of the total energy leaving the earth were such that the percentage of energy trapped by Co2 on the way out was greater than to total energy trapped on the way in.

My point is that if energy trapped by Co2 is converted to energy/wavelengths that are transparent to Co2 on the way out there is no real net gain of energy/temperature to the earth.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2015
continued

MR166 stated
Equating increased Co2 levels to increasing the insulation in your home or adding more blankets to your bed is meaningless since Co2 can only absorb a small portion of the wavelengths that are heating the earth and that Co2 releases most of the absorbed heat into wavelengths that cannot reabsorb by Co2
I just posted this link showing the wave-numbers:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Author of link u posted MR166, is ignoring
http://en.wikiped...bert_law

Proven MANY times; instruments (spectrophotometer) & esp by many satellite sensing co's Eg
http://images.rem...ies.html

Fact is 99% of the infra-red emitted by Earth (fortunately) is released to space. Energy from Sol is immense, so it only takes a change within that 1% in terms of thermal resistivity to shift the balance.

Author's tone is conspiratorially biased & he is erroneous in his analysis, appearing dis-ingenuous !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2015
MR166 claimed
You would have to prove that the wavelengths of the total energy leaving the earth were such that the percentage of energy trapped by Co2 on the way out was greater than to total energy trapped on the way in..
Thats easy, did u not see link I just posted
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Please MR166, try & understand, Sol is highly shortwave (SW), CO2 can't absorb it on way in.
Earth gets this SW and converts to longwave (LW), eg ground, oceans, plants, rocks.. Bulk LW (being infra-red) has some absorbancy by CO2, which effectively acts as {partial} one way VALVE for light,

Difficult point for those not acquainted with Physics is u don't need much added thermal resistivity because the atmosphere has such a low specific heat.

MR166 claimed
..trapped by Co2 is converted to energy/wavelengths that are transparent to Co2
No.Its NOT a GHG property, absorbance/emissions wavelengths are the SAME.

to be continued
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2015
"No. That's NOT a GHG property, absorbance/emissions wavelengths are the SAME."

So let me get this straight, If energy from the sun hits a black body the energy that this black body emits is the same wavelength as the energy the heats it up.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2015
continued
@MR166 where you stated
...have to prove that the heat energy escaping the oceans is the same wavelength and magnitude as the heat added to the system by excess Co2
Magnitude re temp & specific heat value. Basic issue in Physics re current dilemma those that are struggling is details of radiative emissions & understandably the science is not at all simple & for many who do even up to TWO uni physics units Eg Environmental Science, Geology or even some engineering courses.

Essentially, not being at absolute zero, everything emits radiation (photons) ALL the time but, we don't notice it much unless one thing is hotter Eg move hand closer to hot drink from the side, you FEEL the radiative emission & above you feel convection & conduction as well.

Specific link but, go to top of page to get more info
https://en.wikipe..._cooling

In particular re GHG's
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2015
Oh wait, perhaps you are saying that if Co2 emits energy at a certain wavelength then only another Co2 molecule can absorb it.

Gee, what is the problem since this energy can not be transferred to air , land or sea.

Hey Mike if per chance it does lose its energy to another medium then the wavelength changes and the energy will be radiated into space.

Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2015
MR166 asked
So let me get this straight, If energy from the sun hits a black body the energy that this black body emits is the same wavelength as the energy the heats it up.
Thats more complex, you have to look at black body absorbers but, bear in mind GHG's & especially CO2 are NOT blackbodies, theya re very simple molecules with only a limited number of vibrational states - that is NOT the case re heterogeneous materials like rock, plants, ocean etc I trust you can make that distinction !

As I said before & posted this link, please check it, its quite specific re major greenhouse gases
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

As I mentioned and please try to understand, the Earth absorbs shortwave (SW) and emits primarily longwave (LW). Obviously there is some (negligible) shortwave emitted as reflections & generated light but you can't warm anything with it, its effect is negligible.

Please read:-
https://en.wikipe...ack_body
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2015
MR166 stated
Hey Mike if per chance it does lose its energy to another medium then the wavelength changes and the energy will be radiated into space
Sure, see my last post, three modes of heat transfer, conduction, convection & radiation - ie. high school physics.

Point is that by ADDING a gas with known & irrefutable thermal properties studied to great depth for well over 100 years, this increases thermal resistivity of atmosphere.

Problem is even with many trained at uni is they r not practiced in thinking about the combinatorial complexity of how the three modes of heat flow RELATE in conjunction with specific heat !

Thats the key issue as to why the atmosphere, with very LOW specific heat has so much measurement noise & why its essential to understand that oceans (stable enthalpy) have 4000x specific heat of atmosphere.

Bothers me MR166, u have been on these forums since Aug 2011 & been on threads which have covered this but, haven't absorbed it yet :-(
danny_easterling
1 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2015
Because co2 follows the same marginal returns curve other natural phenomena does. After a certain point adding co2 affects very little. Here's the graph.

http://postimg.or...z4eli25/

perhaps you should buy a pool and then tell people to stop visiting sea world?

there is speculation and conjecture (what YOU have linked and provided)
and there is SCIENCE

BIG DIFFERENCE

just because you believe in something doesn't mean it is true or even real


@Captain stumpy

Showing your scientific illiteracy is priceless. Basic principles that are well known and ignored by alarmists are your failing. Parroting the climate alarmists is your strength. Keep drinking the koolaid. Just because you believe something does not make it true. When all predicitions have been wrong, it invalidates the climate alarmists' claims.

Science is about data, not fervent belief. Ridicule would not be necessary if alarmists could support their assertions.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2015
Point is that by ADDING a gas with known & irrefutable thermal properties studied to great depth for well over 100 years, this increases thermal resistivity of atmosphere.


If you left the claim at that you'd be dealing strictly in the realm of science and would find far less argument. The problem comes in when you add all the "and's" based on models/projections that simply can't be verified without a God-like understanding of the future.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2015
Point is that by ADDING a gas with known & irrefutable thermal properties studied to great depth for well over 100 years, this increases thermal resistivity of atmosphere.


This is just reactionary. While it is true that adding more increases effect, how much more do you need to add to create a change that the Earth just doesn't buffer out?

The Earth greatly buffers temperature and almost all climate effects. It it didn't buffer them, we'd be dead. The change imparted by 0.00001 ppm of CO2 is hardy measurable. If someone would like to show me a derived, aka, one that doesn't start with assumptions, mechanism for its impact, I'd be grateful.

But there isn't one. Even wiki's is a two point model, which breaks down everywhere but 280 ppm and 400ppm, amazingly.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
http://www.nasa.g...ing.html

Here, can you see the logical inconsistencies? The article predicts an out of control spiral, stating CO2 as the driver. Does anyone see the problem these two premises do not realize?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2015
jeffensley has my attention & claimed
If you left the claim at that you'd be dealing strictly in the realm of science and would find far less argument
It is Science, which means maths, ie integration and in relation to "Statistical Mechanics", its really quite straightforward !

jeffensley claimed
The problem comes in when you add all the "and's" based on models/projections that simply can't be verified without a God-like understanding of the future
Please leave deities out - NONE communicate well, all from men who had issues with women !

jeffensley, u should know from Virginia tech training, models r asymptotic & subject to requirement to INTEGRATE chaos factors ie Sum !

Eg. Engine models (my hobby) WORK (ie Engine computers to actually cycle injection re stoichometry) BUT, they STILL utilise feedback, ie O2 sensor & later models Ion sensing AND still operate to error bars.

Climate models same & WE r the feedback & their outputs within error bars !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2015
Deluded Water_Prophet claimed
While it is true that adding more increases effect, how much more do you need to add to create a change that the Earth just doesn't buffer out?
Y can't U as a claimed uni graduate quantify it before reacting by making this post ?

Water_Prophet claimed
The change imparted by 0.00001 ppm of CO2 is hardy measurable
Huh ! Change is FAR FAR bigger, don't u even proof read or r u so slack ?

Water_Prophet stated
If someone would like to show me a derived, aka, one that doesn't start with assumptions, mechanism for its impact, I'd be grateful
Why can't u STILL prove ANY claims eg CO2 ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Even wiki's is a two point model, which breaks down everywhere but 280 ppm and 400ppm, amazingly.
Beg Pardon ?

Why can't u articulate this in the straightforward language a person claiming "4 technical degrees" can muster, where did u get those degrees, name of institute & when please ?

Be smarter - for a change !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Here, can you see the logical inconsistencies?
Yes, I can see all your attempts at relating & claiming CO2 must be low W/m^2 BECAUSE water is higher is sheer idiocy !

U have ZERO understanding of Psychrometry - Y is that, not in your "4 technical degrees" ?
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

WHY can't u get it through your THICK head Water_Prophet, FACT it rains at all proves indisputably a facet within Psychrometry - why the f..k can't u understand it ?

If u did u would see with a great Eureka moment just WHY water vapour rises on the back of CO2 !

Water_Prophet uttered
The article predicts an out of control spiral, stating CO2 as the driver. Does anyone see the problem these two premises do not realize
Educated in Physics see NO problem BECAUSE they studied Psychrometry !

Why can't u with "4 technical degrees" ?

Water_Prophet, u appear SO immensely dumb !
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2015
Jef,
I've done those integrations et&al Mikey requested. He just moves the goal post, then pretends you have not done them a short time later.

The results, of course is that CO2 is at least 10x too weak to have an affect. Probably requiring 40x. Which makes sense; if you experiment with CO2 in your house, it is 3-4x what it is out side (1200-1600ppm), and yet it does not feel warm. If you open a window, at the same temperature as outside, and humidity increases a bit-it does feel warm.

Actually, if you just turn on a humidifier, even well below the dew/condensation point, it feels dramatically warmer within moments.

Now CO2 aficionados will say that this is because a lesser effect from CO2 drives a greater effect of WV. Yet WV stops having an effect where convenient for CO2ers desperate need.

None of them understand how to set up the simple feedback equation that describes and proves the scenario they claim, both doesn't exist or has a (-1)^(1/2) imaginary solution.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2015
Water_Prophet LIES again
I've done those integrations et&al Mikey requested
Where ?

Water_Prophet claimed
He just moves the goal post, then pretends you have not done them a short time later
LIAR No. I asked u PROVE CO2's effect, u have failed to - simple !

Water_Prophet waffled
..if you experiment with CO2 in your house, it is 3-4x what it is out side (1200-1600ppm), and yet it does not feel warm
Not sensible. Flawed, U cannot do such experiment as 'feel' is not quantitative, all uni graduates know that except U !

Water_Prophet waffled
Now CO2 aficionados will say that this is because a lesser effect from CO2 drives a greater effect of WV. Yet WV stops having an effect where convenient for CO2ers desperate need
Utter rubbish !

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

No goal post shift, direct question Water_Prophet fails at

so sad
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2015
Mike I do not really agree with your blanket of insulation analogy for Co2. This supposed blanket only works for a very narrow band of energies, does nothing to stop convection and looses what energy it can store almost immediately to neighboring molecules due to collisions. Since there are many more "other" molecules than Co2 molecules this heat storage is fleeting at best.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2015
MR166, excellent point. Not only is CO2 much weaker than, say water vapor, but it is also diminished because water vapor, et&al green house effects, take second fiddle to collisions, atmospheric mixing, evaporation condensation, etc..

If CO2 had any effect, it would be most prominent when the Earth cooled at night. We could make immediate comparisons, and demonstrate the effect immediately. But we don't. and since the strongest suite is CO2 in climate MODELS, we know there is no fist in that glove.

I am not sure how many ways it needs to be demonstrated CO2 is not the causal agent. Except that whatever powers that be, know the strength of hanging an effect on a random variable-very like the appeal of gambling.
howhot2
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2015
@Water_Plant; There is an excellent point to be made about how goofy your posts are! Personally I don't make the decisions, but yours rank right up there in the top of the class goofy! Just to nit pick; "CO2 had any effect, it would be most prominent when the Earth cooled at night." That's strange, it does. And so on... lie after lie; following all the denier BS like the sheep you you have become!



howhot2
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2015
Ok, I might be wrong. You would have to prove that the wavelengths of the total energy leaving the earth were such that the percentage of energy trapped by Co2 on the way out was greater than to total energy trapped on the way in.

My point is that if energy trapped by Co2 is converted to energy/wavelengths that are transparent to Co2 on the way out there is no real net gain of energy/temperature to the earth.

That's a real valid point but it's wrong. The energy trapped by CO2 is simply reflected back to earth building up heat just like a pressure cooker. After a period of time, there is a huge gain in global temperatures that destroys the planet as we know it. After that we can all go over and kick the sh*t out of coal miners for being such dumb asses (unless he's union).

Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2015
MR166 stated
Mike I do not really agree with your blanket of insulation analogy for Co2
U miss the point, just because an blanket, any blanket allows some heat through doesn't mean it won't increase thermal resistivity. Imposing a resistivity creates a greater potential difference, its a universal principle across all disciplines and yes it is subtle but it goes hand in hand with physics !

MR166 claimed
This supposed blanket only works for a very narrow band of energies, does nothing to stop convection and looses what energy it can store almost immediately to neighboring molecules due to collisions
Do u claim blanket effect is completely countered by (increase in) convection - any Evidence ?

MR166 claimed
Since there are many more "other" molecules than Co2 molecules this heat storage is fleeting at best.
U misunderstand, please get a grip, read & Learn !

http://www.realcl...rgument/

can U ?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
MR166, excellent point. Not only is CO2 much weaker than, say water vapor, but it is also diminished because water vapor, et&al green house effects, take second fiddle
Where is your Evidence ?

Water_Prophet claimed
..we know there is no fist in that glove
What idiocy is this !

Qualify your claim specifically that CO2's radiative forcing is a low 0.00009 W/m^2 when u claim
its in "great agreement" with wiki's of a whopping 1.5W/m^2, some 16,666x HIGHER

Water_Prophet stated
I am not sure how many ways it needs to be demonstrated CO2 is not the causal agent
Prove YOUR claim of 0.00009 W/m^2 - WHY can't you ?

Water_Prophet with rubbish speak
random variable-very like the appeal of gambling
Uneducated inarticulate bark, why would u get on this forum and write such drivel.

CO2 has KNOWN thermal properties exemplified here:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Y can't u even read & interpret graphs properly ?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
"U miss the point, just because an blanket, any blanket allows some heat through doesn't mean it won't increase thermal resistivity."

So Mike you are saying that any increase in thermal resistivity is justification for the draconian measures that have been proposed to limit Co2 emissions.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2015
@Water_Plant; There is an excellent point to be made about how goofy your posts are! Personally I don't make the decisions, but yours rank right up there in the top of the class goofy! Just to nit pick; "CO2 had any effect, it would be most prominent when the Earth cooled at night." That's strange, it does. And so on... lie after lie; following all the denier BS like the sheep you you have become!


Howhot, So, CO2 is supposed to block outgoing radiation. When else will this be more prominent than when comparing day and night?

We've got about 12 simple mechanisms why CO2 is just silly, and nothing but insults from you about how real it is. See the problem?

Abandon the false element of Air, CO2, embrace the Water.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2015
MR166, you seem to understand completely. CO2, as AGWers currently claim it, not to say they won't change once the following perspective gets around, works like this:

They say that water and mixing DOES overwhelm CO2 in the lower atmosphere. But they cleverly notice that water vapor becomes ONLY about 6x more concentrated than CO2 above 2000 ft. (Here's where they somehow say the atmosphere's mixing not longer has an effect either, but what can you do?)

6x more concentrated and (according to AGWers arguments now) 7x more powerful is still overwhelming, but we can still ignore it ESPECIALLY since:

CO2 in the upper atmosphere will block (diffuse) its wavelength BEFORE it reaches the surface. So an increase in CO2, if it had an effect (which 0.0135% change does NOT), would actually serve to cool the Earth during the day by ~3(?) orders of magnitude more than it would warm it by night. Look at black body curves.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
"Howhot, So, CO2 is supposed to block outgoing radiation. When else will this be more prominent than when comparing day and night?"

Water a while back I posted on this board the high minus the low of the day of the daily temperature deltas for 2 deserts in Africa going back to 1913 ( If I remember correctly ) and guess what, the deltas have actually increased over time. Thus, Co2 cannot be insulating the earth since the deserts are cooling more at night in modern times.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2015
Well, CO2 defaming or not... that is an unusual result. Unless CO2 was concluded to be cooling the deserts. What was the conclusion for why the deserts were cooling? Thanks in advance.

Yeah, absolutely. I've been looking for a nice simple study showing how much warmer nights have become because of CO2.

But that was before I knew water vapor'd increased 3x more.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
Water it was not a real study by any means, I was just fooling around with some data sets. My only conclusion was that the deserts were getting dryer but that is not a given. The change over the years was not great but the interesting point was that it did not go down due to Co2 insulating the area.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
Well, actually that makes pretty good sense.
Changing climate and wind patterns could easily cause less water availability in a desert. Thanks.

It's good data, you can find out more fooling around in non-mainstream facets sometimes than these articles.

As a repeat, it should be easy to prove CO2's contributions from day and night. Since it ain't there, we can look for it with Stumpy's studies and other unicorns.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2015
BAHAHAHA... More SHEEP talk.

Lets put this water vapor myth to rest once and for all. Water vapor is a green house gas, ice crystals are not. At some where near 14,000 ft +/- 5000 water vapor freezes and becomes ice. At that point it's no longer a greenhouse gas. In the form of ice and snow, it increases the albedo and cools the earth. CO2 by contrast is effective as a greenhouse gas to the edge of space (there a very detailed measurements of CO2's greenhouse gas effect up to the edge of space. I'll let you research that). Water vapor in large concentrations rains out. CO2 doesn't. Water vapor isn't going to kill the planet, CO2 will.

Water vapor is a feed back system from the thermal runaway that is the CO2 train wreck. That and methane (CH4) released from melting permafrosts and methane clathrates which causes a much more severe response in atmospheric heating.

Deniers ... more sheep following instead of thinking.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2015
Howhot, here we go again. Water vapor can exist with ice. And indeed, at those heights CO2 is working against your arguments. So...?
Also, yeah, any significant height above ground, GHG are going to work to cool the Earth not warm it... So?

Besides, ice crystals would be GHG, if the light is hitting the crystals... If I remember correctly, solid/liquid ice is even more powerful than vapor. Vibration modes...

You've been awfully hostile lately. Any odds of going back to being a mild mannered M&S expert, instead of a skeptigoonoid?
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2015
Water I have just thought of another reason why the delta could be changing. If the later readings were taken with electronic thermometers and the earlier ones were taken by mercury thermometers the thermal inertia of the mercury thermometers would tend to make the deltas smaller. Electronic units can respond much more quickly making the deltas larger.
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2015
"Howhot, So, CO2 is supposed to block outgoing radiation. When else will this be more prominent than when comparing day and night?"

Water a while back I posted on this board the high minus the low of the day of the daily temperature deltas for 2 deserts in Africa going back to 1913 ( If I remember correctly ) and guess what, the deltas have actually increased over time. Thus, Co2 cannot be insulating the earth since the deserts are cooling more at night in modern times.

Answer me this MR166; if CO2 and global warming is not happening, then why was the average temperatures across the USA 3.7F higher this March than 20 century averages?

Also since you asked, why do deserts get so cold a night and so hot in the daytime?
As an open minded AGWite I'm willing to listen to reason and hear your arguments as to why the globe is heating up with every measurement we make, satellite, ground, air, ocean based and military?

MR166
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2015
"Answer me this MR166; if CO2 and global warming is not happening, then why was the average temperatures across the USA 3.7F higher this March than 20 century averages?"

Show me the link to that figure please. Thanks HH2.

howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2015
@Water... forgive me for being a miffed at times. I'm just a little hot headed when it comes to the subject and just how absolutely stupid people are talking about it. Take you dumb ass water vapor theory for example. Only a foolish twit that wears his undies on his head would make the implied assertion that you do that water vapor has jacked up the global average temperatures when at best, it's just a small component of the AGW effect from fossil fuel combustion. You've already admitted that you know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and you claim to believe in climate change (from water only?)

Baaahhahaah more trolling with the denier sheep. You can't educate sheep.
So on that note here is Bill Nye 'the Science Guy' bringing it down a notch.
https://www.youtu...w8Cyfoq8
For MR166; The link is:
http://www.ncdc.n...l/2015/3
But let me quote it; "The March contiguous U.S. average temperature was 45.4°F, 3.9°F above the 20th century average"
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
MR166, you are on to something, very astute, from my perspective. Honestly, especially in the next few years they are going to announce they are using a different standard, meter, process, etc., of measuring temperature. This is another of MY predictions. Things have become a little off recently for them to be using the same...

For example, they keep claiming the past few years are the hottest on record. I remember 1998, and it made this year look like a slush ball.

I talk to people in different nations-I am lucky to be able to do so, and find nothing exceptional. I do google searches in other languages and in other areas of the world and find no massive heat waves, no massive deaths from heat, no brown outs from AC use, etc..

Except Australia, but they are having an unusual standing weather front, which if you don't peg on Anthrogenic Change, makes sense. Flip a coin, have a bias, the thing is Australia's hideous weather makes sense with or without, so...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
I think perhaps the simplest explanation is if you look at temperature, there are actually a few ways to define it. Therefore a few ways to measure it. Or say, they are using a different approach, like say, more accurate models for the entire ocean, instead of just surfaces.

Whatever it is, keep your eye out for it. It will probably be released as an explanation: "We took temperature by using this method..." different from just sticking a thermometer in it.

Howhot, after something like 3(?) years now, you still know nothing about why I say what I do, as evidenced from you last post.

Here, let m help. Burning fossil fuels releases about 1/10th the energy of the Sun's variable flux, or about 1/1000th of its total output. This is enough to subtlety affect climate. This is inarguable.

Sketigarbage, for example claims CO2 is on par, actually greater than 1/1350 (0.1%) of the Suns total out put. It claims 0.6%, as it must to eclipse fossil fuels.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
In fact this idiotically showed up after I'd demonstrated fossil fuels heat release on this forum. Why idiotically? Well, I am sure you can show how much climatic effect 0.6% change in the Sun's energy, stowed/reflected at ground level would have on the Earth far better than I.

But even I recognize it is a ridiculously-idiotically-high and fudged amount.

Now, water vapor completely eclipses CO2, everyone agrees. But it is still 10-100x too weak to be a climate changer.

So, if water vapor has changed so much and IT is too weak to change climate, how much more feeble than is CO2?

AND if burning fossil fuels releases enough heat, at ground level, above the tropics, to explain excellently climate change we see, then...

What the heck is your problem?
(See I can be rude to.)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2015
1/10000th it total output...typo.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2015
Error
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2015
Basic principles that are well known and ignored by alarmists are your failing
@danny
Science doesn't ignore basic principles nor can you support your assertions
your failing is you are still making unsubstantiated conjectures
you made this claim but you have no reputable evidence to support your conclusions
Parroting the climate alarmists
no, i parrot the SCIENCE
big difference
When all predicitions have been wrong
and again, just because you are illiterate...
you only have unsubstantiated conjecture and your claims, no evidence
Science is about data, not fervent belief
and the data/science/evidence all point towards AGW and warming
Ridicule would not be necessary
it SHOULD not be necessary...you claim anti-science propaganda and political dogma but you have YET to show any reputable scientific evidence supporting your conjectures

that makes it a LABEL (defining your refusal to accept science/evidence)
not ridicule

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2015
@Mr166
Ok, let me start by saying that any analogy is going to have shortcomings... you can actually dislike the analogy, but do you get the point?
If the later readings were taken with electronic thermometers and the earlier ones were taken by mercury thermometers
you should look into this specifically... i do remember a study a while back about equipment and measurement adjustments due to exposure and degradation over time... i do not remember the specific title, only that it covered how the data is adjusted over time due to the known and measured effects of the exposure and how it alters the data

Perhaps someone else can dig that study up?
I have been having problems with the ISP- getting either NO connection or 1/2 dialup speed at the moment

If i do find it, i will post it for you
it was referenced a few months back WRT claims that the raw data is better than the adjusted data in some sets ...
or something like that
i can't remember fully
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2015
MR166 tried to make a false assertion with
So Mike you are saying that any increase in thermal resistivity is justification for the draconian measures that have been proposed to limit Co2 emissions
No. NEVER said that.
If you think I have then be honest and prove it, link please ?

Point I made, which LIARS like Water_Prophet just CANNOT come to terms with is the effectively universal principles re power, resistance, potential etc. Data here proves the globe is warming despite the reduction in Total Solar Insolation.
http://images.rem...ies.html

The specific regions TLT & TLS prove, to those with training in Physics of heat flows, that there is a blanket like effect, the only changes we have in that area over the course of time those temperatures rise are:-

1. Human produced heat
2. CO2's comparative large absolute increase
3. Water vapour's comparative small average increase

Those trained in Physics KNOW to address watts per sq meter

cont
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2015
@MR166 continued from last post

MR166 asked
So Mike you are saying that any increase in thermal resistivity is justification for the draconian measures that have been proposed to limit Co2 emissions
Further to my last post, I elaborate.

Increases in thermal resistivity are not the issue, all else being equal. It is the increase in heat and its distribution especially of interest given the oceans have a specific heat ~ 4000x that of atmosphere.

Temperature is a viable measure of change i heat & is a good indicator as not only do we feel it in terms of regional weather changes, we can average weather out over 30yr climate periods & its especially useful as we can easily KNOW & calculate enthalpy as we KNOW the specific heats of which those regions are comprised.

I propose a tenable shift to non-CO2 producing power sources, non of these need be 'draconian'.

Seems like you are trying to push an ugly proposition to goad a reaction, please be smarter

continued
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2015
@MR166 continued

Addressing my 3 items in the first of these 3 posts:-
1. Human produced heat
Comparatively small at ~0.1% Total Solar Insolation & NOT cumulative, except by 1 and 2, ie think on the causal relationship.
2. CO2's comparative large absolute increase
CO2 is a well studied, its thermal properties are well known for > 100yrs & it does interfere with infra-red emission to space, there is a general correlation between CO2's rise & enthalpy increase since ~ start of industrial revolution.
3. Water vapour's comparative small average increase
From the study of Psychrometry its clear that the differential with respect to there being higher water vapour must be causal with a heat retaining source higher than that from human generated heat.

Water_Prophet cannot support ANY of his claims Eg 0.00009 W/m^2, had he been able to understand Psychrometry he wouldn't waste all our time & his making bad claims.

It does not help you, proves he is stupid !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.