‘It could be much more difficult than we thought to feed everyone in a warmer world. Satellite images of northern India have revealed that extreme temperatures are cutting wheat yields. What's more, models used to predict the effects of global warming on food supply may have underestimated the problem by a third’
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
‘Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics…by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax…according to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare [reality] being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions…policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change’
w ww.prisonplanet.c om/oil-companies-support-global-warming-alarmists-not-skeptics.html
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Scientists warn on damage to peatlands
.
Scientists have warned that damaged UK peatlands – areas formed over thousands of years from dead and decaying plants in waterlogged conditions – are a significant source of carbon dioxide.
(please read article before the denier TROLL with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Climate change is here
.
Three eminent universities, in a 460-page report to the state Energy Research and Development Authority last week, pretty much stated the obvious. They said New York state’s climate is changing.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
This is great news! Whew! What a relief. So, Bob Carter knows of a hidden mechanism that no scientist on Earth knows. Now, his next step is to write a paper on the subject and send it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal and tell them about it. It is his civic duty to the world. What the hell is he waiting for?!
I do not know: I have not read that paper yet. But there are over 130,000 peer reviewed science papers published in science journals just about the effects of atmospheric CO2 on climate, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere listed in the Word of Knowledge Science Index. If Bob Carter wants to be taken seriously by scientists, he has to start doing science, not prostitution.
He contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports ~
.
"I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) I feel that at this point there are very little rules ~ almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."
(please read article before the denier TROLL censors it)..
.
'Venice of Northwest Alaska' sinking because of climate change
.
The permafrost has sunk so much in one Northwest Alaska village that bridges are shifting, outdoor stairways hang over the ground and sagging water pipes are prone to break and freeze. Those are a few of the ways climate change is affecting life in the Inupiat village of Selawik.
"The decision to withdraw from Kyoto, Kent said, would save Canada $ 14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. "To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada," Kent said."
Carter jokes that the polar bear should have died out several times in the past due to climatic change, using the Vostok timeline, pointing to the times 415,000 years ago, 328,000 years ago, and 256,000 years ago.
If he bothered to take the issue even remotely seriously seriously he would have discovered that polar bears only polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 150,000 years ago.
I would say no it's (CO2) not. If you want to read an alternative view to AGW that is pragmatic, unbiased and easily testable, then Google Solarchords com, take some time to seriously study the info and I defy anyone to pick holes in it, it's a unique discovery, with detailed climate forecasts for the coming decades.
@howardsway782 : Well as you see some skeptics are so desperate that they now mention geothermal energy as a source of temperature increase. Amusingly, the geothermal energy transferred to the surface would have to have increased just with the start of the industrial revolution. Additionally, as it´s only 0.5% of the contribution of surface temperatures, the increase would need to be incredibly high to be able to add that amount of energy... I am amused.
‘Like a game of scientific whack-a-mole, some arguments against climate change just keep bouncing back - no matter how many times researchers disprove them. One is the long-standing claim that "global warming stopped in 1998", and that since then the Earth has stayed at the same temperature, or even cooled…a new analysis confirms that global warming actually shows no sign of slowing down.’
w ww.newscientist.c om/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/12/no-global-warming-hasnt-stoppe.html
@Devious2323 Nobody has empirically proved AGW. There are no human generated triggers in reality. CO2 is not warming the air, proven by the lack of tropo heating. Warmer air ( +1C per 100 yr's) cannot heat the sea's or the land effectively.
2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures has become synonymous with "dangerous climate change". Lobbyists haggle over it, scientists build models around it and Greens wring their hands. So it is dispiriting to learn, with the next round of UN negotiations under way in Durban, South Africa, that many climatologists feel it is a target we are almost certain to miss’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228412.900-durban-summit-must-accept-degrees-of-responsibility.html
@blackadderthe4 +1C temperature increase in 100 years. There is no sign of acceleration and it is a fact that adding more CO2 does not increase heating linearly. The first 60ppm does half the work against another 800(?) ppm to double that.
Anyway, piss off you for throwing a hissy fit and blocking me on your unwatched channel. Killed any more vegetation with CO2 yet?
Always Newscientist, bbc, agw ideologues, etc. I wonder why. lol
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, …” ~ “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Phil Jones UEA CRU ~ doing the right thing in a scientific manner *o)
.
"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."
This guy is great at telling his audience half the story & then enthusing them about how "therefore" man-made climate change isn't real. Not good enough. That's a failure to communicate the science fairly, and presumably before an audience of largely scientifically illiterate people who went there to be told MMGW is a myth. Thats why he has them laughing so easily. People familiar with the science wouldn't stand for his incomplete story.
The cooling he's talking about would have continued but for CO2 emissions; it's explained by Milankovic cycles and other natural phenomena, which human contributions have over-ridden. We know that because of what he omits from his presentation: the CO2-temp causal link. For a long time temp led CO2 at times, now that's no longer true. It's the other way round. /watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU. The last 8 years of stable temp is correlated with sulfate emissions. See PNAS, 2011: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108
"CO2 is not a pollutant." Err... yes it is. It's acidifying the oceans and causing the degradation of biodiversity, including the death of coral reefs and many other species. See /watch?v=evfgbVjb688 and /watch?v=kQMZfCKuFIQ
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study See BBC news 21/10/2011 The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
Everyone heard of the latest? Climategate 2.0.Yes that's right the second round of climate gate emails just released,simply google:-Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!
"An IPCC draft is testing the ground. What excuses can they get away with? Hidden underneath some pat lines of how anthropogenic global warming is “likely” to influence ah cold days and warm days, is the get-out-of-jail clause that’s really a bombshell"
.
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
It affects two bands of IR radiation occupying around 7% of the 5250C black body bandwidth and one of those bands is totally wiped out by water vapour absorption.
The Total absorption in the affected band is 50%.
So man's contribution to GW is: 0.5*0.03*0.07= 1.28625e-06
Now lets multiply this number to the average Earth temperature against free space temp and that is the man made component of global warming.
@m1aws "It affects two bands of IR radiation occupying around 7% of the 5250C black body bandwidth"
Care to let us know why you chose the (incoming) blackbody radiation from the Sun, instead of the outgoing IR radiation from the Earth? Last I checked, the surface temperature of the Earth wasnt 5250 degrees C.
@ferrett78 Because the amplitude of the outgoing radiation is such a tiny fraction of what is already meaningless. Whats more There are several sources for these graphs. One is the real empirical one as one measures and the other is another climate change lie graph.
Sure, please add -10db (1/10) to nigh on zero and you still get a pathetically small number. I just didn't want to rub more salt into the wound unless someone asked, lol.
@ferrett78 The blackbody temp is 5250K and the reflected blackbody (back into space) temp is approx 245K. Yes, sorry, in Kelvin. And its actually <5% multiplied by the absorption number.
@m1aws So you admit that blackbody radiation of Earth is some -30 degrees Celcius. Since the average surface temperature is somewhat warmer, one might assume that there are some other processes keeping the planet warmer than mere blackbody radiation.
By the way, your figures are a little out. The temperature of the Sun is 5778K and the Earth is closer to -18 C as a blackbody.
@ferrett78 Blackbody absorption less blackbody radiation gives the average air/Earth temp. Its doing real fine right now kiddo.
Its no good arguing over two ways to say the same thing.
I'm bloody happy no amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere will make much difference. Not that we can, we're half way through the Earth's resources and only the hard to get and expensive stuff is left. Hence the wars.
God save us from clear dry skies and global cooling!
@m1aws: It is measures - I can give you the link with the precise measurement of the increased radiative forcing (change in the difference of radiative input and output) and there is a clear increase. This increase is NOT RANDOM but only occurs at specific wavelength of man-mad greenhouse gases. End of the story. It is measured and is in the range of several W/m2.
@m1aws : Sorry - several W/m2 do make for AGW - you are a LIAR as the figure is not decreasing.... and a double LIAR as no current solar phenomenon explains it.... NO ACTUALLY CORRECT ME - you are an idiot as you do not understand the difference between TSI and radiative forcing.
@nigelelsass You are calling every single Solar physicist a liar, not me. Why don't you check the data before squealing like an impaled pig.
I've read most of them and NON GIVE EMPIRICAL PROOF OF AGW. Only GW (Badly). Explain the likes of Jones and Wang being proven wrong and why do you insist on old, superseded data. They are all ideologues, not scientists.
Go check the Solar facts before you squeal "we're doomed" 3.5% CO2 absorption against H2O's what, 30%?
@m1aws : Oh yeah papers in the WSJ journals are "scientific" and those found on "elsevier" are "ideology driven"..... yeah.... only with stupid enough Americans... only with stupid enough Americans
Hansen et al are proven bigots. Hansen know's Venus' 1 atmos, 25C and 0.7AU while surrounded by CO2 fact. Arses his CO2 theory.
Plenty of Nobel prize winners with their rejected Nobel prize papers.
Google: "Three myths about scientific peer review".
The link I gave you from Abdussamatov has papers and his experiments are on the ISS. Yet you my clever arsed darling without a mind of your own are a nobody backing a theory that has no bearing on reality.
@m1aws : Can you exactly count the number of papers proving causation of AGW by Hansen???? ZERO...
(1) it is stupid to attack the messenger to kill the message
(2) it is even more stupid to shoot on the wrong messenger when you do not have a clue.
Please provide the names of the many "nobel prize winners" - Abdussamatov denies a principle established since John Tyndall - so around 150 years of physics - just so you know - also nobody observed the increase in TSI he needs for his theory !!!!
(1) It is stupid for a man to make assertion built on a belief in any scientific paper.
(2) If I have no clue then argue amongst yourself because the Sun shines and sadly, its only the light bands you think are the only player.
Sad really, knowing the sheer number of papers are on the 'net giving the Solar cycles through the ages. All showing GW & GC. Too many for a u'tube list! Firstly, try just about every astronomer, astrophysicist. Start with the Russian papers.
@m1aws : You know what is more stupid? Beliefs based on a single russian astrophysicist who disagrees with 98% of scientists... but as you mentioned - science doesn´t matter anymore - maybe for you.
Do you also trust the contrarians who deny the link between cancer and smoking or HIV and AIDS??? Because that is really what you are doing - relying on a handful of contrarians just because it fits your own little view.
@nigelelsass "Case closed" by many politically motivated "scientists". Always proved wrong. Still no empirical proof the absorption of 3.5% of a light band can that will warm the Earth up when there is so much empirical proof otherwise. It's politics, get over it.
What 98%? The ipcc named thousands of names who wanted to be off the list. Many threatened legal action.
How many dentists in the USA stated smoking is good for your teeth. Same with Fluoride. Who'd sign away their job?
@nigelelsass With you utterly unable to answer the poseurs I set before you. I'll carry on assuming these papers you dearly hang onto are worthless. Unlike the carbon cycle. I'm sick of coming across peer reviewed papers that are proven wrong, or plain funded for the great Ponzi cap 'n trade carbon tax scam.
Just watching a cracking documentary "DRAIN THE OCEAN". And you worry about man's puny CO2 footprint. You idiot.
If you seriously believe in AGW, kill your kids and bury yourself.
@m1aws "If you seriously believe in AGW, kill your kids and bury yourself."
Or better yet, educate those who have been deceived by politically motivated vested interest groups and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, especially given the numerous other benefits a change to clean energy infrastructure would confer.
Seems a much more reasonable response than the one you suggest.
It's the ipcc that is politically funded. The "scientists" are all selected Ideologues. Cap and trade is what the bankers want. Read Pachauri's bio. The power companies are all rubbing their hands in glee because they can raise the prices and invest in alternative energies, paid via taxpayer. And war!
My house has glazed walls. I've vacuum tube solar heating and an electric car. You have what?
Please, continue this line of argument. Not only does it not address the science of climate change at all, but it gives a fairly good indication of your mental processes. Perhaps it will open someones eyes to just how deluded you and your ilk are.
@ferrett78 No, seriously! According to you, people are the cause of climate warming so there can only be one cure. I'm not happy with the size of the World pop. either.
The "science" as you say it is not complete. You haven't an inkling what powers the tectonic plates still moving the crust around even after 4.5 Bn years. You cannot put that to "solar forcing". Yet the same energy has warmed the Earth and sea provides CO2. (18x more more volume).
@ferrett78 You think asthenospheric convection work without losing heat and for the past 4.5Bn years do you?
You're saying if there's no people Industry will carry on? You need help.
The longest active Volcanic chain Is through the full length of the Atlantic but is only a seventh as active as the Pacific plates. There is very little above the sea line. And you say man-made CO2 is 100x more. Yet the sea has 18x more CO2.
@m1aws "You think asthenospheric convection work without losing heat and for the past 4.5Bn years do you?"
Did I say that? No. You asked what drives tectonic plates and I answered. I also specifically said that it DOES lose heat since I mentioned that the amount is far less than solar irradiance.
"You're saying if there's no people Industry will carry on?"
Again, no. Im beginning to think you have issues with reading. Or perhaps just making straw man arguments out of everything.
@m1aws : Then why did your volcanoes decide to wait for the industrial revolution to increase concentrations??? oh wait - can it be you are again trying to SPREAD MISINFORMATION? See I do not believe you are that stupid - yet I believe you are that evil.
@m1aws : You play AS IF you were not to understand the difference between outright spreading lies and confusing - yet this is what you do....
So no, these scientists like Lindzen (who you probably quote) or Seitz have not lied - but have made sure their research was not conclusive - and pretended they needed more time (and funding - part of which was from the tobacco industry) to come a conclusion their colleagues had already reached.
@nigelelsass You are having issues with reality. The IPCC constantly requires more funding or their funding would of ceased. You simply cannot win this one! There is always funding "In lieu of GW". It's politics and you are their political butt monkey.
Ahh! smokers fund them! Before it was oil, lol, then before it was bankers. Never the Gov't.
Pity so few AGW papers are independently reviewed. Always by their buddies, Not noticed? That's why they are so inaccurate come the day or real proof.
@m1aws : MORE OR LESS FUNDING DOES NOT MATTER - the fact is, the evidence from satellite measurements from man-made warming is in
OHHHH I SEE !!! It´s so bad papers are not reviewed by street idiots like you but instead get reviewed by people who have a PhD in physics... hey smartass - what are you waiting for to get your PhD in physics if there is so much money and and you could "disprove AGW" ??? Genius
@nigelelsass Funding matters if its your side of the argument. Who to believe when the data is constantly "adjusted".
Here's the irony. I've ridiculed many "scientists" over decades and not been wrong yet. Get over it.
You are utterly unable to prove AGW is GW. Your own graphs prove this. I'm still waiting for this empirical proof to show Venus and Mar's temps are all wrong. The yearly CO2 cycle is man-made and why our weather patterns over the centuries follow the Sun's weather.
@m1aws : You are slightly retarded my dear. Yes AGW is proven by the spectral absorption analysis... and you can repeat the experiment you will still find the same. Einstein has a quote for you: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
@nigelelsass The first 60ppm of CO2 does half the possible absorption in the air. Converting the Earths atmosphere to 100% will double that 60ppm level. So explain to all and sundry what increase are you talking about that is constantly (historically) upping the Earths temperature?
Note the Oceans are up to 7 miles deep and the Earth, well the core is still 6,500C and shows no sign of cooling no matter the plate tectonics etc. heat loss which confounds your simpleton AGW non-science.
@m1aws : FRAUD ALERT: when somebody mentions geothermal energy - which is quite constant over time - and merely accounts for 0.5% of surface temperature - you know an attempt at misleading is underway
@nigelelsass Yes, it does not have a half age and I will repeat to you, you deny all knowledge of its power source. You people are in total denial of the sheer amount of underwater volcanism that is shifting the plates 7 inches plus a year. How many horsepower is it?
yes, 60ppm does half the co2 warming possible. No genius you does not know the effect of CO2 is logarithmic? You need to read more. Try for education.
@m1aws : You rather come up with SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that this source of energy INCREASED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION... I am really amused at your assumption (you also need to come up with evidence that the increased radiative forcing is not what is causing warming - 2 challenges for you)
PS: if you use logarithms, please express yourself in a clearer manner as I do not know anybody who would understand you.
"But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland."
Can you understand code? Climategate source code: /watch?v=Gp4sMasX-_8
Besides all that. Where is your empirical proof it is man made heating?
Google:
"Measure temporary variations of shape and diameter of the Sun, as well as fine structure and dynamics of the granulation on the Service module of the Russian segment of the International Space Station"
@m1aws : How is this an invalidation of the causation... wait... it is NOT.
My empirical proof is the increase in radiative forcing as demonstrated by (Harries, 2001) (Griggs, 2004) (Chen, 2007) (Wang, 2009) (Philipona, 2004) and (Evans, 2006)... just as you requested. Sorry I do not rely on "copy paste" or "youtube videos" as evidence but use instead real scientific research papers.
@m1aws : You are WRONG as the earth would have otherwise for OBVIOUS reasons the same average temperature as the moon provided the distance is the same. FAIL again.
@nigelelsass The average temperature of Space near the Earth orbit is approx 0C. I am absolutely spot on. Your last statement carried no facts so how can you simply state I'm wrong by simply stating I'm wrong.
You said "You cant think of a single alternative? Like, oh, I dunno, reducing industrial CO2 output?" To remove that you need to remove people.
There is no other way. So de facto you want people to die from lack of resources and cold.
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
Global warming is nothing to do with the last 10,000 years, nor the last 700 years. It is all about the last 200 years or so, especially the last 50. He is deliberately obfuscating with the temperature graphs. It is also bizarre that he thinks that scientists haven't calculated the statistical significance of any line fit to the last 100 years of temperature.
Human Global Warming wasn't an issue in the 13th Century. Human Global Warming wasn't an issue in the Bronze Age. Human Global Warming wasn't an issue during the Holocene Maximum and the time of the Great Flood. Human Global Warming is not an issue now.
@ItsTheSunStupid : "itsthesun-only for stupids" the nickname says it all - and shows a purpose - oriented profile for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation - why have a generic nickname when what you are paid for is to spread climate disinformation?
@nigelelsass I am paid to teach physics, not spread misinformation. Are you being paid to trade in carbon credits? The science behind CO2 causing global warming is incorrect.
@ItsTheSunStupid : There is no meaningful increase in solar radiation which would explain the warming of the last 40 years - your nickname is clearly to mislead !!!
@nigelelsass Obsessed with proving their hypothesis that CO2 was causing warming the IPCC ignored or diverted attention from the Sun. True they acknowledged that changes in irradiation explained half of temperature change up to 50 years ago, but now, through computer model manipulation, they claim CO2 explains some 90 percent.
@ItsTheSunStupid : WHEN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE RADIATIVE FORCING OCCURS AT SPECIFIC WAVELENGTH OF GHG WHOSE CONCENTRATIONS HAVE INCREASED FROM MAN-MADE ACTIVITY - IT IS NO LONGER AN HYPOTHESIS - Sorry the causation is established and measured.
No models here - only measurements of radiation at specific wavelength.
@nigelelsass They ignore the ugly fact that in all records temperature increases before CO2. They’ve ignored the Milankovitch Effect, changes in Sun/Earth relationships, and more recently, the CT that explains the relationship between sunspots and global temperature.
@ItsTheSunStupid Such a shame then, that there are numerous papers regarding the Suns effect on climate, and your opinion isnt really supported by all that many of them.
@ItsTheSunStupid In fact, since the sunspot cycle goes from maxima to minima and back over the course of 11 years, and there is no correlated 5.5 year rise and fall of temperature, I'd say that it's fairly clear that your hypothesis doesnt explain a warming trend lasting several decades.
@ItsTheSunStupid : We are NOT in a specific phase of a Milankovitch cycle which would lead to a fast warming.
The Sunspot is a stupid argument as it is only a very inaccurate way of measuring the solar output (which we measure in space and on earth very accuratrely) - we are currently experiencingn a low solar output and an unprecedented warming.
What you say about past cycles has NO RELEVANCE as none of the corresponding phonomenon are at play now,.
Finally, Roy Spencer is a CLIMATE SCEPTIC who understands perfectly a LAW that is understood by ALL scientists because to argue otherwise would make him look a blithering idiot...wouldn't it CO2 Pirate Pugwash?
The actual rate of infrared absorption by a layer depends upon that opacity AND the temperatures of the emitting layers above and below, but the rate of emission depends upon the the same opacity and the temperature of the layer itself. Therefore, the rate of infrared flows in and out of the layer do not have to be equal, and if they are not equal, the layer will either warm or cool radiatively.
Another way the objection is voiced is that a layer of the atmosphere that absorbs infrared energy at a certain rate must then also emit it at the same rate, so how can that layer “trap” any energy to warm? This misconception comes from a misunderstanding of Kirchoffs Law, which only says that the infrared opacity of a layer makes that layer’s ability to absorb and emit IR the same.
But what if the boiling hot jar was by all by itself? Then, it would have cooled even faster. Does that mean that the presence of the warm jar was sending energy into the hot jar? No, it was just reducing the rate of cooling of the hot jar. The climate system is like the hot jar having an internal heating mechanism (the sun warming the surface), but its ability to cool is reduced by its surroundings (the atmosphere), which tends to insulate it.
"Furthermore, we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating. Imagine you have a jar of boiling hot water right next to a jar of warm water sitting on the counter. The boiling hot jar will cool rapidly, while the warm jar will cool more slowly. Eventually, both jars will achieve the same temperature, just as the 2nd Law predicts."
"The Japanese satellite map shows regions colored the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.
By contrast the bulk of the regions colored red (so-called 'carbon polluters') were in undeveloped, densely-forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America."
Almost all of us that are for implementing carbon taxes on the fascists in the US, to stop global warming and begin the green great cooling cycle are communists. Comrade Simplex1, who you will find on almost every one of our bgs trying to save the planet has disappeared. Comrade Simplex1 used to discuss green revolutionary techniques using one of our favorite books The Handbook For Radicals, with some of my comrades. I hope comrade Simplex1 has not been jailed, or hospitalized.
He used one proxy dataset (Greenland) when testing holocene data. He has ignored the others which give different results.
That's shameful. The very concept of a scientist using one proxy data set to make a general statement is absolutely disgusting. I cannot believe that a person would have the gall to call themselves a scientist and engage in such dishonesty.
‘Studies of the Earth’s past climate tells us whenever co2 levels have risen, the planet has warmed. Since the beginning of the industrial age in the 19th century, co2 levels have increased from 280ppmto 380ppm…while many factors affect our planet’s climate. There is overwhelming evidence that co2 is the prime cause of the recent warming’
"Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends J Geophys Res, 112) found that the majority of U.S. stations surveyed did not meet WMO requirements for proper siting. The average warm bias for these inappropriately-sited stations exceeded 1°C, using the NWS's own criteria."
where the hell this idiot got the data, nobody colected data before 1800s... since the 1970 world is being warming up since that time i believe that i saw it with my eyes the data its spiking since the world had its first 5 billion ppl and mass car and fuel bruning started
I agree I think everyone that used to holiday in Portugal ought to stop going and stop burn fossil fuels getting there it will improve your country immensely also your beloved country can stop exporting too ( nasty diesel ) used in lorries ans trains, that way you can spend your time picking fleas out of your Donkeys ass instead of typing drivel on your oil produced computer ! ! ! is it a deal?
since 1970 mthat world climate isnt responding to natural process according to climate its rising when it should be going lower... each year its going up
since 1070 mthat world climate isnt responding to natural process according to climate its rising when it should be going lower... each year its going up
@JoeJohn90 Be careful with the statement "China is doing wonderous things in the name of green, but they are not responsible for global warming". I agree that China is looking to improve. One exmaple of this is under rev Kyoto. China is now the leading producer of CO2, according to satellite recorded data. I suspect you may be using old figures. The US is 2nd. A significant part of China is increased populace and industrial production (supplying the US/US buying from China) and others.
@Achuara And yet the oil industry contributes to global climate change everyday through CO2 and toxic emissions. I suspect that someday they will be cast down like tobacco companies profiting indirectly from global health and ecosystem degradation. Indeed it is in humanity's best interest.
A question that has perplexed me and challenged my belief that AGW is unprecedented.
.
If as I was taught by scientists that our planet is entering a warm phase never seen before by man how come there are human artifacts being found under the receding ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and also tools and human effects coming out under Glaciers that have receded?
.
I find this disturbing and goes against my faith ~ have I been mislead?
@c02Pirate2 "Try reading some of the scientific literature on the subject - brush up on your physics."
My physics is fine and I have access to many of the journals, and the the figures you quote come nowhere near replicating what the accepted view of the science suggests.
"Read what TOP scientists in the field say."
I have a better idea - read what they all say, not just those you agree with and believe to be the 'top' ones.
It is a matter of record - pull your head out of the sand and take a look at the real world.
Also keep an eye on the APS as their members quit in disgust at the APS's POLITICAL statement concerning AGW.
Again - if the evidence is so overwhelming then please enlighten us with it - then send it on to the IPCC, NOAA, NAS etc... After decades they've found NOTHING obviously they are not as smart as you.
@c02Pirate2 "then send it on to the IPCC, NOAA, NAS etc."
I actually agree with their interpretation of the data. You're the one who disagrees and therefore thinks he is smarter than their collective minds. Perhaps you should apply for a job there?
@c02Pirate2 "You would - but 50,000 don't and I think they would know a thing or two about the actual physical science"
Really? Citation required.
"But hey - I'm sure you are smarter than anyone in the APS right?"
THIS APS?
"The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming."
I don't need a citation - there is a signed open letter. If you did any research as all you would have known this.
As I said - keep an eye on the APS - as it continues to lose members, with all condemning its stance on AGW combined with eroding confidence - it will soon be forced to change.
The physics simply does NOT support the AGW hypothesis at all - and members KNOW it.
@c02Pirate2 "I'm sure you are smarter than anyone in the APS right?"
You mean THIS APS?
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." - APS Statement on climate change.
APS members are furious at the executive POLITICAL statements concerning AGW.
Over 160 members "TOP physicists and Nobel prize winners" have formal protested this obvious POLITICAL statement - while others have resigned or will not renew their membership.
Physicists and know full well how C02 and the atmosphere behave and KNOW it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to achieve what is being claimed "CAGW"
@c02Pirate2 We know that CO2 acts as a thermal insulator. We know that we are producing CO2 faster than it is consumed. Therefore, heat is accumulating in our biosphere. How can AGW not be occuring?
@PrairleDogged What's the relevance of your question? CO2 simply has insulative properties. It doesn't discriminate; It's all around us and fossil fuels are the leading human cause of excess.
@PrairleDogged This is neither a hypothesis nor my own hypothesis; but a scientific conclusion confirmed through testing and evaluation using scientific method. Go cherrypick more irrelevant info...
@PrairleDogged The fact that there is limited humidity in deserts leads to greater temperature swings has very little to do with CO2's role as a heat store. To confirm my findings of CO2 acting as a radiative re-emiter and insulator, all one would have to do is learn about radiative physics as relates to CO2.
@PrairLeDogged "So using your own reasoning if Earth had limited humidity then the effects of CO2 would be ???"
Effect of CO2 would be exactly the same. The greenhouse effect of H2O vapour would be greatly reduced however. Why ask such a hypothetical question? Planning on trying to absorb all the atmospheric water vapour? Good luck with that. The global level remains relatively constant over longer periods.
@c02Pirate2 I graduated Environmental Studies with Honors. My research has evaluated claims according to their weight, authoritativeness and perceived academic accuracy. I trust them and you're just wrong. Perhaps paid by oil companies, perhaps just uneducated and projecting your lack of reasonable research onto me. How much do you sell your soul for?
This has been flagged as spam show
‘It could be much more difficult than we thought to feed everyone in a warmer world. Satellite images of northern India have revealed that extreme temperatures are cutting wheat yields. What's more, models used to predict the effects of global warming on food supply may have underestimated the problem by a third’
ww w.newscientist.c om/article/dn21399-wheat-will-age-prematurely-in-a-warmer-world.html
blackadderthe4 2 days ago
"that's a penguin."
zieben64 1 week ago
9:00 The mini editorial on SBS and the ABC is a window into the mind of this clown. Carter's science hat keeps falling off.
Atheeizm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
LordMonckton78 3 weeks ago
‘Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics…by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax…according to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare [reality] being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions…policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change’
w ww.prisonplanet.c om/oil-companies-support-global-warming-alarmists-not-skeptics.html
blackadderthe4 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Scientists warn on damage to peatlands
.
Scientists have warned that damaged UK peatlands – areas formed over thousands of years from dead and decaying plants in waterlogged conditions – are a significant source of carbon dioxide.
.
London Financial Times, United Kingdom
5 January 2012
Nightversionn 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(please read article before the denier TROLL with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Climate change is here
.
Three eminent universities, in a 460-page report to the state Energy Research and Development Authority last week, pretty much stated the obvious. They said New York state’s climate is changing.
.
Catskill Daily Mail, New York
Editorial, 4 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 month ago
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 1 month ago
This is great news! Whew! What a relief. So, Bob Carter knows of a hidden mechanism that no scientist on Earth knows. Now, his next step is to write a paper on the subject and send it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal and tell them about it. It is his civic duty to the world. What the hell is he waiting for?!
Desertphile 1 month ago
@Desertphile
A paper like this one?
.
Natural Science, Vol.3 No.12, December 2011
Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact
by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
@PrairleDogged ; "A paper like this one?"
I do not know: I have not read that paper yet. But there are over 130,000 peer reviewed science papers published in science journals just about the effects of atmospheric CO2 on climate, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere listed in the Word of Knowledge Science Index. If Bob Carter wants to be taken seriously by scientists, he has to start doing science, not prostitution.
Desertphile 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Embarrassed Warmist ~ GIORGI FILIPPO
He contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports ~
.
"I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) I feel that at this point there are very little rules ~ almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(please read article before the denier TROLL censors it)..
.
'Venice of Northwest Alaska' sinking because of climate change
.
The permafrost has sunk so much in one Northwest Alaska village that bridges are shifting, outdoor stairways hang over the ground and sagging water pipes are prone to break and freeze. Those are a few of the ways climate change is affecting life in the Inupiat village of Selawik.
.
Anchorage Alaska Dispatch
3 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 month ago
@Nightversionn
And see this evidence!
watch?v=lm81FJa4D-A
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Thank you for the video "The dangers of increasing the melting of permafrost."
I will listen to it in its entirety right now.
Nightversionn 1 month ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 1 month ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 1 month ago
you are right ..but...they have changed the goal posts now and callled it climate change, the bast**ds are always one step ahead of us sceptics.
so you need to remake the vid to counter that.
its all one big global money making pile of cr*ap
metalworker007 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canada pulling out of Kyoto.
"The decision to withdraw from Kyoto, Kent said, would save Canada $ 14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. "To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada," Kent said."
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
Carter jokes that the polar bear should have died out several times in the past due to climatic change, using the Vostok timeline, pointing to the times 415,000 years ago, 328,000 years ago, and 256,000 years ago.
If he bothered to take the issue even remotely seriously seriously he would have discovered that polar bears only polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 150,000 years ago.
levlafayette 1 month ago
@levlafayette
'roughly 150,000 years ago' thumbs up!
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@levlafayette Exactly. Thank you for pointing that out.
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would say no it's (CO2) not. If you want to read an alternative view to AGW that is pragmatic, unbiased and easily testable, then Google Solarchords com, take some time to seriously study the info and I defy anyone to pick holes in it, it's a unique discovery, with detailed climate forecasts for the coming decades.
howardsway782 1 month ago
@howardsway782 : Well as you see some skeptics are so desperate that they now mention geothermal energy as a source of temperature increase. Amusingly, the geothermal energy transferred to the surface would have to have increased just with the start of the industrial revolution. Additionally, as it´s only 0.5% of the contribution of surface temperatures, the increase would need to be incredibly high to be able to add that amount of energy... I am amused.
nigelelsass 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BBC progamme about GW effects on the ice at the poles
w ww.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zj39j/Frozen_Planet_On_Thin_Ice/
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
‘Like a game of scientific whack-a-mole, some arguments against climate change just keep bouncing back - no matter how many times researchers disprove them. One is the long-standing claim that "global warming stopped in 1998", and that since then the Earth has stayed at the same temperature, or even cooled…a new analysis confirms that global warming actually shows no sign of slowing down.’
w ww.newscientist.c om/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/12/no-global-warming-hasnt-stoppe.html
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
What is the AGW argument against this?
Devious2323 2 months ago
@Devious2323 Nobody has empirically proved AGW. There are no human generated triggers in reality. CO2 is not warming the air, proven by the lack of tropo heating. Warmer air ( +1C per 100 yr's) cannot heat the sea's or the land effectively.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws
2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures has become synonymous with "dangerous climate change". Lobbyists haggle over it, scientists build models around it and Greens wring their hands. So it is dispiriting to learn, with the next round of UN negotiations under way in Durban, South Africa, that many climatologists feel it is a target we are almost certain to miss’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228412.900-durban-summit-must-accept-degrees-of-responsibility.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 +1C temperature increase in 100 years. There is no sign of acceleration and it is a fact that adding more CO2 does not increase heating linearly. The first 60ppm does half the work against another 800(?) ppm to double that.
Anyway, piss off you for throwing a hissy fit and blocking me on your unwatched channel. Killed any more vegetation with CO2 yet?
Always Newscientist, bbc, agw ideologues, etc. I wonder why. lol
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws
'adding more CO2 does not increase heating linearly' links to info please!
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, …” ~ “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
Phil Jones UEA CRU ~ doing the right thing in a scientific manner *o)
.
"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
This guy is great at telling his audience half the story & then enthusing them about how "therefore" man-made climate change isn't real. Not good enough. That's a failure to communicate the science fairly, and presumably before an audience of largely scientifically illiterate people who went there to be told MMGW is a myth. Thats why he has them laughing so easily. People familiar with the science wouldn't stand for his incomplete story.
LukeScientiae 2 months ago
Comment removed
LukeScientiae 2 months ago
The cooling he's talking about would have continued but for CO2 emissions; it's explained by Milankovic cycles and other natural phenomena, which human contributions have over-ridden. We know that because of what he omits from his presentation: the CO2-temp causal link. For a long time temp led CO2 at times, now that's no longer true. It's the other way round. /watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU. The last 8 years of stable temp is correlated with sulfate emissions. See PNAS, 2011: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108
LukeScientiae 2 months ago
"CO2 is not a pollutant." Err... yes it is. It's acidifying the oceans and causing the degradation of biodiversity, including the death of coral reefs and many other species. See /watch?v=evfgbVjb688 and /watch?v=kQMZfCKuFIQ
LukeScientiae 2 months ago
Comment removed
LukeScientiae 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study See BBC news 21/10/2011 The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone heard of the latest? Climategate 2.0.Yes that's right the second round of climate gate emails just released,simply google:-Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!
2wheels88 2 months ago
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
― Richard P. Feynman
ferrett78 2 months ago
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
m1aws 2 months ago
"An IPCC draft is testing the ground. What excuses can they get away with? Hidden underneath some pat lines of how anthropogenic global warming is “likely” to influence ah cold days and warm days, is the get-out-of-jail clause that’s really a bombshell"
.
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
.
Run *o)
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
Lets put CO2 into perspective.
Man is responsible for 3% of it, all agree.
It affects two bands of IR radiation occupying around 7% of the 5250C black body bandwidth and one of those bands is totally wiped out by water vapour absorption.
The Total absorption in the affected band is 50%.
So man's contribution to GW is: 0.5*0.03*0.07= 1.28625e-06
Now lets multiply this number to the average Earth temperature against free space temp and that is the man made component of global warming.
Ok kids?
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws "It affects two bands of IR radiation occupying around 7% of the 5250C black body bandwidth"
Care to let us know why you chose the (incoming) blackbody radiation from the Sun, instead of the outgoing IR radiation from the Earth? Last I checked, the surface temperature of the Earth wasnt 5250 degrees C.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ferrett78 Because the amplitude of the outgoing radiation is such a tiny fraction of what is already meaningless. Whats more There are several sources for these graphs. One is the real empirical one as one measures and the other is another climate change lie graph.
Sure, please add -10db (1/10) to nigh on zero and you still get a pathetically small number. I just didn't want to rub more salt into the wound unless someone asked, lol.
m1aws 2 months ago
@ferrett78 The blackbody temp is 5250K and the reflected blackbody (back into space) temp is approx 245K. Yes, sorry, in Kelvin. And its actually <5% multiplied by the absorption number.
Sorry. Its even smaller.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws So you admit that blackbody radiation of Earth is some -30 degrees Celcius. Since the average surface temperature is somewhat warmer, one might assume that there are some other processes keeping the planet warmer than mere blackbody radiation.
By the way, your figures are a little out. The temperature of the Sun is 5778K and the Earth is closer to -18 C as a blackbody.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ferrett78 Blackbody absorption less blackbody radiation gives the average air/Earth temp. Its doing real fine right now kiddo.
Its no good arguing over two ways to say the same thing.
I'm bloody happy no amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere will make much difference. Not that we can, we're half way through the Earth's resources and only the hard to get and expensive stuff is left. Hence the wars.
God save us from clear dry skies and global cooling!
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : No, not ok... there are errors in what you state - starting from the 3% (man-made GHG emissions increased CO2 concentrations by over 30%).
And changes in radiative forcing over the years strongly disagree with your calculation wrong. You´ll find them here: esrl.noaa(dot)gov/gmd/aggi/
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass So what if it is 30%? Still not enough.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws: It is measures - I can give you the link with the precise measurement of the increased radiative forcing (change in the difference of radiative input and output) and there is a clear increase. This increase is NOT RANDOM but only occurs at specific wavelength of man-mad greenhouse gases. End of the story. It is measured and is in the range of several W/m2.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass Several W/m^2 do not global warming make. We're already losing that figure with the Sun being too quiet on trend. Learn the Solar cycles.
6 out of 7 datasets argue the fact there is no tropo heating from CO2. What could be more clear?
The fact that its a specific frequency (for CO2) is not enough to heat the atmosphere. It's 3.5%. The models don't work. In reverse (Jones).
It's all a fraud. Proof:
fascistsoup files wordpress com/2009/11/mk81132 jpg
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : Sorry - several W/m2 do make for AGW - you are a LIAR as the figure is not decreasing.... and a double LIAR as no current solar phenomenon explains it.... NO ACTUALLY CORRECT ME - you are an idiot as you do not understand the difference between TSI and radiative forcing.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass You are calling every single Solar physicist a liar, not me. Why don't you check the data before squealing like an impaled pig.
I've read most of them and NON GIVE EMPIRICAL PROOF OF AGW. Only GW (Badly). Explain the likes of Jones and Wang being proven wrong and why do you insist on old, superseded data. They are all ideologues, not scientists.
Go check the Solar facts before you squeal "we're doomed" 3.5% CO2 absorption against H2O's what, 30%?
Links below.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : Oh yeah papers in the WSJ journals are "scientific" and those found on "elsevier" are "ideology driven"..... yeah.... only with stupid enough Americans... only with stupid enough Americans
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass Racism aside. I'm not US.
Hansen et al are proven bigots. Hansen know's Venus' 1 atmos, 25C and 0.7AU while surrounded by CO2 fact. Arses his CO2 theory.
Plenty of Nobel prize winners with their rejected Nobel prize papers.
Google: "Three myths about scientific peer review".
The link I gave you from Abdussamatov has papers and his experiments are on the ISS. Yet you my clever arsed darling without a mind of your own are a nobody backing a theory that has no bearing on reality.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : Can you exactly count the number of papers proving causation of AGW by Hansen???? ZERO...
(1) it is stupid to attack the messenger to kill the message
(2) it is even more stupid to shoot on the wrong messenger when you do not have a clue.
Please provide the names of the many "nobel prize winners" - Abdussamatov denies a principle established since John Tyndall - so around 150 years of physics - just so you know - also nobody observed the increase in TSI he needs for his theory !!!!
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass
(1) It is stupid for a man to make assertion built on a belief in any scientific paper.
(2) If I have no clue then argue amongst yourself because the Sun shines and sadly, its only the light bands you think are the only player.
Sad really, knowing the sheer number of papers are on the 'net giving the Solar cycles through the ages. All showing GW & GC. Too many for a u'tube list! Firstly, try just about every astronomer, astrophysicist. Start with the Russian papers.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : You know what is more stupid? Beliefs based on a single russian astrophysicist who disagrees with 98% of scientists... but as you mentioned - science doesn´t matter anymore - maybe for you.
Do you also trust the contrarians who deny the link between cancer and smoking or HIV and AIDS??? Because that is really what you are doing - relying on a handful of contrarians just because it fits your own little view.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass "Case closed" by many politically motivated "scientists". Always proved wrong. Still no empirical proof the absorption of 3.5% of a light band can that will warm the Earth up when there is so much empirical proof otherwise. It's politics, get over it.
What 98%? The ipcc named thousands of names who wanted to be off the list. Many threatened legal action.
How many dentists in the USA stated smoking is good for your teeth. Same with Fluoride. Who'd sign away their job?
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : I could shove the publications and statistics in your anus - you would still deny they exist. You are a "case".
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass With you utterly unable to answer the poseurs I set before you. I'll carry on assuming these papers you dearly hang onto are worthless. Unlike the carbon cycle. I'm sick of coming across peer reviewed papers that are proven wrong, or plain funded for the great Ponzi cap 'n trade carbon tax scam.
Just watching a cracking documentary "DRAIN THE OCEAN". And you worry about man's puny CO2 footprint. You idiot.
If you seriously believe in AGW, kill your kids and bury yourself.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws "If you seriously believe in AGW, kill your kids and bury yourself."
Or better yet, educate those who have been deceived by politically motivated vested interest groups and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, especially given the numerous other benefits a change to clean energy infrastructure would confer.
Seems a much more reasonable response than the one you suggest.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ferrett78 No, save the planet. Kill yourself!
It's the ipcc that is politically funded. The "scientists" are all selected Ideologues. Cap and trade is what the bankers want. Read Pachauri's bio. The power companies are all rubbing their hands in glee because they can raise the prices and invest in alternative energies, paid via taxpayer. And war!
My house has glazed walls. I've vacuum tube solar heating and an electric car. You have what?
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws "No, save the planet. Kill yourself!"
Please, continue this line of argument. Not only does it not address the science of climate change at all, but it gives a fairly good indication of your mental processes. Perhaps it will open someones eyes to just how deluded you and your ilk are.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ferrett78 No, seriously! According to you, people are the cause of climate warming so there can only be one cure. I'm not happy with the size of the World pop. either.
The "science" as you say it is not complete. You haven't an inkling what powers the tectonic plates still moving the crust around even after 4.5 Bn years. You cannot put that to "solar forcing". Yet the same energy has warmed the Earth and sea provides CO2. (18x more more volume).
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws "According to you, people are the cause of climate warming so there can only be one cure."
What a ridiculous argument. You cant think of a single alternative? Like, oh, I dunno, reducing industrial CO2 output?
"You haven't an inkling what powers the tectonic plates"
Convection currents in the asthenosphere.
"Yet the same energy has warmed the Earth and sea provides CO2."
Human CO2 emissions are 100x that of volcanic activity - which BTW inputs vastly less energy into climate than the Sun
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ferrett78 You think asthenospheric convection work without losing heat and for the past 4.5Bn years do you?
You're saying if there's no people Industry will carry on? You need help.
The longest active Volcanic chain Is through the full length of the Atlantic but is only a seventh as active as the Pacific plates. There is very little above the sea line. And you say man-made CO2 is 100x more. Yet the sea has 18x more CO2.
See MODIS on CH4. Sea surface= CH4
/watch?v=sgDM6m0lUGY
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws "You think asthenospheric convection work without losing heat and for the past 4.5Bn years do you?"
Did I say that? No. You asked what drives tectonic plates and I answered. I also specifically said that it DOES lose heat since I mentioned that the amount is far less than solar irradiance.
"You're saying if there's no people Industry will carry on?"
Again, no. Im beginning to think you have issues with reading. Or perhaps just making straw man arguments out of everything.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@m1aws "And you say man-made CO2 is 100x more."
No, scientific estimates and the USGS provide figures which demonstrate it.
"Yet the sea has 18x more CO2."
Than what?
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ferrett78 Than air at sea level.
Do yourself a schoolboy experiment. Heat up some water and measure the out gassing.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws ...and that is supposed to demonstrate what exactly?
ferrett78 1 month ago
@m1aws : Then why did your volcanoes decide to wait for the industrial revolution to increase concentrations??? oh wait - can it be you are again trying to SPREAD MISINFORMATION? See I do not believe you are that stupid - yet I believe you are that evil.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass The rise in CO2 follows the rise in Earth temperature. Just a short Solar cycle. Get over it.
Stop looking stupid to everyone on here.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : You play AS IF you were not to understand the difference between outright spreading lies and confusing - yet this is what you do....
So no, these scientists like Lindzen (who you probably quote) or Seitz have not lied - but have made sure their research was not conclusive - and pretended they needed more time (and funding - part of which was from the tobacco industry) to come a conclusion their colleagues had already reached.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass You are having issues with reality. The IPCC constantly requires more funding or their funding would of ceased. You simply cannot win this one! There is always funding "In lieu of GW". It's politics and you are their political butt monkey.
Ahh! smokers fund them! Before it was oil, lol, then before it was bankers. Never the Gov't.
Pity so few AGW papers are independently reviewed. Always by their buddies, Not noticed? That's why they are so inaccurate come the day or real proof.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : MORE OR LESS FUNDING DOES NOT MATTER - the fact is, the evidence from satellite measurements from man-made warming is in
OHHHH I SEE !!! It´s so bad papers are not reviewed by street idiots like you but instead get reviewed by people who have a PhD in physics... hey smartass - what are you waiting for to get your PhD in physics if there is so much money and and you could "disprove AGW" ??? Genius
nigelelsass 1 month ago
@nigelelsass Funding matters if its your side of the argument. Who to believe when the data is constantly "adjusted".
Here's the irony. I've ridiculed many "scientists" over decades and not been wrong yet. Get over it.
You are utterly unable to prove AGW is GW. Your own graphs prove this. I'm still waiting for this empirical proof to show Venus and Mar's temps are all wrong. The yearly CO2 cycle is man-made and why our weather patterns over the centuries follow the Sun's weather.
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws : You are slightly retarded my dear. Yes AGW is proven by the spectral absorption analysis... and you can repeat the experiment you will still find the same. Einstein has a quote for you: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
nigelelsass 1 month ago
@nigelelsass Not as retarded as any warmist, lol
I know all about spectral absorption analysis. Proves its not made made and adding more does not heat the air enough to have any effect. NEXT!
It is you who is going around in circles.
m1aws 1 month ago
@nigelelsass The first 60ppm of CO2 does half the possible absorption in the air. Converting the Earths atmosphere to 100% will double that 60ppm level. So explain to all and sundry what increase are you talking about that is constantly (historically) upping the Earths temperature?
Note the Oceans are up to 7 miles deep and the Earth, well the core is still 6,500C and shows no sign of cooling no matter the plate tectonics etc. heat loss which confounds your simpleton AGW non-science.
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws : FRAUD ALERT: when somebody mentions geothermal energy - which is quite constant over time - and merely accounts for 0.5% of surface temperature - you know an attempt at misleading is underway
nigelelsass 1 month ago
@m1aws : FRAUD ALERT: Converting the Earths atmosphere to 100% will double that 60ppm level.
=> Genius, do you even know what a PPM (Part Per Million) is ????????????????
nigelelsass 1 month ago
@nigelelsass Yes, it does not have a half age and I will repeat to you, you deny all knowledge of its power source. You people are in total denial of the sheer amount of underwater volcanism that is shifting the plates 7 inches plus a year. How many horsepower is it?
yes, 60ppm does half the co2 warming possible. No genius you does not know the effect of CO2 is logarithmic? You need to read more. Try for education.
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws : You rather come up with SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that this source of energy INCREASED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION... I am really amused at your assumption (you also need to come up with evidence that the increased radiative forcing is not what is causing warming - 2 challenges for you)
PS: if you use logarithms, please express yourself in a clearer manner as I do not know anybody who would understand you.
nigelelsass 1 month ago
@nigelelsass
5111 Pollack:
"But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland."
Can you understand code? Climategate source code: /watch?v=Gp4sMasX-_8
Besides all that. Where is your empirical proof it is man made heating?
Google:
"Measure temporary variations of shape and diameter of the Sun, as well as fine structure and dynamics of the granulation on the Service module of the Russian segment of the International Space Station"
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws : How is this an invalidation of the causation... wait... it is NOT.
My empirical proof is the increase in radiative forcing as demonstrated by (Harries, 2001) (Griggs, 2004) (Chen, 2007) (Wang, 2009) (Philipona, 2004) and (Evans, 2006)... just as you requested. Sorry I do not rely on "copy paste" or "youtube videos" as evidence but use instead real scientific research papers.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@m1aws : You are WRONG as the earth would have otherwise for OBVIOUS reasons the same average temperature as the moon provided the distance is the same. FAIL again.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass The average temperature of Space near the Earth orbit is approx 0C. I am absolutely spot on. Your last statement carried no facts so how can you simply state I'm wrong by simply stating I'm wrong.
You said "You cant think of a single alternative? Like, oh, I dunno, reducing industrial CO2 output?" To remove that you need to remove people.
There is no other way. So de facto you want people to die from lack of resources and cold.
m1aws 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beware the ides of March!
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
CT=Cosmic Theory
ItsTheSunStupid 2 months ago
Global warming is nothing to do with the last 10,000 years, nor the last 700 years. It is all about the last 200 years or so, especially the last 50. He is deliberately obfuscating with the temperature graphs. It is also bizarre that he thinks that scientists haven't calculated the statistical significance of any line fit to the last 100 years of temperature.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago 2
Human Global Warming wasn't an issue in the 13th Century. Human Global Warming wasn't an issue in the Bronze Age. Human Global Warming wasn't an issue during the Holocene Maximum and the time of the Great Flood. Human Global Warming is not an issue now.
ItsTheSunStupid 2 months ago
@ItsTheSunStupid
"Human Global Warming" in the 13th century ?
"Human global warming" in the bronze age ?
"Human" global warming in the Holocene ?
"Human" global warming during the "Great Flood" ?
I guess they must have had better coal fired power stations back then ...
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago 2
@ItsTheSunStupid : "itsthesun-only for stupids" the nickname says it all - and shows a purpose - oriented profile for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation - why have a generic nickname when what you are paid for is to spread climate disinformation?
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass I am paid to teach physics, not spread misinformation. Are you being paid to trade in carbon credits? The science behind CO2 causing global warming is incorrect.
ItsTheSunStupid 2 months ago
@ItsTheSunStupid : There is no meaningful increase in solar radiation which would explain the warming of the last 40 years - your nickname is clearly to mislead !!!
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass Obsessed with proving their hypothesis that CO2 was causing warming the IPCC ignored or diverted attention from the Sun. True they acknowledged that changes in irradiation explained half of temperature change up to 50 years ago, but now, through computer model manipulation, they claim CO2 explains some 90 percent.
ItsTheSunStupid 2 months ago
@ItsTheSunStupid : WHEN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE RADIATIVE FORCING OCCURS AT SPECIFIC WAVELENGTH OF GHG WHOSE CONCENTRATIONS HAVE INCREASED FROM MAN-MADE ACTIVITY - IT IS NO LONGER AN HYPOTHESIS - Sorry the causation is established and measured.
No models here - only measurements of radiation at specific wavelength.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@nigelelsass They ignore the ugly fact that in all records temperature increases before CO2. They’ve ignored the Milankovitch Effect, changes in Sun/Earth relationships, and more recently, the CT that explains the relationship between sunspots and global temperature.
ItsTheSunStupid 2 months ago
@ItsTheSunStupid Such a shame then, that there are numerous papers regarding the Suns effect on climate, and your opinion isnt really supported by all that many of them.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ItsTheSunStupid In fact, since the sunspot cycle goes from maxima to minima and back over the course of 11 years, and there is no correlated 5.5 year rise and fall of temperature, I'd say that it's fairly clear that your hypothesis doesnt explain a warming trend lasting several decades.
ferrett78 2 months ago
@ItsTheSunStupid : We are NOT in a specific phase of a Milankovitch cycle which would lead to a fast warming.
The Sunspot is a stupid argument as it is only a very inaccurate way of measuring the solar output (which we measure in space and on earth very accuratrely) - we are currently experiencingn a low solar output and an unprecedented warming.
What you say about past cycles has NO RELEVANCE as none of the corresponding phonomenon are at play now,.
nigelelsass 2 months ago
@ItsTheSunStupid "I am paid to teach physics, not spread misinformation."
So you spread misinformation for free then?
ferrett78 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Finally, Roy Spencer is a CLIMATE SCEPTIC who understands perfectly a LAW that is understood by ALL scientists because to argue otherwise would make him look a blithering idiot...wouldn't it CO2 Pirate Pugwash?
TheElasticJesusRez 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Roy Spencer on 2nd LAW - 4
The actual rate of infrared absorption by a layer depends upon that opacity AND the temperatures of the emitting layers above and below, but the rate of emission depends upon the the same opacity and the temperature of the layer itself. Therefore, the rate of infrared flows in and out of the layer do not have to be equal, and if they are not equal, the layer will either warm or cool radiatively.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Roy Spencer on 2nd LAW - 3
Another way the objection is voiced is that a layer of the atmosphere that absorbs infrared energy at a certain rate must then also emit it at the same rate, so how can that layer “trap” any energy to warm? This misconception comes from a misunderstanding of Kirchoffs Law, which only says that the infrared opacity of a layer makes that layer’s ability to absorb and emit IR the same.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Roy Spencer on 2nd LAW - 2
But what if the boiling hot jar was by all by itself? Then, it would have cooled even faster. Does that mean that the presence of the warm jar was sending energy into the hot jar? No, it was just reducing the rate of cooling of the hot jar. The climate system is like the hot jar having an internal heating mechanism (the sun warming the surface), but its ability to cool is reduced by its surroundings (the atmosphere), which tends to insulate it.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Roy Spencer on 2nd LAW - 1
"Furthermore, we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating. Imagine you have a jar of boiling hot water right next to a jar of warm water sitting on the counter. The boiling hot jar will cool rapidly, while the warm jar will cool more slowly. Eventually, both jars will achieve the same temperature, just as the 2nd Law predicts."
TheElasticJesusRez 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IBUKU satellite destroys AGW Oops ~
"The Japanese satellite map shows regions colored the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.
By contrast the bulk of the regions colored red (so-called 'carbon polluters') were in undeveloped, densely-forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America."
PrairleDogged 3 months ago
Almost all of us that are for implementing carbon taxes on the fascists in the US, to stop global warming and begin the green great cooling cycle are communists. Comrade Simplex1, who you will find on almost every one of our bgs trying to save the planet has disappeared. Comrade Simplex1 used to discuss green revolutionary techniques using one of our favorite books The Handbook For Radicals, with some of my comrades. I hope comrade Simplex1 has not been jailed, or hospitalized.
JoeJohn90 3 months ago
He used one proxy dataset (Greenland) when testing holocene data. He has ignored the others which give different results.
That's shameful. The very concept of a scientist using one proxy data set to make a general statement is absolutely disgusting. I cannot believe that a person would have the gall to call themselves a scientist and engage in such dishonesty.
levlafayette 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Studies of the Earth’s past climate tells us whenever co2 levels have risen, the planet has warmed. Since the beginning of the industrial age in the 19th century, co2 levels have increased from 280ppmto 380ppm…while many factors affect our planet’s climate. There is overwhelming evidence that co2 is the prime cause of the recent warming’
NewScientist
Volume 212
No 2835
Page 37
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we were told the science was settled blah blah, but apparently not ,
"much work remains to be done to prove the link between humans and climate change"
Bishop's gets $2 million in research grants
hang on, so no proof as yet!!!
laurelbush 3 months ago
Comment removed
laurelbush 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends J Geophys Res, 112) found that the majority of U.S. stations surveyed did not meet WMO requirements for proper siting. The average warm bias for these inappropriately-sited stations exceeded 1°C, using the NWS's own criteria."
OMG ~ Oops
PrairleDogged 3 months ago
Comment removed
PrairieDogged 3 months ago
where the hell this idiot got the data, nobody colected data before 1800s... since the 1970 world is being warming up since that time i believe that i saw it with my eyes the data its spiking since the world had its first 5 billion ppl and mass car and fuel bruning started
ukusapillage 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ukusapillage
I agree I think everyone that used to holiday in Portugal ought to stop going and stop burn fossil fuels getting there it will improve your country immensely also your beloved country can stop exporting too ( nasty diesel ) used in lorries ans trains, that way you can spend your time picking fleas out of your Donkeys ass instead of typing drivel on your oil produced computer ! ! ! is it a deal?
NarkMobes 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
since 1970 mthat world climate isnt responding to natural process according to climate its rising when it should be going lower... each year its going up
ukusapillage 3 months ago
since 1070 mthat world climate isnt responding to natural process according to climate its rising when it should be going lower... each year its going up
ukusapillage 3 months ago
@JoeJohn90 Be careful with the statement "China is doing wonderous things in the name of green, but they are not responsible for global warming". I agree that China is looking to improve. One exmaple of this is under rev Kyoto. China is now the leading producer of CO2, according to satellite recorded data. I suspect you may be using old figures. The US is 2nd. A significant part of China is increased populace and industrial production (supplying the US/US buying from China) and others.
donsjuand 4 months ago
@PrairleDogged Sounds like you've read a book called how to lie with statistics...nice cherrypicking you turd.
donsjuand 4 months ago
@Achuara And yet the oil industry contributes to global climate change everyday through CO2 and toxic emissions. I suspect that someday they will be cast down like tobacco companies profiting indirectly from global health and ecosystem degradation. Indeed it is in humanity's best interest.
donsjuand 4 months ago
Reuters: Arctic ice melting faster than predicted
w ww.reuters.c om/video/2011/09/14/arctic-sea-ice-melting-faster-than-pr...
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
He has a British accent. Hes a lier and a fraud.
saucyjackattak 4 months ago
@saucyjackattak You would be thinking of Monckton I think.
ferrett78 4 months ago
@saucyjackattak How is your comment not racist drivel?
donsjuand 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question that has perplexed me and challenged my belief that AGW is unprecedented.
.
If as I was taught by scientists that our planet is entering a warm phase never seen before by man how come there are human artifacts being found under the receding ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and also tools and human effects coming out under Glaciers that have receded?
.
I find this disturbing and goes against my faith ~ have I been mislead?
PrairleDogged 4 months ago
Comment removed
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
Timeline: Climate Change
w w w.newscientist. c o m /article/dn9912-timeline-climate-change.html
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
How many of those papers were peer reviewed?
friedie1jeff 4 months ago
@ferrett78 - "Where do you drag up ANY of these figures from?"
(late reply i know)
Try reading some of the scientific literature on the subject - brush up on your physics.
Read what TOP scientists in the field say.
Ignore MORONS like Al Gore and ALL activists - they have an agenda and misrepresent the science.
The numbers I quote come from what is known about the composition of the atmosphere.
Do the math - see if you come up with anything different - the number don't lie - people do.
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "Try reading some of the scientific literature on the subject - brush up on your physics."
My physics is fine and I have access to many of the journals, and the the figures you quote come nowhere near replicating what the accepted view of the science suggests.
"Read what TOP scientists in the field say."
I have a better idea - read what they all say, not just those you agree with and believe to be the 'top' ones.
ferrett78 4 months ago
@ferrett78 - "accepted view of the science suggests."
This is NOT science.
Science is based ENTIRELY on empirical methods. Without evidence science can not exist.
It matters NOT what prevailing opinions are or bogus consensus's - it only matters what can be shown valid via scientific methods.
To this day there is not one shred of credible empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.
Why do two of the greatest living physicists on the planet today refute AGW as most physicists do?
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "To this day there is not one shred of credible empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis."
...in your opinion.
"Why do two of the greatest living physicists on the planet today"
...in your opinion...
"refute AGW as most physicists do?"
Citation required.
"It matters NOT what prevailing opinions are"
You said it. So why fill your comment with them instead of evidence?
ferrett78 4 months ago
@ferrett78 - "in your opinion."
NO - THIS IS NOT MY OPINION.
It is a matter of record - pull your head out of the sand and take a look at the real world.
Also keep an eye on the APS as their members quit in disgust at the APS's POLITICAL statement concerning AGW.
Again - if the evidence is so overwhelming then please enlighten us with it - then send it on to the IPCC, NOAA, NAS etc... After decades they've found NOTHING obviously they are not as smart as you.
Do your research....
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "NO - THIS IS NOT MY OPINION."
Well, I dont see you presenting any evidence to back it up.
"After decades they've found NOTHING"
...In your opinion. Though you obviously dont check journals much, do you? Either that or you rely on blogs to do the interpretation for you.
"Do your research...."
Unlike you, I actually have - and it generally doesnt include blog sites.
So, why dont you name these two greatest living physicists? Im curious as to who they are - in your opinion.
ferrett78 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@c02Pirate2 "NO - THIS IS NOT MY OPINION"
Well, I dont see you presenting any evidence to back it up.
"After decades they've found NOTHING"
...In your opinion. Though you obviously dont check journals much, do you? Either that or you rely on blogs to do the interpretation for you.
"Do your research"
Unlike you, I actually have - and it generally doesnt include blog sites.
So, why dont you name these two greatest living physicists? Im curious as to who they are - in your opinion.
ferrett78 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "then send it on to the IPCC, NOAA, NAS etc."
I actually agree with their interpretation of the data. You're the one who disagrees and therefore thinks he is smarter than their collective minds. Perhaps you should apply for a job there?
ferrett78 4 months ago
Comment removed
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
Comment removed
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "You would - but 50,000 don't and I think they would know a thing or two about the actual physical science"
Really? Citation required.
"But hey - I'm sure you are smarter than anyone in the APS right?"
THIS APS?
"The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming."
Seems I agree with them too.
ferrett78 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "You would - but 50,000 don't and I think they would know a thing or two about the actual physical science"
Really? Citation required.
ferrett78 4 months ago
@ferrett78 - "Really? Citation required."
Citation required for what?
I was talking about the APS and its members.
I don't need a citation - there is a signed open letter. If you did any research as all you would have known this.
As I said - keep an eye on the APS - as it continues to lose members, with all condemning its stance on AGW combined with eroding confidence - it will soon be forced to change.
The physics simply does NOT support the AGW hypothesis at all - and members KNOW it.
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "The physics simply does NOT support the AGW hypothesis at all - and members KNOW it."
Oh? How so? Enlighten us as to how the physics doesn't support the hypothesis.
Also, I note that the open letter does not actually support your claim that the physicists believe the AGW hypothesis is incorrect.
Finally, 160 members protested out of a membership of 47,000? That's less than half a percent. I'd hardly say that supports your claim either ;-)
ferrett78 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "I'm sure you are smarter than anyone in the APS right?"
You mean THIS APS?
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." - APS Statement on climate change.
ferrett78 4 months ago
@ferrett78
What world to you live in?
APS members are furious at the executive POLITICAL statements concerning AGW.
Over 160 members "TOP physicists and Nobel prize winners" have formal protested this obvious POLITICAL statement - while others have resigned or will not renew their membership.
Physicists and know full well how C02 and the atmosphere behave and KNOW it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to achieve what is being claimed "CAGW"
It is POLITICAL statement - NOT scientific.
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 We know that CO2 acts as a thermal insulator. We know that we are producing CO2 faster than it is consumed. Therefore, heat is accumulating in our biosphere. How can AGW not be occuring?
donsjuand 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donsjuand
Does the "CO2 thermal insulator" not work in deserts?
PrairleDogged 4 months ago
@PrairleDogged What's the relevance of your question? CO2 simply has insulative properties. It doesn't discriminate; It's all around us and fossil fuels are the leading human cause of excess.
donsjuand 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donsjuand
If CO2 does not discriminate why do deserts drop to near zero overnight when daytime temperatures are so high?
If your hypothesis were correct then night temperatures would remain high surely?
Get yourself educated by someone who is a little more clued up.
PrairleDogged 4 months ago
@PrairleDogged This is neither a hypothesis nor my own hypothesis; but a scientific conclusion confirmed through testing and evaluation using scientific method. Go cherrypick more irrelevant info...
donsjuand 4 months ago
@PrairleDogged The fact that there is limited humidity in deserts leads to greater temperature swings has very little to do with CO2's role as a heat store. To confirm my findings of CO2 acting as a radiative re-emiter and insulator, all one would have to do is learn about radiative physics as relates to CO2.
donsjuand 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donsjuand
And the second law of thermodynamics goes over your head like a wind turbine cleft Eagle ~ penis.
PrairleDogged 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrairleDogged "And the second law of thermodynamics goes over your head"
Please, enlighten us. I look forward to the lesson...
ferrett78 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donsjuand
So using your own reasoning if Earth had limited humidity then the effects of CO2 would be ???
.
Let me tell you my dyed in the Wool sheep ~ FUCK ALL !!!
PrairleDogged 4 months ago
@PrairleDogged Elevated in significance.
donsjuand 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrairLeDogged "So using your own reasoning if Earth had limited humidity then the effects of CO2 would be ???"
Effect of CO2 would be exactly the same. The greenhouse effect of H2O vapour would be greatly reduced however. Why ask such a hypothetical question? Planning on trying to absorb all the atmospheric water vapour? Good luck with that. The global level remains relatively constant over longer periods.
ferrett78 4 months ago
@donsjuand - "We know that CO2 acts as a thermal insulator"
If that's what you think then you really should take a look at the science and physics.
NO - C02 DOES NOT ACT LIKE AN INSULATOR or a greenhouse or a blanket etc...
"heat is accumulating in our biosphere."
WRONG again - this is complete NONSENSE.
I suggest you do a little research and educate your self in terms of the REAL science and physics of this already falsified hypothesis.
DO YOUR RESEARCH before commenting again.
c02Pirate2 4 months ago
@c02Pirate2 I graduated Environmental Studies with Honors. My research has evaluated claims according to their weight, authoritativeness and perceived academic accuracy. I trust them and you're just wrong. Perhaps paid by oil companies, perhaps just uneducated and projecting your lack of reasonable research onto me. How much do you sell your soul for?
donsjuand 4 months ago
@donsjuand - "I graduated Environmental Studies with Honors. "
Well congratulations - though there is no way I can either refute this or confirm it - thus this means nothing to me in this forum.
I could also make any claim I wanted to - but to what end? It means nothing here.
No matter what you study it does NOT change the science, physics, evidence or history.
c02Pirate2 3 months ago
@c02Pirate2 Ok? sigh
donsjuand 3 months ago
@c02Pirate2 "No matter what you study it does NOT change the science, physics, evidence or history."
How true. And the science (and most scientists) confirm the AGW theory. Im glad you concur.
ferrett78 3 months ago
@ferrett78
Firstly - AGW is NOT a scientific theory - it is an HYPOTHESIS and has been for over 100yrs.
A