Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

This thread is dead. The OP was debunked long ago as a lying piece of denier cult propaganda crap that only an idiot would fall for.

 

In your mind. The GW propagandists denying information they released is not debunked.

 

You showed only your gullibility. Those false accusations were disproved time and again to those open to reason.

 

What has been proven is that global warming community lies,deceives and is full of corruption. now they even claim the sun is not the heat source for earth. Yet you believe this garbage. I have shown lies and corruption and still you defend the government funded lies and corruption

 

Anyone who actually believes that the Sun is not responsible for warming the earth is an idiot.

 

Actually we all agree with you on that one. Of course, anyone who actually believes that the Sun is the only factor influencing the Earth's climate is a totally clueless retard.

 

Yes there are many natural factors

 

It is the only factor of consequence. Without the Sun the Earth would be a very cold place. Even a tilt (22.5 degrees away from the Sun) every year in the Earth's rotational axis causes Winter in the Northern Hemisphere even though the Earth's orbit is actually closer to the Sun. This shows how sensitive Earth is to the Sun's radiation.

 

Of course there are!

WE have NEVER said there wasn't

What we are saying is that man is responsible for what is currently happening. It is like a band playing - you have this background noise and then the singer (man) starts and the main output is then the singer with the band providing the backup - to take the analogy further there is also a risk of feedback that when it kicks in will have the same impact as a loud mike feedback - people cringing in the corner

But we have never said the band stopped playing

 

Yes it is but without CO2 we would be a frozen ball of ice regardless - we KNOW CO2 affects the global temperature because all though the history of the planet we have this nice correlation going on.......



Oh! And for those of you screaming that we cannot afford to address the rising CO2 problem

 

That is why the GW community keeps getting caught in lies and data manipulation. We have natural climate change. Global warming is a manmade invention to make money

 

Can we make a new rule on the Forum? No more wasting space by publishing meaningless and useless graphs that were developed using corrupted data.

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, H2O has much more effect on warming.

 

Your posts are nonsense. Denying reality won't change it. Keeping your head in the sand doesn't actually protect you from what is happening. Your paranoid conspiracy theories about tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of countries conspiring to fool the world are completely crackpot and quite insane.

You've consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any evidence from any source that contradicts the lies and misinformation the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your brain so this will probably go right over your head, but it will demonstrate for others reading this just how crazy your conspiracy theories really are.

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
July 28, 2010
(government publication - free to reproduce)

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”


High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at http://www.climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate.

 

Sure. As long as you prove, in an accepted peer-review journal that the data is corrupt. BTW, Nut job blogs do not count as peer-review journals.

The amount of WV has not increased in 150 years. The amount of CO2 has.

 

Yeah, as long as it's 'peer reviewed' by the 'acceptable' pro GW/AGW journals with an obvious pro AGW/GW bias.

C02 is still at trace-gas in our atmosphere as I have already proven. The GW/AGW faithful have so far failed to prove that it has any effect at all.

Clouds, however, are thousands of times more prevalent and have a much more profound effect on climate. We all know what happens when water is heated, it turns into a gas and ascends into the atmosphere and there, forms clouds which block the sun.

Sunspots cause and approximate 0.1% overall brightness in the sun and, during those times Earth's temperature increases. While is is accounted for in climate models, reduced sunspot activity, which corresponds to reduced magnetic activity on the sun, is not adequately represented. Sunspots reduce the solar wind (charged particles) from the sun which are/is responsible for deflecting cosmic rays which create aerosol particles that lead to increased cloud formation. Increased UV drives energy flow from the upper to lower atmosphere disrupting a layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere. It is not yet clear how climate is affected by this. The climate is much more complex and computer models are, as yet, too fundamentally simple to make any kind of accurate prediction and also, do not take into account indirect effects of solar activity.

 

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and it has a large and profound effect on the Earth's climate. That is an established scientific fact that your wacko cult denies, but your ignorant, anti-scientific denial of reality doesn't actually change the facts of the matter.

And BTW, you've never "proven" anything in the real world, although you apparently imagine that you have in your private fantasy world. In the way of actual evidence in these debates, you bring nothing substantial to the table at all. Your misinformation and unsupported claims have been repeatedly shown to be nothing but hot air and ignorance.

 

CO2 is at 0.34% or so as opposed to water vapor at about 36% on average. The fact that you claim it has a 'profound effect on Earth's climate' has not yet been proven and is only speculation.

I'm not the one claiming that a trace gas has a 'profound' effect. Your GW/AGW 'religion' is just that...a belief..unless and until you PROVE it scientifically through repetitive, reliable and PREDICTABLE experimentation of the Earth's atmosphere which computer modeling does not even come close to providing as I have PROVED by pointing to the lack of all sun activity being accounted for in the climate modeling.

Your narcissistic, self-serving, arrogant attitude is directly opposite of everything science stands, and has stood for.

 

And yet another unsubstantiated claim.

Incorrect. The science and math is well known to anyone who cares to learn. From ScienceofDoom:
Part One of the series started with this statement:

Part Two – why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation
Part Three – the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of re-emission of radiation
Part Four – band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the amount of CO2 increases under “weak” and “strong” conditions
Part Five – two results from solving the 1-d equations – and how CO2 compares to water vapor
Part Six – Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation look like at the earth’s surface
Part Seven – The Boring Numbers – the values of “radiative forcing” from CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.
Part Eight – Saturation – explaining “saturation” in more detail
CO2 Can’t have that Effect Because.. – common “problems” or responses to the theory and evidence presented

These facts and theories are not disputed by any reputable scientist. Skeptics like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy et. al. all accept this science. The only people who deny it either do not understand the science and math or are so partisan that they deny reality for the sake of their agenda.

 

The actions of CO2 are well known however, you fail to PROVE the intensity of the effect as it relates to GLOBAL climate because you have no experimental data. It is all supposition.

" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "



Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

I guess you did not bother to read or understand the 8 part explanation of why CO2 is a significant GHG.
Scienceofdoom's most recent article, “Blah blah blah” vs Equations, applies to you, ptif, taxcutter and any of the other deniers here.

 

I did but, as with all your other so-called 'scientific' proclamations, it is based on faulty, manipulated or just plain missing data. CO2 comprises approximately 0.0387% of our atmosphere and of that, 99.999% is of NATURAL ORIGIN.

 

It is a matter of probability. Chances are our output of fossil fuel has adverse impacts on our environment, as has been suggested by literally hundreds of peer-reviewed literature which you conveniently ignore. Rational people don't listen to 1 scientist or 1 obscure website with an opposing view and assume it must be correct. That is idiotic and seems to only happen with politically-blinded conservatives.

 

I got news for you, your very life has 'adverse impacts on our environment' you are using precious resources just to keep yourself alive. In fact YOU are putting CO2 directly into the atmosphere just by existing. After all, according to other GW/AGW zealots, even miniscule amounts of CO2 can have a significant impact on global climate. Can you start to see the fallacy of GW/AGW?

 

Yeaaah you need to start paying attention. Obviously a human doesn't breathe out as much CO2 as we burn each year. Nor is anybody suggesting a tax on human breath. This is a typical alarmist/denialist strawman.

Yes, CO2 is a trace gas and relatively small amounts can have an effect. All I'm getting from your last sentences is that you have an incredibly bad understanding of the science. What is your point?

 

No! It is based on physics.
CO2's effects are based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
CO2's effects are based on Planck's black-body radiation law
CO2's effects are based on the Beer Lambert Law of Absorption
CO2's effects are based on the basics of heat transfer
CO2's effects are based on the first law of thermodynamics
CO2's effects are based on the second law of thermodynamics.