Uh, no one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thanks for playing.
This really has no business in a political forum. Wild Cobra and Yonivore are ing idiots and they have no place in life other than to suck down ty corporate products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Greenhouse gas
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and an also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F)[note 1] colder than at present.[2][3][4]
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle.[5][6] Carbon dioxide emissions come from combustion of carbonaceous fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. CO2 is a product of ideal, stoichiometric combustion of carbon, although few combustion processes are ideal, and burning coal for example, also produces carbon monoxide.[7] Since 2000 fossil fuel related carbon emissions have equaled or exceeded the IPCC's "A2 scenario", except for small dips during two global recessions.
Uh, no one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thanks for playing.
Actually, this forum does not work well when one stops for days to research the answer to a question to which another poster claims to know the answer.
Usually, to keep the conversation moving, the facts are presented and discussed.
If you can't do that, fine. There's no shame.
I'm not interested enough in refuting your claim to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to support your claim and then, come back, after my research to find the thread and pick the conversation back up. Indeed, this forum moves along topics fairly quickly.
Your biggest liability are people like Algore and Barack Obama who keep claiming every weather event and global malady is due to global warming except when it contradicts that claim and, then, it's just weather.
Just the other day, the President blamed Rick Perry's skepticism of global warming for the fires in Texas. How ing ignorant is that?
It also doesn't help that many of your principle "scientists" in the GPCC world have been caught falsifying, fabricating, or hiding relevant facts. So, you'll excuse me for not diving into a pile of "scientific papers" that may not even be accurate or good science.
Again, what do AGCC proponents predict the 2100 temperature will be with and without control measures and what are the margins of error for both?
Seems like a pretty straightforward question.
Its a very straightforward question. The answer is a range of temperatures given in the IPCCs reports. You should give that report a look over.
I'm not sure what Obama has said so I can't comment on that.
But I would like to discuss something else. I like how you say that MY biggest liability is the speeches of others. What do I have to gain out of you believing AGW? Obviously I believe there to be wide societal gains if people were actually to acknowledge what scientists are saying but outside of that I don't really care. And outside of that, to be quite frank, I stand to gain a lot out of an environment where forecasting and metorlogical and climatalogical risk analysis are more important and widely sought after commodities. In a world with more extreme weather and climate phenomenon the skillset that I am building will be more valuable.
I have no stake in anyone on this forum believing me, Yoni. I don't really have stake in most of the world believing me. The places I will seek employment in the private industry very much believing the data regarding climate change. Risk analysis in the private sector is very much taking notice. Ask any meteorolgist/climatoligist employed in the insurance industry. Ask those employed by the military.
You're right that this forum doesn't function well for you when no one answers your questions. I don't really care much about how well it works for you, however. When you add to the discussions the way others do, then I might. You know that you're not a very good poster and you're little epiphany thread proves as much.
I don't know why people keep pointing to the IPCC as if it is the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge.
There are plenty of good scientists out there, in both advocate and skeptic camps, but the IPCC should be disbanded. They and Al Gore are becoming an embarrassment to their cause and aren't really helping to get any new "converts".
So, what are the ranges? C'mon make a stand with your scientists.
It was only mentioned in the context of other AGCC proponents being idiots and doing your cause no service.
But, do you have a stake in the rest of the world believing in AGCC? That seems to be the argument; not whether or not MannyIsGod is able to make a compelling argument but, whether or not the rest the the AGCC proponents have so thoroughly shot themselves in the foot with all the hyperventilating, wrong assumptions, faulty modeling, disingenuous assertions, obfuscations, lies, and Flim Flamming (That's for Algore).
So, you may not have a stake but, you're lumped in with the rest of the kooks pushing a theory that is looking less and less credible by the day.
Makes you look stupid by association.
So, why even engage me in a thread?
Why should they be disbanded? That's like saying the CATO ins ute should be disbanded for publishing reports.
Then you would be crying censorship!
Make a stand? Look up the report. Its not hard. You can repeat this a million times but I'm not going to pull it for you
You miss the point. Again.It was only mentioned in the context of other AGCC proponents being idiots and doing your cause no service.
You do a really job listening/reading. I just told you how they're not losing credibility and you come back with this. Its amazing how you extract things that are the opposite of what I just said.
But, do you have a stake in the rest of the world believing in AGCC? That seems to be the argument; not whether or not MannyIsGod is able to make a compelling argument but, whether or not the rest the the AGCC proponents have so thoroughly shot themselves in the foot with all the hyperventilating, wrong assumptions, faulty modeling, disingenuous assertions, obfuscations, lies, and Flim Flamming (That's for Algore).
So, you may not have a stake but, you're lumped in with the rest of the kooks pushing a theory that is looking less and less credible by the day.
Entertainment value, Yoni. I mean I literally LOLed when you said I'm the one who looks stupid by association here.Makes you look stupid by association.
So, why even engage me in a thread?
Do you know what the IPCC reports are? They're pretty much just collections of the relevant studies.
SMH.
Okay; you're full of then.
You're missing the point in the egocentric mind of yours.
They lose credibility (and you along with them) every time an assumption turns out to be wrong. Especially when we keep getting told the science is settled.
The only reason I jumped back in this thread was because, apparently (and, I can't claim to have been following the AGCC religion for the past decade), average global temperatures aren't where we were told, by the AGCC nuts, they would be ten years ago. So, presto zingo, they come up with the excuse that the oceans are hiding all that extra heat.
It's just too hokey. You can wave website, IPCC panels, white papers, etc... all day long but, they continue to miss the mark on even short-term assumptions, who the is going to believe them on the long-range predictions?
We're told polar bears are being killed off by global warming -- a polar bear sitting on a floating piece of ice has become the international symbol for the AGCC religion -- only to learn polar bear population is up, dramatically!
Kilimanjaro snow cap. Oops. Not global warming...
Glad to entertain but, you do look stupid, by association, by agreeing with Al Carbon-Footprint Gore.
Do you know what the IPCC reports are? They're pretty much just collections of the relevant studies.
SMH.
You have an extremely poor understanding of AGW. Every post you make just proves this even more.
No, I think you have a poor understanding of politics and are just another dupe, sucked in by the religion.
I understand AGW just fine.
EPA’s Absurd Defense of Its Greenhouse Gas Regulations
The court do ent.The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's own court do ents as evidence of just how burdensome and unrealistic the EPA's stated objectives are
http://www.ins uteforenergyresearc...-rule-case.pdf
Power plants will have to upgrade or close. This throw thousands into unemployment and make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy because, face it, all this "green" energy isn't quite panning out, is it?EPA studied and considered the breadth and depth of the projected administrative burdens in the Tailoring Rule. There, EPA explained that immediately applying the literal PSD statutory threshold of 100/250 tpy to greenhouse gas emissions, when coupled with the “any increase” trigger for modifications…would result in annual PSD permit applications submitted to State and local permitting agencies to increase nationwide from 280 to over 81,000 per year, a 300-fold increase…Following a comprehensive analysis, EPA estimated that these additional PSD permit applications would require State permitting authorities to add 10,000 full-time employees and incur additional costs of $1.5 billion per year just to process these applications, a 130-fold increase in the costs to States of administering the PSD program…Sources needing operating permits would jump from 14,700 to 6.1 million as a result of application of le V to greenhouse gases, a 400-fold increase….Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in le V administration costs of $21 billion per year.
We simply cannot afford it.
Without conclusively demonstrating this planet will be on fire in a hundred years, without intervention, proponents of burdensome regulations are saddling the Americans of today with costs that aren't justified.
I was specifically referring to this asshole:
I specifically said outgoing LW radiation in each post and somehow you still didn't get it but you understand EVERYTHING sooooooooooooooooo well. You're amazing.
Don't take any pissy thing you think you can to discredit me. Reversing your words are making you look foolish.
Again...
I was referring to your statement that specified the CO2 part of the LW spectra.
Stop arguing against things I didn't say. It clearly makes you look the fool, and you will only convinced another fool that you are right.
It can, but I am not making an argument either way. Several factors play into the upper atmosphere, just as the lower atmosphere. It will be consistent in most cases, but not all.
Then you also didn't understand what I was saying.
Why can't you or Manny ask for me to elaborate what I mean rather than dismiss your lack of comprehension as my lack of comprehension?
Why? How about proof the one concept Manny stated is the only one. I already indicated why the CO2 part of the spectra cannot reliable determine surface temperature by satellite. I only need one example to show Manny's explanation is not accurate,.
The infared sensors are only good looking at the surface for water. That is because they have a vibrational spectra that is nearly 100% water to see. Other LW methods to determine surface temperatures simple do not have the necessary accurate from the distance a satellite is at. To accomplish it at the oxygen vibrational frequencies, a stereoscopic method is used with high resolution imagery, but this is still less accurate than we need for any accurate analysis.
Back to Manny's statement of using the CO2 part of the LW spectra to determine surface temperature rising. He is correct in that the earths energy increases if the outgoing longwave decreases. But that is assuming in incoming longwave remains the same. If the earth warms or cools is not determined by if the outgoing longwave decreases or increases, but if it increases or decreases relative to the incoming solar energy.
Then back to his statement. He specified the CO2 part of the spectra. The entire spectra has to be used. The atmosphere even emits shortwave spectra. Even though that is minimal, it exists and must be part of the equation.
Consider this. Did he make a Freudian slip...
This is how modern AGW people think. The truth doesn't matter. Only framing CO2 as the culprit matters.It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system. All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.
You simply cannot prove CO2 is the culprit. Even with looking at the CO2 part of the LW spectra with satellites. The only CO2 you will accurately see if that in the uppermost atmosphere. It will radiate at its spectra based on what ever the temperature of the Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon influencing it sets it's temperature to. It is foolish to think that is an indication of the CO2 influence to the atmospheric window.
Consider this. In 1900, we had almost no warning of storms. We see storms now with satellites that we would have never known existed 100+ years ago.
Pfft. You wouldn't know what good science was if it came up and -slapped you.
Intellectual dishonesty, poor critical thinking, and a total willingness to believe anything that seems to support your preconcieved notions. This is how I normally describe people like Cosmored, who suck up every bit on some conspiracy theory website as dogma.
The only "religion" here is your dogmatic adherence to skepticism. There is a vast gulf between legitimate, honest debate about science, and what you do here and elsewhere.
The only dupe is the one who somehow thinks that the people with the most to lose, the energy companies, are the ones giving you the unvarnished truth.
The fact that skeptics of AGW have as one of their main proponents, a guy who swore up and down that cigarrettes don't cause cancer while on the payroll of tobacco companies, says you don't understand the politics as well as you think you do.
The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?
....NEW YORK (AP) — Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.
"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.
But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny.
___
In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would ac ulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.
What's going on?
"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.
He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.
From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve.
"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."
The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.
"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."
The basic physics of anthropogenic — manmade — global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.
"As a physicist, putting CO2 into the air is good enough for me. It's the physics that convinces me," said veteran Cambridge University researcher Liz Morris. But she said work must go on to refine climate data and computer climate models, "to convince the deeply reluctant organizers of this world."
The reluctance to rein in carbon emissions revealed itself early on.
In the 1980s, as scientists studied Greenland's buried ice for clues to past climate, upgraded their computer models peering into the future, and improved global temperature analyses, the fossil-fuel industries were mobilizing for a campaign to question the science.
By 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen could appear before a U.S. Senate committee and warn that global warming had begun, a dramatic announcement later confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a new, U.N.-sponsored network of hundreds of international scientists.
But when Hansen was called back to testify in 1989, the White House of President George H.W. Bush edited this government scientist's remarks to water down his conclusions, and Hansen declined to appear.
That was the year U.S. oil and coal interests formed the Global Climate Coalition to combat efforts to shift economies away from their products. Britain's Royal Society and other researchers later determined that oil giant Exxon disbursed millions of dollars annually to think tanks and a handful of supposed experts to sow doubt about the facts.
In 1997, two years after the IPCC declared the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," the world's nations gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to try to do something about it. The naysayers were there as well.
"The statement that we'll have continued warming with an increase in CO2 is opinion, not fact," oil executive William F. O'Keefe of the Global Climate Coalition insisted to reporters in Kyoto.
The late Bert Bolin, then IPCC chief, despaired.
"I'm not really surprised at the political reaction," the Swedish climatologist told The Associated Press. "I am surprised at the way some of the scientific findings have been rejected in an unscientific manner."
In fact, a do ent emerged years later showing that the industry coalition's own scientific team had quietly advised it that the basic science of global warming was indisputable.
Kyoto's final agreement called for limited rollbacks in greenhouse emissions. The United States didn't even join in that. And by 2000, the CO2 built up in the atmosphere to 369 parts per million — just 4 ppm less than Broecker predicted — compared with 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.
Global temperatures rose as well, by 0.6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F) in the 20th century. And the mercury just kept rising. The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.
Satellite and other monitoring, meanwhile, found nights were warming faster than days, and winters more than summers, and the upper atmosphere was cooling while the lower atmosphere warmed — all clear signals greenhouse warming was at work, not some other factor.
The impact has been widespread.
An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.
The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher al udes.
From the Rockies to the Himalayas, glaciers are shrinking, sending ever more water into the world's seas. Because of accelerated melt in Greenland and elsewhere, the eight-nation Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program projects ocean levels will rise 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, threatening coastlines everywhere.
"We are scared, really and truly," diplomat Laurence Edwards, from the Pacific's Marshall Islands, told the AP before the 1997 Kyoto meeting.
Today in his low-lying home islands, rising seas have washed away shoreline graveyards, sal er has invaded wells, and islanders desperately seek aid to build a seawall to shield their capital.
The oceans are turning more acidic, too, from absorbing excess carbon dioxide. Acidifying seas will harm plankton, s fish and other marine life up the food chain. Biologists fear the world's coral reefs, home to much ocean life and already damaged from warmer waters, will largely disappear in this century.
The greatest fears may focus on "feedbacks" in the Arctic, warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.
The Arctic Ocean's summer ice cap has shrunk by half and is expected to essentially vanish by 2030 or 2040, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Sept. 15. Ashore, meanwhile, the Arctic tundra's permafrost is thawing and releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
These changes will feed on themselves: Released methane leads to warmer skies, which will release more methane. Ice-free Arctic waters absorb more of the sun's heat than do reflective ice and snow, and so melt will beget melt. The frozen Arctic is a controller of Northern Hemisphere climate; an unfrozen one could upend age-old weather patterns across continents.
In the face of years of scientific findings and growing impacts, the doubters persist. They ignore long-term trends and seize on insignificant year-to-year blips in data to claim all is well. They focus on minor mistakes in thousands of pages of peer-reviewed studies to claim all is wrong. And they carom from one explanation to another for today's warming Earth: jet contrails, sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles.
"Ninety-eight percent of the world's climate scientists say it's for real, and yet you still have deniers," observed former U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who chaired the House's science committee.
Christiana Figueres, Costa Rican head of the U.N.'s post-Kyoto climate negotiations, finds it "very, very perplexing, this apparent allergy that there is in the United States. Why?"
The Australian scholar Hamilton sought to explain why in his 2010 book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change."
In an interview, he said he found a "transformation" from the 1990s and its industry-financed campaign, to an America where climate denial "has now become a marker of cultural iden y in the 'angry' parts of the United States."
"Climate denial has been incorporated in the broader movement of right-wing populism," he said, a movement that has "a visceral loathing of environmentalism."
An in-depth study of a decade of Gallup polling finds statistical backing for that analysis.
On the question of whether they believed the effects of global warming were already happening, the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering "yes" plummeted from almost 50 percent in 2007-2008 to 30 percent or less in 2010, while liberals and Democrats remained at 70 percent or more, according to the study in this spring's Sociological Quarterly.
A Pew Research Center poll last October found a similar left-right gap.
The drop-off coincided with the election of Democrat Barack Obama as president and the Democratic effort in Congress, ultimately futile, to impose government caps on industrial greenhouse emissions.
Boehlert, the veteran Republican congressman, noted that "high-profile people with an 'R' after their name, like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, are saying it's all fiction. Pooh-poohing the science of climate change feeds into their basic narrative that all government is bad."
The quarterly study's authors, Aaron M. McCright of Michigan State University and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State, suggested climate had joined abortion and other explosive, intractable issues as a mainstay of America's hardening left-right gap.
"The culture wars have thus taken on a new dimension," they wrote.
Al Gore, for one, remains upbeat. The former vice president and Nobel Prize-winning climate campaigner says "ferocity" in defense of false beliefs often increases "as the evidence proving them false builds."
In an AP interview, he pointed to tipping points in recent history — the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of U.S. racial segregation — when the potential for change built slowly in the background, until a critical mass was reached.
"This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'How long? Not long.'"
Even Wally Broecker's jest — that deniers could blame God — may not be an option for long.
Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an ins ution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.
Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."
EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny.
Random...
Do you know who said this:
If my prediction were based on something that turned out to be correct, I would be proud of it; instead I am embarrassed
Manny, this is the kind of revelation that undermines all your reams and reams of so-called scientific evidence of the existence of AGCC.
It’s the Thermometer, Stupid
Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was ‘proof’ of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT’s do no such thing.
Now a world-leading manufacturer of these high-tech instruments, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from greenhouse gases. Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor.
One of the researchers involved, Alan Siddons, has analyzed the GHE for over six years. He has long condemned the practice of using IRT’s as a means of substantiating the increasingly discredited hypothesis.
Wow...
Just wow...
I should have realized this:
Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime
I should have know the AGW Energy Budget model was wrong from the start. This clearly explains why it is.
How many times have I complained about the AGW alarmists maintaining a closed peer review system, so that real science cannot show their fraud? I love this:
Federal Law Defeats Academic Freedom in Global Warming Lawsuit; first few paragraphs:
American Tradition Ins ute v. University of Virginia (Dr. Michael Mann)Professor Michael Mann, a prominent climatology expert, made a last-minute plea to a Virginia court to bend the rules and help him keep his research data under lock and key. Su ion grows that the latest concealment attempt is further proof of a conspiracy to hide the misuse of taxpayer grants.
However, as shown below, the astute application of federal statutes on privacy and exposure of the legal fallacy of ‘academic freedom,’ condemn Professor Mann to certain defeat.
If Mann’s hidden data, once exposed, is shown to be flawed it will not only discredit a cornerstone of global warming ‘science’ but will expose Mann to possible criminal charges for fraud over his hyped up man-made global warming claims.
Taxpayer Rights Under VFOIA Upheld by Court Order
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
