Here's what real science says about the role of CO2 as Earth's preeminent climatic thermostat - ImaGeo The relatively thin atmospheric cocoon that protects us from meteor impacts and radiation also makes for a habitable climate, thanks to the greenhouse gases it contains — carbon dioxide first and foremost.
A recent post here about was no exception.
For the story, I reviewed dozens scientific research papers, and used information and quotations from two interviews.
But a recent study suggests these northernmost Arctic areas are likely to thaw much sooner than expected.
As always, I expected skeptical pushback — but nothing as extreme as this: As CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.
I ordinarily ignore comments like the one I quote above.
Discover is a science magazine, not a platform for political grandstanding.
And it is especially not a platform for ideas that run counter to click the following article physics and more than a century of hard scientific work by generations of researchers.
This is not to say that I and the other writers and editors here at Discover view science as being infallible.
We recognize that as a human endeavor, science is prone to error born of vanity, https://casinobonusgamesonline.com/37/2405.html notions, confirmation bias, a herd mentality, etc.
Scientists know this better than anyone, so skepticism is one of their cardinal values.
Journalists are also supposed to be skeptical and self-critical.
Maybe I should check because I could be deceived by my preconceived notions.
But I thought it might be useful to share what I learned — if for no other reason that it might arm readers with some useful scientific information when they encounter people peddling politics in the name of science.
He also used a graph originally posted online by someone named Monte Hieb at.
Hieb has changed the graph a number of times over the years.
This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures.
Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared.
For more on proxy records, see.
I went on to say this:.
I then pointed him toward an example of real researchers doing the truly complex and hard work of science — a peer-reviewed paper titled.
In their paper, the team of five scientists analyzed a wealth of different data to examine the role of CO2 in climate over the past 540 million years.
Their conclusions are nuanced — which is to be expected for a system as complex as global climate, and especially when looking at it over such long time periods.
But here is the most relevant fundamental finding: Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low 1000 ppm during other, warmer periods.
Other scientists have addressed particular details of the geologic record.
These include a period of glaciation that occurred during late Ordovician Period.
Climate change say it happened despite sky high concentrations of climate-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 440 million years ago.
But the critics fail to mention that the data included in the GEOCARB model come in very long time steps of 10 million years.
With this in mind, the creators of GEOCARB explicitly warned that their model cannot discern changes in CO2 occurring over periods less than 10 million years long — including shorter-term drops of the kind that scientists have shown likely occurred during the late Ordovician glaciation.
Yet climate dismissives do just that.
And they ignore copious evidence gathered by scientists supporting reel wild west slot review, bonuscodes & CO2 levels in the atmosphere during that period.
For example, in the journal Geology came to the following conclusion, as described by Phil Berardelli in: The rise of the Appalachians plunged Earth into an ice age so severe that it drove nearly two-thirds of all living species extinct.
For more details about the Ordovician glaciation and related issues, the website Skeptical Science has an.
But here, too, rigorous research shows otherwise.
And, in fact, a visit web page study led by Schmidt showed that water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, with CO2 coming in at 20 percent, and other non-condensing greenhouse gases making up the rest.
The answer involves different characteristics of greenhouse gases.
When the atmosphere cools enough, water vapor condenses and rains out.
By contrast, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases do not — they are non-condensing.
The researchers found that without these non-condensing greenhouse gases ordered to dump technology by nv regulators CO2 foremost among them — there would be nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out.
And since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, if water vapor were to rain out, the result would be very dramatic cooling.
In this way, CO2 may not be as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it is actually more important.
Just how much does carbon dioxide contribute?
This energy trap produces the greenhouse effect, the main driver of global warming.
Source: Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeff Kiehl via UCAR This brings me to another claim made by some commenters here at ImaGeo.
Climate records show that global temperatures drop before CO2 does as Earth enters an ice age, and visa versa too: Temperatures rise before CO2 as we come out of an ice age.
So once again, CO2 cannot be the most important factor.
These are known as.
Then other natural feedbacks kick in — most especially changes in carbon dioxide.
But ラッキーナゲットオンラインカジノ general, the picture looks like this: As Earth starts to warm at the end of an ice age due to increased solar radiation reaching Earth, ice sheets and snow begin to contract.
These surfaces are very reflective.
So as they shrink, less sunlight is reflected back into space.
This helps to enhance the warming.
The warming causes ocean waters to give up CO2 — because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water.
This strongly enhances the warming, which reduces the ice and snow, which causes more warming, which increases the CO2, leading to even more warming.
This general picture leaves out some important details, such as the role of fresh water flowing into the oceans as ice sheets melt.
A 2012 study led by Jeremy Shakun, now a Boston College climatologist, examined some of these details.
Skeptical Science posted an excellent explainer about the results.
Perhaps someone could supply a few.
When are you available to teach?
Do a dump in the middle of the classroom and you will quickly clear the room!
My normal response would not be appropriate on a site which is supposed to be for polite discussion.
In times past, the village blacksmith, or some other worthy, would have taken him aside, and give his backside a good walloping, this being the closest part of him to his brain, and usually this would have persuaded him not to interrupt adults with his infantile comments.
Its gone very quiet, so far.
So, I gave him some back.
Without a word, he left the room, and did so every time I entered a room, even in mid sentence, for the remaining 6 months he was there.
I hit him with everything he was self conscious about.
They never came back for more!
It comes from my school days, When I left at 15, there were 1st year kids bigger than me.
They only made the mistake of annoying me once.
This is one thread that could end on a on an interesting post.
Unless HE comes back!
Will ignoring the evidence make the evidence go away?
But it does NOT cause the washing away of Tuvalu and the Maldives.
This is old stuff, responding to infantile and juvenile logic!
Time for my sunset cocktail.
If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters 200 feet.
But why should I bore the readers with how I will spend my money when I do!
You are well-known for prevarication.
That means no one is likely to believe you.
If you understand that, why do you bother to post anything at all?
Because I like to see the nonsense that you true believers can come up with!
Why is lying the only way you can get people to pay attention to you, Mr.
I got a million of rebuttals for yer on YouTube!
I can see where you get your authoratative science!
NASA, or NOAA, will be quite sufficient, thank you!
I sent you to Dr.
Sweetheart, why is lying the only way you can get people to pay attention to you?
How pathetic must you be that you cannot get people to notice you in any other way?
I asked for a scientific cite.
I would expect no less from the Lead Author of the U.
So, round and round we go, down the AGW rat hole!
I will give you the point that you did at least link me to a scientific opinion.
Thanks, but no thanks!
AGW is a fact we can see from space.
Lying about it might get you attention at first, but what happens when people become bored of your sad attention-seeking behaviour and simply begin ignoring you?
Did you not realise that might happen?
Lawdy, who ordered THAT?
Go get a group hug!
You should check out his post in reply to me about where he posts, from about a day ago.
Funny thing — you can check that in the public Disqus profile.
Talk over him and past him.
The Arctic imports more heat from this transport, than it gains do to insolation.
Floating sea-ice insulates the warm oceans.
When this ice melts, sure, the albedo is lower, but the sunshine is weak up there.
The increased moisture from exposure of the water vs ice, increases cloud incidence, which helps cool in summer by restoring at least part of the missing albedo … but, the ice, which used to insulate the relatively warm water, is gone, and the heat transfer from the water to the atmosphere, increases two orders of magnitude … 100X … This heat increases the upwards long-wave radiation, cooling Earf.
This leads to an anomalously warm atmosphere, which in turn causes increased heat loss by long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere and decreased heat gain by atmospheric advection from lower latitudes.
A lasting impact of the ice—albedo feedback is not possible because the large scale heat fluxes quickly adapt to release the excess oceanic heat from the Arctic.
They are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with water vapor absorbing the most.
But pardon me for pointing out that in this case, the bloke who started off with the insults village foolwas you.
All in response to my simply noting that you were being directed back to an article that actually provided the information you needed.
Perhaps a little self reflection is in order.
You appear to agree that there are greenhouse gases, that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and that the world is warming.
You appear to disagree that CO2 is significantly contributing to climate change, but plenty of folks here, beginning with the author of this article, have beaten the dead horse into glue explaining why it does.
If CO2 caused global warming, you would have a positive feedback system, and the much threatened runaway greenhouse, would occur.
That has not occurred in 600 million years, even when CO2 concentrations were 17 times present.
Therefor the alleged effect cannot be real.
As for who started, you, with snide sarcastic comments.
If a fly is bothering you, eventually, you swat it!
Not only are you a fool, but more seriously, you are a danger to your children, and first responders, who may have to come looking for you, next flood!
People rebuild there all the time.
Do you have the same opinion of your new neighbors, or is this another example of your abundant hypocrisy?
Now you and nik get back to devoting several more posts to me.
Arguing against well researched and supported science with nothing but your own assertions has certainly shown someone to be the fool here.
Silly little boy, dont interrupt adults when they are discussing things.
Like all village idiots, full of hot air, and nothing more.
Only if the data is wrong, can it be criticised, and the major points that I used to show that the claims by the AGW lobby were obviously false, are all well accepted, and cannot be criticised.
You dont have the intellect required to recognise intelligence if it bit you on the nose.
Oscar Wilde would not be impressed.
The reason you posted your credentials is because you are insecure about your intellectual standing so you felt you had to big them up.
I suspect they are bigged up too!
Who would you choose to build say a Web Site or a back up system for government emails for the State Department, IRS and the FBI?
You could also click on some of the links to the primary sources of real science I provided and check for yourself.
Those that do not, are sacked, blacklisted, and have their characters assassinated in the media, which primarily follows government dogma.
There were several examples of this when AGW was first proposed, those remaining dont dare bite the hand that feeds them, and their families.
Cant blame them for that.
You do realize, I hope, that the other 194 countries in the world also have scientists.
The US does not have a monopoly.
Although is does have the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world to reject the Paris Accord.
Whoopee, good for us.
Science without skepticism is Dogma!
Galileo presented new ideas that contradicted the prevailing dogma, notably that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around.
Present day scientists who do not accept that the climate is changing because of human activity have not been able to provide an alternative explanation that stands up to scrutiny by other scientists.
Nor have they — despite valiant efforts to pick holes in it — been able to disprove the accepted theory.
You ever hear of at least 6 cyclical glaciations and warming cycles, the Earth has experienced?
Does a skeptic begin and end as a nihilist, who accepts nothing because there is no foundation the skeptic can agree to?
From pure logic, an assiduous skeptic can with just the Peano postulates that emerge from acknowledging self-existence come to accept all of mathematics, including theorems of statistics and probability.
Within mathematics, Newton-Raphson shows the skeptic reason to accept approximations that on iteration tend to converge to a single value in the limit.
That same skeptical method is the foundation of science: hold exact or most nearly true the approximation inferred from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation converges to amended or new inference.
So you are no skeptic, if you do not accept that CO2 is the preeminent controller of climate, as that conclusion is what inference from all observation — over 10,000 new published studies a year, for years — tells.
You also are a joke, not worthy of an adult response!
The familiar strains of Ad Hominem from a deadbeat who must resort to abuse and absurdity to avoid facing his obligations.
You have an interest in lands and waters.
Others dump their fossil wastes upon them.
You fail to charge them a fossil waste disposal fee, and let them freeload on your property, lowering property values all around.
Also, there are several different forms of logic, including strangely enough purely emotional thought.
Each though has limitations and weaknesses.
Logic is never enough.
They must be the ones who are not government funded, and so cant be sacked, for not toeing the government line.
Somehow the deniers have managed to be much more visible than their counterparts.
That could be because they are not government funded.
Whatever their academic or institutional affiliation may be, there is a pretty good chance that they are being funded by the Koch brothers and others whose wealth depends on extracting the last drop of fossil fuel while they can among them our ex-Secretary of State.
However, with or without a financial incentive, they have drawn the wrong conclusions.
Considering the millions invested by government, to promote their agenda, and the trillions in carbon tax that they expect to receive from it, which will dwarf anything any other parties in the opposite camp is likely to benefit, you cannot assume that the governments aims are for purely altruistic purposes.
When have they ever been?
In addition, governments are formed from politicians, and politicians are notorious liars.
If all the promises that were made by politicians before elections, and were never kept, were put into a book, it would almost definitely be the largest book ever produced in the history of the human race.
And are you seriously suggesting that the government — this government — is about to tax carbon?
When will you get it into your head that there are thousands and thousands of scientists around the world who are not affected by the corruption of the US political system by corporations?
Where have you been for the past year?
Have you not noticed that the current government is almost entirely on your side?
You need to modify your arguments to fit reality Or the strange phenomenon that just about all the scientists you trust so much are closely connected to one or more of those corporations?
Is that just coincidence?
Where have you been in the last decade?
Does that mean you accept that human activity is partially responsible?
Look at the worlds deforested areas, especially those deforested by humans, and what do you see?
Trees cool the climate, by putting vast quantities of water into the atmosphere, and by converting solar radiation into wood.
Because they cool, they also promote rainfall, which requires clouds, which reflect solar radiation, and that also cools the atmosphere.
Remove them, and all that is lost.
There are other natural factors that reduce trees, and their cooling effectiveness, so humans are not solely responsible.
If there were no trees, the tropical rain forested areas would be hotter than the Sahara.
To summarise my position, for clarity.
I dont accept that human caused CO2 is wholly responsible for, or even that it is, responsible for climate change, given the tiny amount of additional CO2 that can be attributed to human activity.
At present I will accept that it may act as an atmospheric stabilising agent, I have more to read.
That there are many other factors, that can, and do cause climate change, and have been doing so for millions of years, long before humans could have any effect, is well known.
Milankovitch cycles being the obvious one, and Volcanoes being another.
Volcanic effects tend to be short term, but that depends on how long they erupt for.
In the past there have been eruptions that lasted for tens of thousands of years, like the Permian extinction period, amongst others.
Milankovitch cycles operate over about 100,000 years.
In addition, during its orbit of the galaxy, the sun passes through the arms of the galaxy, and intergalactic dust attenuates the solar radiation reaching Earth.
So thats another, at approx 150 million year periods.
These periods are associated with major extinction events.
The solar system is in one now.
The problem, is that these events may happen simultaneously with human activity, so for any group to claim that human activity is solely responsible for climate change is irresponsible at best.
Also, it is difficult to separate which is the main cause, so that human activity is responsible at all, is also dubious.
Volcanoes can release more CO2 in a day than humans release in a year, and there are thousands of volcanoes erupting continuously, worldwide.
The majority are under the sea, so we dont notice it.
In geological terms humans have been around for just a pinprick in time.
Their importance to climate change has been greatly exaggerated, by the AGW lobby, for political purposes.
Especially the miners, who had been the most aggressive.
So the universities forgot about the ice age, allowing the government to concentrate on closing pits, and breaking the miners union.
The miners had the grip on the power generation of the country, like the Arabs have had more recently.
From 1975 until 1990 Mrs Thatcher was a vocal supporter of the climate cause.
Perhaps that is the university you are thinking of.
In 2003 she seemingly changed her mind, but as I read it she did not so much reject the science she graduated from Cambridge with a degree in chemistryas she rejected the solutions, more specifically the cost of solutions.
Lastly, the carbon tax was only introduced in Britain in 2013.
I dont think Thatcher was connected to C Tax.
Some had destroyed their employment entirely, so disappeared, like the London Dockers, as their employment was containerised, and moved to coastal locations, so they became irrelevant.
Once she had started the ball rolling, she couldnt just drop it, as her credibility would have evaporated.
So, the scam continued.
I think the University was either Oxford or Cambridge, as being the most prestigious, would have been less likely to be criticised.
Chemistry, is not too closely connected to biology, and the carbon cycle is part of that.
Volcanoes spew CO2, trees and plant life absorb it, convert it to carbon, and oxygen, and animal life gets to breathe.
Deforest, and there are less trees, so CO2 will increase, increase CO2, and trees and plant life increase, and CO2 goes down.
While plant life proliferates, the CO2 steadily reduces, until either volcanoes increase their output, plant life reduces, or often both simultaneously.
Its just as likely that deforestation caused an increase in CO2, as it reduced sequestration.
That combined with burning the trees, and then fossil fuels would have had a double effect.
Planting more trees would reduce it, but at its present impoverished level, its of no danger to the world, except if it reduces.
The falsehood that CO2 is a pollutant, and needs to be reduced, is a very effective way of eliminating all life on Earth.
Reduce it to 150 ppm, and all plant life will start to die, from CO2 starvation, closely followed by all animal life, dependent upon it.
Commercial greenhouse companies pump CO2 into their greenhouses, at not inconsiderable cost, to increase crop growth.
Increasing CO2 to 1000 ppm would do nothing but good, for all life on Earth.
The first to suffer, would be US, as we are at the top of the food chain!
Bankers print the money, so the more of it that gets to be circulated, the higher their apparent worth, and the greater the rest of the world becomes in debt to them.
The US has the most to lose by facing up to the reality of global warming and the need to do something about it.
That being so, why on earth would people be inventing a problem?
They want to continue extracting and selling their dirty fuel for as long as possible in order to recoup their investments.
If they can persuade the gullible populace that politicians are trying to fleece them, that the science is not settled, then they will be able to carry on selling this nasty stuff.
You can repeat 200 times that there is no global warming.
Every repetition just confirms your idiocy.
But you have obviously forgotten our quite interesting comparison of rejecting religion at an early age.
Rock dust is an excellent all round fertiliser, so when it is colonised by trees, they grow prolifically.
One mature tree can transpire 150,000 litres of water per year, which cools the atmosphere.
They also absorb large amounts of CO2, store the carbon, and release the O2.
During the 10-15 thousand years of an inter ice age, these nutrients gradually get washed down through the soil, until they are out of reach of tree roots.
The trees are then weakened, become more susceptible to disease, and as they are drier, forest fires.
Obviously this means that less CO2 is absorbed, and less water is transpired.
Add to this vast amounts of deforestation, carried out by humans, in the last 2-300 hundred years, and the effects will be noticeable, world wide.
So, the climate warms, and CO2 level increases.
One of the paradoxes of an end of an inter ice age, is that it first gets warmer.
This warming causes more evaporation, and therefore more precipitation, of rain and snow.
The deeper snow takes longer to thaw, and so reflects sunlight for longer, so the climate in those areas cools.
This cooling allows snow to lay for longer, which, again reflects sunlight, and causes more cooling.
The cooler atmosphere causes more precipitation, and therefore more snow.
This is a positive feedback loop, and the effects are asymptotic.
Look at news events over the last 10 years or so; the coldest temperatures ever recorded have occurred, and also the deepest snowfalls, in both hemispheres.
Even snow in the Sahara desert.
So have vast forest fires, world wide.
All these are symptomatic, of an inter ice age, reaching its end.
This inter-ice age has lasted around 15,000 years, which is about the average maximum, so is due to end soon.
Analysis of climate data from deep sea, and lake core drillings, have shown that the change from inter ice age to full ice age, with rapidly advancing permanent snow lines, during the last million years, has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.
So, climate changes, as the world is experiencing at present, have occurred over the last million years, without any assistance from humans, regular as clockwork.
This time however, deforestation may well have accelerated the process.
Thats why, Cg technology fined find the claims, and its associated misinformation, that the minute amounts of human produced CO2, of 0.
It is true that the world SHOULD be cooling, but it is not.
Global warming and climate change are not the same thing.
There are three stages to the problem.
The first is environmental degradation.
This is caused by too many people burning too much.
Too many people cutting down trees, sucking water out of the ground, developing and improperly disposing of too many chemicals.
These various activities have led to a noticeable increase in greenhouse gases.
The increase is GHGs has led to a measurable increase in temperature, and higher temperatures have led to many disruptions in natural cycles, most notably water cycles.
And that has led to climate change.
Those are FACTS, not some tin-pot theory put out by an ex-pat Brit who is quite happy to see the global environment go to the place that rhymes with bell, as long as the fossil fuel-based economy continues to grow.
You can go to bell as well.
It was based on a claimed increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, which was attributed to human production of CO2.
However, the 280 figure was derived from Greenland ice cores, and they have since proven to be faulty, because ice is not an impervious medium, and the CO2 can and does migrate, and in doing so, reduces the amount of trapped CO2.
More recent calculations using plant stomata as used in the link provided have produced much lower figures of between 0.
Therefore your whole diatribe is based on a Phallacy, Perhaps you should cogitate on that, or maybe sit on it.
You are confusing two separate issues, pollution by human garbage, and climate change.
If you consider the explanation that I have given, wrong, then please explain the faults.
Good luck with that.
There is some effect.
There has to be.
There is some effect to everything.
It may not be significant, or it might be the most significant thing out there.
Who knows, she might even be right.
If we could just get the politics out of all this, some really neutral studies could be done.
All gasses retain some heat below them.
The thicker the atmosphere, the greater the retention.
Every gas is a bit different though in how effective it is at heat retention.
The most effective I believe is Halon, the old refrigerant that is currently banned worldwide because of how it interacts with ozone.
Water vapor and methane are both at least 20 X better as a greenhouse gas.
There is more water than CO2 in the atmosphere as well, thankfully.
When he says something is impossible, he has a large chance of being wrong.
There was once a consensus that morning dew rose higher than the moon.
There was once a consensus that heavier than air flying machines were impossible.
There was once a consensus that nothing in the nucleus of a cell had anything to do with heredity.
There was once a consensus that Negros were inferior mentally.
None of these things are considered true now.
A consensus merely means the idea is popular.
Truth must be determined by measurement and accurate prediction.
That is what Global Climate Science currently lacks.
Consensus it has, measurement leading to accurate predictions is does not have.
Time may solve the problem.
In fact anything that an engineered product may come into contact with.
I also served nine years in the RAF as an electronics tech, which took me to the Near East and the far east.
Travel broadens the mind and opens the eyes to the real world.
You may feel that this comment has no place on your blog, but this is the only way that I can communicate with you.
However, if you decide to remove it, I will not be offended.
I think we need to agree on terminology.
All trades and professions like to have their own terminology and jargon.
A doctor would say you have a lesion, which is haemorrhaging.
CO2 cannot CAUSE warming, it can only modify or manipulate it.
The only element that can CAUSE warming is solar radiation.
If it was efficient, it would be used to increase the insulation properties of double glazing units, especially as its cheap.
Usually argon or other more exotic gasses are used.
I note you have removed my original reply to Spider jon, which I find inexplicable, because it was based on straightforward science, no politics whatsoever.
How do you explain your odd assertion?
Governments are formed from politicians, and politicians are notorious liars.
That fact is not in dispute among climate scientists.
The ones that caused the cooling were on land.
Amongst other gases they released lots of sulfur dioxide.
The ones that ended snowball Earth were underwater.
That fact is not in dispute among climate scientists.
Primary, Adjective definition: of chief importance, main, chief, key, prime, central, principal, foremost, first, most important, predominant, paramount, overriding, major, ruling, dominant, master, supreme, cardinal, pre-eminent, ultimate; number-one.
Global warming causes the climate to change.
Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are two different things.
Oh, and nobody changed the name from global warming to climate change as deniers faithfully believe.
The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was founded and named in 1988.
Scientists have been using the terms climate change and global warming interchangably since at least 1970.
A change of even one or two degrees, in global average temperature is HUGE.
It took 11,000 years for the Earth to warm to temperature much like today, an increase of about 5C, when the last ice age glacial period ended.
That is because we have increased atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature did, in the last 450,000 years and almost certainly in the last 800,000 years, according to ice core data.
Please explain how it is that you, sitting on a third world island, know better than thousands of scientists around the world.
Please explain what IS causing climate change.
Thanks for the laughs!
For you it is fun to undermine science.
You are the worst kind of troll.
You are doing this for laughs and quite obviously the odd check in the mail.
You make me sick.
You believe I get paid to comment on a science blog.
You really are sick, and need help!
Might want to take a nice walk on the beach to calm link />Just watch out for those worms.
How often do hurricanes strike where you live?
Better keep an eye out yourself.
I WILL keep an eye out for sick, https://casinobonusgamesonline.com/37/2391.html haters like you two!
I thought you were at middle school level maturity, but this is positively preschool!
Just tell them and the first responders not to bother looking for you when disaster strikes.
The August 2016 flood event was the result of an unprecedented 2 feet of rain falling in under 24 hours, not storm surge or rising sea level.
It affected areas never before flooded in over 100 years of habitation, and flooded homes in my neighborhood which had been here over 70 years without ever taking water.
Yet I still got flood insurance and encouraged my older, more conservative family members to do the same, to no avail.
I built my house high enough so less than a foot of water came in, while my family sheltered upstairs with electricity and plenty of stockpiled food and water.
We were never at risk of actual harm.
Can you say the same?
Stand in front of the mirror and compain to yourself!
You blamed global warming.
You tell us it will be getting worse real soon?
Seems more your speed, right?
The statement as he has phrased it is a tautology, so it can be shown to be circular and therefor not true.
However, I very much doubt that Mr Wilson knows what a tautology is.
He certainly has not tried to trap me logically, or illogically.
He might also be describing a positive feedback.
Also, like all the religious fraudsters in the world, you love to deliberately misinterpret the data, ie Lie!
So that claim falls flat, like a cowpat.
So, Ha Ha, to that.
But please do the math!
Their terrestrial instrument record since 1850, shows slightly higher readings, but that record relies on proxies like ancient tidal guages, ancient ice core samples, ancient tree ring anaysis, ancient steamship intake valve records, as to be expected from an age where the North and South poles, and large portions of the Earth were yet to be explored, much less covered in thermometers, Lol!
Over the 38 years of the satellite record that computes to a 0.
The RSS satellite record shows a trend of 0.
That works out to 0.
The terrestrial instrument record since 1850 does NOT depend upon proxies.
Proxies are NOT instruments.
It is strange that I actually have to point that out!
This is approximately 3x the 0.
Please link to the NOAA data.
Proxies are NOT instruments.
It is strange that I actually have to point that out!
How did they manage to collect temperatures of the Earth in 1850 when half the Earth had still not been explored, including both poles Enough of your foolishness!
Again, proxies are NOT instruments.
It is strange that I have to point this out a second time!
Second, you could educate yourself on the subject.
And I see that you posted a graph above.
That data may come from a NOAA satellite, but it is processed by an algorithm created by UAH.
You only confuse things by being ignorant.
That is why they get a different answer than UAH.
The full change starts from the beginning of the graph.
The zero level depends upon what baseline is chosen, but the change over a particular time period does not.
I also know, however, this concept does not penetrate your mind.
Your deflection is noted!
I said you could educate yourself on the subject if you want to know that.
You want to be just correct enough so that if someone calls you on it, like me, you can claim that you are correct.
We both know better, right?
Since you seem very knowledgeable about this topic, do you find the UAH figures more accurate, or those produced by the RSS?
Has there been any dispute from other researchers and remote sensing data processors regarding the RSS findings in the article linked here?
I know that 0.
Both RSS and UAH went through large changes in their algorithms a few years ago and they both changed in the opposite direction!
RSS went warmer and UAH went cooler.
This has always seemed like a difficult measurement since there is a lot of calculation involved — far more complicated than surface temperatures.
Hopefully as time progresses, these two data sets will begin to show the same consistency as the surface temperatures.
If anything, they should be more reliable for the actual temperature readings, though that fact appears to elude some.
I appreciate any good source of information on this topic.
Even when that measurement was taken in February, the coldest month of the year for most of the landmass of the planet.
What are you trying to prove?
No more time to waste with true believers!
I realize, sweetie pie, that the chart shows 40 years of NOAA data.
But you only mentioned the last point.
Obviously your island paradise does not run to reading glasses.
Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2007.
According to the chart you supplied, every single year since then except for 2008 has been hotter.
And 2018 is some 3.
I gave a long response, which explained the reasons for the eruptions, and the primary reason for the cooling, all based on reputable science.
In essence its caused by astronomical factors, which reduce the solar radiation reaching the Earth.
This causes cooling, at regular 150 million year intervals.
When this agent is removed, the radiation levels return to normal, and so does the climate on Earth.
CARBON DIOXIDE Glacial periods come and go when Milankovitch cycles trigger those changes in climate.
Feedbacks that kick in after the initital warming are what do much of the warming.
Studies have shown that over 90% of the post glacial period warming happened AFTER the increase in CO2.
But now humans are Directly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate of about 38 Billion tons a year.
So CO2 is acting as a climate forcing, not a feedback.
That CO2 warms the atmosphere has been known since 1859.
There is no question about that.
You should read the article more closely.
The beginning of the end of an ice age is as follows; First, net solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth increases.
This causes gradual melt, as the melt proceeds, the land exposed increases, which absorbs more energy, instead of reflecting it, and the climate warms.
As the climate warms, the oceans warm, and begin to release CO2, so atmospheric CO2 increases, in that order.
However, the oceans form 70% of the Earth surface, and water takes longer to warm than land surface, as water has a greater heat capacity, which is why water is used in radiators, this delays the total heating of the whole planet, and is why the greatest heating occurs after the increase of released CO2.
Ice is not an impervious medium.
A more accurate method is to use fossilised plants, and count plant stomata, which are a more direct reflection of CO2 levels.
In the link, given by Tom, in the article above, this method was used.
This has been carried out for the period since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and instead of the 280 ppm, a figure of 350 ppm, and above was obtained.
Therefore, the whole hypothesis of the AGW body collapses, as it is unsupported by the data.
Therefore CO2 is bound to be higher when the climate is warm.
In the real world, all things are not equal, our emissions have caused a difference in partial pressures, which is increasing the oceanic uptake, which more than compensates for the temperature driven change in fluxes.
Another person who does not understand basic physics, which is becoming all the click to see more prevalent, since the AGW debacle started.
Lets try and explain it in common terms.
When beer is brewed, yeast is used to do the brewing, and, as a mate of mine who brews his own beer, puts it, it gobbles sugar, and farts CO2.
It is the CO2 that forms the bubbles in your beer.
If you dont believe me, try putting a beer in an oven, at say 30 deg C and another in the fridge, and see which goes flat first.
Partial pressures, are not identical to temperature, so the comment is irrelevant.
Naval Oceanographic Office and the U.
Geological Survey for more than 30 years, and who has spent the last 8 years examining the Global Warming phenomenon the first two of which were at the U.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationI have come to two conclusions.
First Global Warming is real.
Second, CO2 regardless of its origin i.
The CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Theory is totally irrelevant to the Global Warming phenomenon.
The Dipole Field, the GTA and the ELOD all have a 60 year period on the decade time scale.
There are many other such correlations on both time scales.
But CO2 cannot do this because it has no pondermotive force associated with it.
Furthermore, CO2 on the decade time scale lags the GTA by about 9 years according to Mauna Loa, HI Observatory data collected since 1955, which is a period of time that is at the height of anthropogenic activity.
Furthermore, on the millennium time scale the time lag averages about 800 years Monin et.
Therefore, if CO2 were the driver of Global Warming through the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then it would have to violate the Principle of Cause and Effect.
I have a short paperback book that explains this in more detail.
It should be available in the book stores e.
Its title is: GLOBAL WARMING: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory Publisher: Dorrance Publishing Co.
Note that the IPCC concentrates on Solar Irradiance, but ignores other solar energies such as that associated with Solar Magnetic Flux that has more than doubled since 1900.
Gravity is another player in the Global Warming picture.
There are no Martians to either generate or enhance CO2 on Mars.
Secondly there is no actual evidence that Mars is warming.
Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year.
Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme.
Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846.
Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable.
There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.
Deniers are so good at repeating long disproven arguments.
Where is the Peer Review?
Who is considered a Peer?
Anybody on that website will automatically be a supporter.
Nobody else is allowed.
None of the predictions are accurate.
Name calling is not the same as evidence.
As, so course is the IPCC, which is a political organisation set up to promote the C Tax variant 「the finer reels of life」のボーナスは「ウィスキー＆シガー」を取るべし！ もぐらのカジノ風雲録 congratulate />What happens on other planets in this solar system or any other, for that matter, is of no relevance to this discussion, as each planet is unique by virtue of its location, and composition, and cannot be compared to Earth.
If you go to the site, kindly provided by cjs, you can read the response.
However, the writer of the blog, specifically states in the introduction, that his intention is not to prove or disprove AGW, but to show the real effects of CO2 in the climate, by mathematical calculations.
It seems to never end.
Skeptical Science purpose is to Debunk the lies and myths about the science, promoted by the fossil fuels industry.
They have all been involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.
American Legislative Exchange Council ALEC 3.
Alexis de Tocquerville Institute 4.
American Enterprise Institute AEI 5.
Americans for Prosperity 6.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation 7.
Burson-Marsteller PR firm 8.
Citizens Against Government Waste CAGW 9.
Competitive Enterprise Institute CEI 11.
DCI Group PR firm 13.
European Science and Environment Forum 14.
Frontiers of Freedom 16.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 18.
International Center for a Scientific Ecology 22.
International Policy Network 23.
John Locke Foundation 24.
National Center for Public Policy Research 26.
National Journalism Center 27.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest NLCPI 28.
Pacific Research Institute 29.
Small Business Survival Committee 31.
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition TASSC 32.
Washington Legal Foundation 5 and 9 were created by the billionaire oil and lumber tycoon Koch brothers, who fund all kinds of anti-enviromental PR.
They also fund denial of the science saying formaldahyde causes cancer.
This is no surprise, since they are major owners of Georgia Pacific lumber company.
Milloy is NOT a scientist.
Fox ever divulge that to you?
And Milloy gets funding from, guess who?
And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
His books are about what he stumbled onto.
So they maneuvered to have him removed and replaced with the new guy, Pauchari may be spelled wrong.
He was an agnostic on anthropogenic climate change.
Now he agrees with the consensus.
So, all the deniers attacked him and smeared his name.
His entire inner circle was conected to the fossil fuels industry.
Then this same lawyer Cooneyheaded efforts to censor scientists at NASA.
They also tried to prevent climate scientist James Hansen from releasing a report about global temperature for 2005, because 2005 was either the warmest year on record or tied with 1998 for warmest.
They had public policy people inserted into the Institute to ride herd over the scientists.
The same Petroleum Institute lawyer Cooney led this assault on science.
Then this same lawyer Cooneyhttps://casinobonusgamesonline.com/37/2409.html efforts to censor scientists read more NASA.
They also tried to prevent climate scientist James Hansen from releasing a report about global temperature for 2005, because 2005 was either the warmest year on record or tied with 1998 for warmest.
They had public policy people inserted into the Institute to ride herd over the scientists.
The same Petroleum Institute lawyer Cooney led this assault on science.
Appearing in the film was Dr.
The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr.
They set up organizations like Policy Communications, The Western Business Roundtable, Partnership for America, and Americans for American Energy, to make it seem like there is this groundswell of grassroots organizations opposing the scientific theory of man made climate change and opposing the move to sustainable energy.
These are actually all the same people from the fossil fuel industry and mining industry.
They are all staffed by the same executives.
The money came from the Alberta oil and gas industry through the Calgary Foundation, who funneled it through the University of Calgary and ultimately ending up at FOS.
FOS has funded Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso, Robert Balling and Pat Michaels.
His trip to Washington to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuel co.
Every change in global climate fitting the orbital predictions of Milankovitch far exceed — by over ten times — the amplitude orbital changes alone cause.
Getting a fraction closer to the Sun, tilting a little in its direction: these account for tenths of a degree, when the warming or cooling is on the scale of five degrees.
Humans have reset the upper bounds on the parameters, and the planet is warming 15-200 times faster than any rate of climate change even the YD episode in global climate, and rising higher in temperature than the globe has seen since humans evolved.
Perhaps because he was not involved in this discussion, dont you think?
The Sun is warming long term, not cooling.
Solar radiation, reaching the Earth has been diminishing steadily for the last 30 million years, with minor fluctuations during that period.
The sun operates in a galactic system, not in grand isolation.
So galactic events cause effects that can, and do change the suns radiation reaching the Earth.
Also, you cling to handwaved and known wrong cyclic dogmatism like a drowning man to an anchor around his neck.
Currently a main-sequence star on the Hertzsprung—Russell diagram, the Sun varies due to stellar evolution as it burns its hydrogen supply along this sequence expected to last a total of roughly ten-billion years.
The early Sun was approximately 70% as bright as at the present when it joined the main sequence about 4.
At this rate, it will take ten-million years for the background solar-brightness to increase by the 0.
I — Kopp, G.
Magnitudes and Timescales of Total Solar Irradiance Variability 2016 The Sun has been running contrary to global climate trends for the past six decades, and the Hale Cycle, once a reliable correlation, no longer shows up in the global temperature record.
There is no need to further observe these behaviors, and the subject joins many others who billions of people simply ignore.
Thanks, Disqus Block User feature.
Such nonsense is why deniers should not be taken seriously.
It is politics, not science, that motivates you.
So, tell me WHO DID set up the IPCC, the boy-scout brigade?
John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups.
Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love.
Scientists all over the world, in Universities and national science agencies, like NASA, NOAA do the research, independent of the IPCC.
They are not paid.
The IPCC just presents the findings to the public and policy makers.
IPCC has had several rather embarrassing exposures in the past, but they rely on their friends in the press to not mention them beyond a few months each.
In the past, IPCC has declared the melting of all Himalayan glaciers, when India was watching.
The natives are still there, blissfully unaware that their island home is no longer there by UN fiat.
Though to be fair, it is only a large sand bar and is no more than six inches above sea level, mostly mangrove swamp.
It is true that a tidal wave did wash over it, but mangroves are tough.
Such is the evidence arrayed against you.
Hope you are not too discouraged.
The polar caps of Mars have been observed to shrink compared to what they were in the Mariner days.
That gives us a nearly 50 year timeline.
They actually can be seen to grow half of the year and shrink the other half, but the overall trend is shrinking slightly over a long timeline.
Actual temperatures on Mars are not things we can track very far back in time.
Mars has only a few percent of the atmosphere of Earth, but it is largely carbon dioxide.
So for that matter are a lot of the polar caps.
You seemed to me to be alluding that there is no CO2 on Mars.
Just like the evidence for life on Mars.
Jupiter has almost as much interior warming as it gets from solar radiation, and the planets beyond that get very little heat from the sun.
Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia — the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings and latterly, photographs that reveal changes in gross surface features i.
It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.
The pictures revealed that in 1977 the surface was brighter than in 1999, and from this Fenton used a general circulation model to suggest that between 1977 and 1999 the planet had experienced a warming trend of 0.
Taking two end points — pictures from 1977 and 1999 — did not reveal any kind of trend, merely the weather on two specific Martian days.
Without the intervening data — which was not available — it is impossible to say whether there was a trend in albedo reduction, or what part the prodigious dust storms played in the intervening period between the first and second photographs.
Indeed, when you look at all the available data — sparse though it is — there is no discernable long term trend in albedo.
At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming.
The dust storm contributed to a temporary warming effect around Mars, raising the temperature of the atmosphere by around 20-30°C.
Interestingly, whereas the atmosphere of the planet heats up, the surface of the planet cools down because it receives much less solar heat.
Sorry, nik, you blew that one.
The ocean uptake thing is different.
Water can take in CO2 or give it off.
CO2 dissolves in water, you see.
Beer is largely water, so you first dissolve the maximum CO2 in it.
The brewer does that.
Sea water also dissolves CO2.
More as it warms, but, there is a two way traffic with the atmosphere.
The same thing is true of Coke, BTW.
Partial pressure is really just a measurement of the maximum pressure of the CO2.
There is a partial pressure for every gas.
CO2 in the water can also be used by the plankton and converted into sugars.
It also changes the waters Ph slightly.
There are arguments among experts on just how much CO2 fuels sea life.
You may want to work on that.
If you want absolute conviction, stay in church.
So we know your fossil waste dumping has consequences bottlenecking in our air, and disposal of those wastes is performed by our lands and waters.
If you use our lands and waters, you owe us Market rents set by the Law of Supply and Demand.
Still not finding any.
No one ever came out to say why they were wrong, but they did come out to loudly denounce anybody who questioned them.
These people are not real scientists.
If they were, then they would welcome analysis of why the predictions failed so miserably and so often.
Then they would fix the prediction process.
Kind of like here, really.
None are so blind as the trite repeating propaganda.
Hansen 1988 Scenario B is remarkably reel přehazování bonusové kódy a kde hrát cz />And Hansen identified where and why his simulations erred.
What hucksters we hear of are mainly fringe bandwagon jumpers, or victims of unjustified defamations painted so.
Science is by what you do, not who you are.
Hold exact or most true only inference from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation lead to amended or new inference.
Tone poem slanders handwavingly.
Kind of like yetanothertroll.
So we have people who are saying that C02 is the main cause of global warming?
They are all on board and now we have a carbon tax because burning fossil fuels and using a car is leaving behind a huge carbon footprint, which equals bad.
But, lets fix this problem by driving EV?
EV vehicles will burn more fossil fuels in their procurement from raw materials to manufacturing, use, and recycling than petrol and diesel cars and combustion engines.
But there are 2 sides to every coin, and there definitely is special vested interests in green tech as well.
But C02 definitely plays a role in climate change.
Main driver of climate change?
In all caps no less.
EV lifecycle fossil payback is measured in weeks or months, and far less than ICE fossil in production.
Pure inference from all the hard physical data tells us fossil fumes are causing immense harm and the solution is to keep fossil out of the air.
Economics tells us people use less when they have to pay a price set by the Law of Supply and Demand than they use when they can take for free.
Main driver of climate change?
Estimates of terrestrial soil respiration is about 60 GtC per year; the oceanic outgassing is estimated to be 90 GtC per year.
Previous estimates of terrestrial vegetation respiration were about 60GtC … 90+60+60+1.
Most scientists, except for a few notable wild eyed radical marchers, who get arrested, hedge their bets when making predictions based on their ever changing models.
They use, stock photos of sick Polar Bears and actually show photoshopped photos of New York under 30 feet of water.
If I was a school kid in NY that would scare the hell out of me!
They used to be posted here all the time!
Another simple example of journaistic exaggeration and politics mixing with science is the conventional wisdom that Tuvalu is being washed away as we speak, and the U.
Tuvalu is growing, not shrinking!
So until global warmers and their liberal accomplices stop acting like Chicken Littles and more like scientists, the carbon taxcheme will continue to be a hard sell!
To behave like a scientists is to behave like Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Geologists, and NOT like Astrologists, Chiropractors, Homeopathists, shamans, medicine men etc Respect and trust have to be earned, not enforced!
Your own choice for President, so you told us, Bernie Sanders is a good example!
Your left wing struggles with logic are the only reason I engage you.
Aside from embarrasing yourself, and pointing out spelling mistakes, you have nothing of interest to add to these blogs!
I would invite them to join him in his latest crusade to spell check these blogs.
He can FINALLY get some satisfaction there.
The world would be a much better place without spelling mistakes!
Just look at our relative Disqus approval ratings.
You, on the other hand, really seem to place a lot of importance on this.
But since you prefer up-to-date information over cumulative data, you might want to compare the current upvotes you have versus mine on the last blog post about melting permafrost.
As commonly used, science is an organized system of investigation where hypothesis are tested against evidence to produce results, and the results are then used to correct the hypothesis.
Skepticism is encouraged, and the proposer has to defend against those proposing competing ideas, or just disputing the use of the evidence as presented.
Often the ideas presented require a generation or more to achieve acceptance.
Its on the public record!
More delusion, more foolishness.
You really made it too easy this time, Wilson.
More delusions and more foolishness, indeed.
Care to guestimate the relative percentage for our dear readers?
Did more than half the country vote for Hillary?
Things that give you considerable troubleapparently.
You do need to quit lying, Wilson.
If you want absolute confidence, stay in church where you belong.
Those words are conspicuously missing from the pronouncements of the AGW Leaders.
Al Gore, Heinz-Kerry, Obama, and their Hollywood crowd.
Personally, I see climate change as a symptom, not the problem.
The problem is that they are looking for exponential more info with finite resources.
My mission is to persuade as many people as possible to modify their consumption of energy, water, and unnecessary products and packaging, thereby reducing the enormous amount of waste that Americans generate.
What are you doing to make the world a better place?
My carbon footprint is zero.
As a young man one of my hobbies was planting trees!
Your poster child Tuvalo, is not sinking, it is growing!
I have never even mentioned it.
Think you should find out more about the United Nations.
Or at least share where you got the idea that the UN tells the US who they should give aid to, and how much.
You should also look up the history of the national debt.
You might be surprised which presidents added the most.
But I can assure you that I had nothing to do with it.
I no longer believe that you live simply on a tropical island.
But it made a good story.
I can assure you I know where I live!
As far as I can see, you have not supplied one shred of evidence to support a single contention you have made.
UN tells the US who they should give aid to, and how much.
Understand that, and you have the answer to a lot of the worlds events.
Were the Elders of Zion involved?
Tell us more, please.
In both cases, that was the situation.
Andy is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Which it the Kennedy case, actually did!
He had political enemies at the J.
Edgar Hoover FBI, and he was shot and killed!
That is self evident!
No one really knows what happened, because dead men tell no tales!
I would include corporations and special interests as well.
Because, yes, absolutely, he who controls the money and buys the politicians controls the country.
I am unaware of any mechanism for bankers, etc, to buy influence.
Although I have not had much contact with priests in the Anglican Church they are called ministers I did give up believing in the real hoax — that there is a supernatural entity in control of the universe- when I was 11.
However, at the final year exams, I still came third overall in the school, in RI, much to the shock of the teacher, who was a lay preacher.
At the beginning of the year he had asked us to write an essay as to why god had said such and such to Moses, or vice versa.
But most of the world is now connected.
In that graph, the highest amount that the Earths CO2 reached, ever, was 17 times present.
In addition, the Earths CO2 level at that time is shown at 4000 ppm, only ten times present.
So the claim in science mag, of 20 times cannot be true, which then throws doubt upon the whole article.
Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean.
A period of mountain-building was also underway the so-called Taconic orogeny increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further.
The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun.
During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars.
Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so.
If you look a little more at the graph, you will also see that cold periods, repeat at approximately 150 million year intervals.
These cold periods are not contested, as they are accompanied by major extinctions, and have been studied intensively.
There is no known process by which the suns nuclear system can operate on a 150 m.
Therefore reason for it must be external, or galactic.
The sun orbits the centre of the galaxy, and periodically passes through the arms of the galaxy.
The interstellar dust in the arms of the galaxy attenuates the suns radiation reaching the Earth, so it get colder.
In addition gravitational effects may cause an increase in earthquakes, and volcanic action, which in turn increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
When the solar system emerges from the arm of the galaxy, solar radiation reaching Earth returns to normal, and therefore, the climate follows.
As the climate warms, the CO2 also rises, as discussed previously.
Skeptics usually consider the fact that the rise in temperature leads the rise in CO2 as necessary and sufficient evidence that the opposite could never occur.
But there are two different physical processes responsible for each and each does not render the other moot.
To me, the following analogy is instructive.
Most analogies are not perfect, but I think this gets makes the point I am wishing to get across.
When a current passes through a wire, a magnetic field is created.
The field does not exist without the current.
But it is also true that passing a magnet through a loop of wire will create a current.
The current will not exist if the magnet is not there or stationary.
Two different physical laws are derived to handle these different physical situations.
Thus, physics does not tell us that just because a current creates a magnetic field that the opposite cannot also happen.
If it did, the the sun would still orbit the Earth, and the Earth would be at the centre of the universe.
I have yet to actually meet one!
Exactly what evidence would you use to support such a radical assertion?
I am now a newly converted climate change denier — pleased to meet you.
And if you take one word of this seriously, you are an even greater threat to the continuation of the human race than climate change is.
There was plenty of context.
Climate change, on Earth, has been continuous for the last 4.
Or whether the temperature increases claimed by various entities are real, most are not, and are grossly exaggeratedand whether those increases can be caused by other means, than CO2, which they obviously can be.
The original figure, of 120 ppm based on ice core drillings, has been shown to be inaccurate, and figures supplied elsewhere based on plant stomata, which are considered more accurate, as used in the data link supplied by the author of this articlegive a figure of 50 ppm, max, and possibly as low as 20 ppm.
As fossils are used for these estimates, an accurate figure cannot be reached, only an averaged estimate, whatever the source.
In ALL the GW lobby claims, only human produced CO2 is considered, which is simply a false premise, and climate history supports that accusation fully.
One equally possible cause, of several, is deforestation, either human or natural, of which the human form commenced at the around the same time as CO2 emissions, so both CO2 increase and deforestation occurred simultaneously.
So the effects of both or either are possible causes of the relatively minor temperature increase, as in the early days, charcoal was used extensively, for many industrial processes, and as you must be aware, charcoal is made from trees.
If deforestation were the cause or even part of the cause of temperature rise, then reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, will exacerbate the alleged problem, by weakening the already suffering trees further.
The world is approaching a new Milankovitch ice age, and paradoxically, an ice age is usually preceded by a warming period, its the warming period, that produces more evaporation, and therefore more precipitation, in the form of rain, and snow, and combined with reduced solar radiation, precipitates the ice age.
The snow reduces radiation reaching the soil, and each year, the permanent snow line advances.
The process is asymptotic, so once commenced, can proceed rapidly.
Analysis of deep sea and lake deposits from core drillings, covering the last million years, or approx ten ice ages, have shown that the change from inter ice age to full ice age conditions has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.
So, do you really want to reduce the global temperature?
Obviously, either you cannot read, or only remember the parts that suit your prejudices.
Climate change, on Earth, has been continuous for the last 4.
Otherwise, its back to the tinfoil roll!
All you can do is spout irrelevant details about climate in the past — when there were no humans.
Try as you might, you cannot demonstrate that human activity has not had an effect on the temperature.
Nor can you come close to showing that increasing temperatures have nothing to do with the increasing severity of weather events.
You really must learn to read, and understand what you read!
Have another look at what I have written, it will be good practice for you, to that end.
The article is about the role of CO2.
As demonstrated here in the comments.
Especially those who think they know the basics but let themselves down with basic, elementary mistakes in their posts.
So, if you need some other advice.
With respect to With Respect.
The question is how.
Climate scientists and the IPPC have estimated a range for climate sensitivity that has not changed much over the years and it has its error range and uncertainty stated.
If only we could all just wish it away.
I check the accuracy of the predictions made.
Most of them have an abysmal record on being correct.
The real problems are with the journalists and the politicians who take the worst sorts of these predictions and run away with things without reality checking.
Reality checking is what I want to see.
Design of building systems is based on the expected environment that the building operates in.
We typically use in the USA climate data published by the Federal Government.
This gives the expected mean and extreme weather conditions for now and up to twenty years out.
How hot the hottest day will be, how cold the coldest day will be, and so forth.
The buildings support systems are then designed based on those values.
Use the wrong values, and the building may get too hot.
Alternately, pipes might freeze and rupture.
In extreme cases, it can mean overloading the electrical system and starting fires that should have been avoided.
For some here, this may seem trivial, but it is a real concern.
When the structures get too hot, people die.
It happens a couple of times every year in the US, and more so in Europe, where the climate has shifted enough to really impact the usage of old buildings that have not been or perhaps cannot be renovated properly.
Nobody I know uses IPCC for anything except supplying an outhouse.
The first is very useful.
The second is a misplaced religion.
Less valuable than most cults actually.
The IPCC has been quite accurate in its reports.
Bear in mind that the IPCC does not really make predictions — it is a review of the state of the science as known at that time.
There are some thoughts that it tends to be over careful with its forecasts.
This is partly attributed to the fact that everything has to be agreed by all countries so the statements tend to get blandified.
As you say it is a developing science and I am sure you can cherry pick some predictions made by individuals that failed.
That is how science tends to progress though.
In broad terms and on the platinum reels casino 70 free spins for new and existing players bonus codes indicators Climate Science has a very good record.
India gently pointed out that this was wrong.
Sorry, but that is just one example of why IPCC is not a reputable or reliable organization.
They are first and foremost a political orginization.
Science and especially accuracy score a distant third with them.
This just makes the field even less useful or reliable, so it is unfortunate.
No, I want the researchers to use their models to make predictions that are reasonably near-term, then to give analysis of what the errors were.
What I fear is happening is that too many are taking a single parameter, or a limited grouping of parameters and then fitting them to the recent past and afterwards ignoring the tie-ins.
As an Engineer, I can use standard curve fit libraries to relate literally any limited set of data to any other set of data.
Since the fit is by now only a long string of calculations fitting my RBI data to produce a curve that matches the temperature records, it will produce some random number when I try to extend it without considerable massaging of the output.
Exactly the same thing can be done with CO2 and temperature data or with literally any other set of data that is extensive enough.
This is standard mathematics.
The how-to is in a minor way a part of every Calculus course.
That is why in Engineering, no computer model is considered an adequate substitute for real world testing.
Only after a long period of testing can a computer model be relied upon when lives are on the line.
And lives are really on the line here.
The basic difference between real physical sciences and social sciences is that if you question the professor and then prove he is wrong in a physical science class, as long as you can actually show why he was wrong and then prove it in an actual measurable experiment, you pass the class.
In a social science, only opinion, and only the professors opinion matters.
Application of the scientific method will eventually establish the truth here, but I see very little of that coming from either side of the debate.
I do not think you will be able to.
If you cannot provide one I think you should withdraw your statement that they are not a reliable or reputable organisation.
Or come up with a proper example of what you mean.
Of course I know what you are actually referring to but you have got it very wrong and lifted something from an unreliable and disreputable source.
The IPCC ordered to dump technology by nv regulators a difficult job balancing the conflicting demands of many more info and is, as you say, a political organisation trying to present the science as it stands.
But it does not do a bad job considering the complexity.
The occasional mistake in such a large undertaking is to be expected.
Where did you get that idea from?
More to the point, why do you say it?
Though you have posted many times since you cannot spare the time to explain yourself?
You are trying to portray yourself as an individual who is all knowing and of such impeccable scientific purity so pure that you can crticise all the climate scientists for not having the insight and wisdom you have.
And you can impugn the IPCC mightily because they have got it all so wrong.
Yet when you malign the IPCC your best shot at justifying your disdain is shown to be completely wrong but you have absolutely nothing to say?
Better to just play quiet and say nothing?
That way you do not have to face up to the contradiction?
If your best shot at justification of your bias flops so dismally perhaps you should examine your prejudice and try and remember where and why you formed your views?
Why are you so biased against climate scientists and the IPCC?
I suspect you have been hanging around anti-science sites.
The depressing thing is you have been caught making an unfounded and unjustified accusation but it is unlikely you will examine the facts and reevaluate your opinion.
Yes, I said that I do not consider IPCC to be a reliable organization.
They are much more political than scientific.
Oh, well, I have a thick skin and can live with a lot of loud meaningless noise.
They have said the same for Greenland.
Satellite photographs show both land masses still have the majority of their ice covering.
So, IPCC was wrong yet again.
Physics started out that way too.
Just look up the wars between Newton and Leibnitz.
For consensus as a guarantor of correctness, I remember Webber.
You may know enough science to be aware of how that turned out.
It is evidence, not agreement that determines what is science and what is superstition.
Just today I saw one that the Gulf Stream is now collapsing.
That you do not address that oversight in your reply is very telling.
If you cannot show more care with the facts, the details and the truth make you a non credible commentator.
So I will repeat it.
It constitutes a complete dismissal and collapse of your position.
If you cg technology fined not address it that shows your criticism of the IPCC and climate scientists is just based on hearsay and misinformation.
Perhaps you would like to try and answer why you got it so wrong?
Only a natural 2015-2016 El Nino has caused any warming, and that was the release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
All of the above are provably true.
Why do you deny self evident and observable facts?
For example, the climate has changed before.
But never before at the rate of change we have seen in the past 50 years.
Everything is the sun.
But again, variations in solar activity take place on a different time scale.
If we look only at incoming radiation from the sun, the earth should be cooling, but it is not.
It is bad — very bad, but I suspect you will choose not to accept that.
There is very definitely consensus in the scientific sense -all studies, all data, regardless of the source point to the same conclusion — human activity has caused the earth to warm.
The information derived from models changes with the input.
That does not mean that they are unreliable.
They are not expected to be perfect predictors of future climate conditions, but they give a reasonably accurate idea of what will happen if we continue with business as usual.
Temperature measurements become more and more accurate every day using a vast network of thermometers and satellites.
It is possible that we are off on estimates of temperatures thousands and millions of years ago.
However, it is clear that the current trend is inexorably upward.
In my 34 years in the US, I have seen our temperature zone shift from Zone 5 to Zone 5B.
This may not sound like much, but it translates to a difference in the frost free season of nearly two months.
Good for me trying to grow tomatoes in upstate New York, disaster areas that previously relied on a severe winter to control bugs.
Humans can probably adapt, but plants and most animals are having a hard time.
It has most definitely warmed since 1998.
The RATE of increase stayed relatively stable, but the actual temperature continued to rise.
The Antarctic is gaining SEA ICE as are and more ice slips off the continental shelf.
Overall there is a loss.
I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Today the slight warming is partly responsible for Anual World Record Agricultural Food Production to feed a very hungry world!
And so you damn well should be.
When do we want it?
Have yourself a good life, ya hear?
Hate has nothing to do with defending the environment, and I challenge you to support your notion that any environmentalist has shouted we want dead cops, nor ransacked a Mom and Pop store.
Frankly, you make me sick.
Think about it for a moment!
Then get help, before your hate endangers others!
The would be tinkerers are the clear and present danger.
We should not blithely try to directly effect artificial changes of global scope as there would be unintended consequences.
Then, nothing can be controlled without reasonably accurate measurement of the relevant parameters.
Measure the wrong parameters and you will have no control over the outcome.
That may be because the press exaggerates things, it may be because coverage is incomplete.
Scariest of all, it may be that the Experts have no idea why this is all happening.
As an engineer, I have a bias.
Fixing problems is what really matters.
We may be fixing the wrong problem.
Trying to address the problem, of ill-defined causation as it is, with heroic feats of geo-engineering misting, reflective particulates, etc.
A better strategy would be to develop economically attractive alternative energy sources and thereby remove anthropogenic changes in CO2 levels from the equation.
That problem went away after the air pollution cleanups mandated fitting most coal burning sites with filters that took the fine dust out.
It seems dust in high altitudes radiates away heat quite efficiently.
To totally counter global warming, just turn off the static precipitators.
Of course, you will then have to deal with acid rain and slightly reduced sunlight intensity.
All solutions create other problems.
Another path to solutions would be to actually build the solar power satellites that are constantly being proposed, and use them to replace 400 or so terrawatts of electrical generation, then to shift over most transportation to electrical.
To do that, some things, like railroads, would transition to actual electrical drives, others, like cars and aircraft would use synthetic fuels.
The best are hexane kerosine and octane gasoline.
Those can be easily made by electrolyzing hydrogen out of water and then burning atmospheric CO2 in a lean hydrogen atmosphere.
The water is then taken off and re-electrolyzed to start the process all over again.
Whatever path we wind up choosing, we will need ultimately to replace much of the carbon that was once in coal seams.
That takes a lot of time.
What level of CO2 we might wish to finalize is an open question that is still being debated.
Are you saying that never before in geological time has there been a similar rate of warming?
Within the geological record, the closest rate of change of global temperature that can be derived from proxies to date is the Younger Dryas YD episode, though that was a cooling rather than warming event.
YD was some 15 times slower so far as we can know from measurable proxies and reasonable inferences than the current fossil-waste-induced AGW episode.
YD itself was almost 15 times faster than the usual rate of change between warm and cool Milankovitch plateaus.
If you require sources, I recommend Google Scholar.
Max and min temperatures of cycles would seem to be more determinative of the degree of global warming.
In that case, rate matters, because warmer than now equals higher sea level than now, but if the sea level encroaches only a millimeter a year there is not much need to reevaluate a property compared to loss of two meters a decade.
Should we care if we through neglect hurt the wallets of thousands or hundreds of thousands of oceanfront landowners worldwide?
If the normal rate is tiny, then an order of magnitude increase in rate might not correspond to a concomitant increase in significance.
As for the economic impact, I never thought about it that way and it is an interesting question with legal and political implications.
They require the effort to read through perhaps five to seven paragraphs of information and apply logic, then test that knowledge to the limits of rigor.
That could take two to three hours.
Thank you for considering the economic argument, which to a fiscal conservative is where the rubber meets the road.
This is not as difficult as the question of whether the rate of warming is unprecedented: any normal Capitalist wants the Market to fulfill its function with minimal interference from government and minimal corruption.
All we need for that to be fixed is for landowners to charge a fossil waste disposal fee on fossil CO2 dumpers at so high a rate as the Law of Supply and Demand will sustain.
Who has interest in lands and waters and does not pursue collection of such fees is slothful and hurts his own interests and the interests of all their fellow landlords.
Who fails to pay such a fee, whether notified it is owing or not, is merely stealing.
Even if the rate is an order of magnitude greater than than the last inferred max warming rate, rather than the average rate on an up-cycle, the significance of rate is unclear to me for the same reason it would be when comparing against the average rate.
A higher warming rate over the same or greater period would obviously mean more warming and in that case be significant.
Rate of warming is a path variable but does not by itself describe an end state and this is the source of my uncertainty.
I would not want to form an opinion until I am somewhat familiar with the data but am willing to tentatively accept the analysis of those reputable parties who are.
I am unclear as to how your carbon tax would work.
Say I have a some beachfront property.
How could I possibly levy a tax against anyone else for burning carbon?
What kinds of land would be considered as subject to a use tax?
I honestly do not want to be a taxing authority, with the problem of enforcement and all that entails.
I am, however, interested in lands and waters, being a nature lover and interested in pursuing a self-sufficient life style on my own land.
You might want to start with Fairbanks, Richard G.
That will give you a start on how we know about the speed of global warming, though there have been three decades of new work since then amounting to thousands of peer-reviewed studies on this topic within climatology.
A good textbook or comprehensive literature review will condense all the conclusions to five to seven paragraphs.
What I have is Capitalism.
Fossil waste disposal is the product.
Fossil waste dumping is the act of taking that product from landlords and those with an interest in waters, through the mechanisms of biosequestration and weathering to return fossil to mineral form.
All you, as their victim, have is a tort for damages due their neglect.
If you go after the people who hurt you in court, the courts do not tax them, but find fault and assess damages, empowering the state to collect from wrongdoers to turn over amounts the courts decide will make you whole, on the strength of your arguments.
Capitalism is more efficient, and leads to better outcomes throughout the economy, stimulating job growth and improving the bottom line for producers.
I think you would advocate a fossil fuel use rights market, correct?
If I am not getting your meaning, please explain.
What we can do is try to achieve the goals of Capitalism by the means of the Market so far as possible to make exchanges honestly express the democracy of individual choices of buyers and sellers, to relieve misery and enhance the utility of scarce resources most efficiently.
Fossil resources can make countless goods that are never dumped into the air: plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, metallurgy feedstocks, construction materials, industrial chemicals and on and on.
In effect, we need to find the points of sale that differentiate those uses, and have the sellers at those points collect fossil waste disposal fees just like sellers in any storefront charge a markup on the goods they sell so they can pay rent to their landlord.
Who holds interest in the lands and waters of the nation — private or public — ought be collecting a fee for use of fruits of their lands, or we know what Tragedy comes from any Commons treatment of what scarcity of the land ought be husbanded to pass on to future generations.
Would all pollution-disposing geographical assets be folded into a pool and would this not disable a wing of the free market by precluding competition in producing the disposal service?
As well, the production does not require human skill and labor so it is not a traditional trade good or service.
If we think of land assets as factories producing a good and service, should there not be requirements that they be maintained at a minimum standard before charges for said service are levied?
Perhaps the market you envision would be fraught with problems arising from its degree of artificiality, as this would be greater than one for more natural markets through which traditional products are traded.
There is strong analogy to traditional markets, which seems to read article stretched and should not be taken too far, IMO.
For every regulation, law, fine, bylaw, rule, guideline of government, there are tens of millions of transactions in the world working by habit, tradition, mutual consent, consensus and conscience perfectly well.
Sure, getting government out of picking winners and losers, getting corruption out of government, are important and never moreso than now; but, people need to start paying for fossil waste disposal on the Market regardless assured, đánh giá vị trí one million reels bc, mã thưởng & the regulation, and landlords need to start being rewarded by the Market for keeping their lands and waters in good order.
Act directly, without government.
This is about a specific resource with a specific Market: fossil waste disposal.
Disposal of all those other pollutants?
Sure, there are problems and issues there, and some of the solutions for this work for that, but bandwagon jumping and confusion only slows work toward specific solutions to specific issues.
Or rather, that is what the scientific record indicates.
With Respect has given a good response below.
I can just add that, in spite of scientists of all persuasions having looked really hard, they have not found anything comparable to the recent rapid rise in temperatures.
And no, this was felt even in Antarctica, it was not a localized event … though it was stronger in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere did not hold still.
Even if this was not felt, at all, in the Southern Hemisphere, that would still be 1°C per decade for the entire globe.
Alarmists ignore those facts.
For example, the marine sediments from the Bermuda Rise Keigwin 1996 have an estimated dating uncertainty of ±160 years and the lake sediments from Lake Tsuolbmajavri Korholaet al.
O course scientists document facts — all of them.
Then other scientists look at the documentation.
Some look at a small number of studies.
Others do meta studies, looking at huge numbers of other studies.
And pretty close to all of them have come to the same conclusion — when you look at all the data, the only possible explanation for rising temperatures is human activity.
She answered my question.
There is no physical, observational evidence.
There is no observational evidence.
You want someone to attach micro-thermometers to molecules of carbon dioxide so that you can actually OBSERVE a change in temperature.
What is reported, though is Oxygen brightness temperature, not CO2.
O2 is di-atomic, while CO2 is tri-atomic.
O2 lacks that looseness, that ability that many molecules have those with more than two atoms to spin and shake their molecular bonds.
Greenhouse gases, in spectral analysis, have many lines of absorption and radiationand molecular collisions make these lines wider than they would be in a rarefied state like held in a glass tube, at low pressure, with no other molecules.
Trying to separate closely-spaced spectral lines from different molecules is difficult, so, one would look for a line in an uncrowded space of spectrum.
CO2 is at thermal equilibrium with its adjacent O2 and N2 molecules.
These isolated and simple studies consistently show the interferences that CO2 presents in the infrared band … easily verified.
Plass wrote, in 1956, in one paper, three times, phrases different ways … cautioning us, that his calculations shows a greenhouse effect increase in temperature, from adding more CO2 … if nothing else changes.
It is a planetary thermostat … imperfect, but enough negative feedback to keep the planet remarkably stable.
Earf has maintained a stable temperature ±½% for thousands of years.
I am more than averagely literate.
I understand every individual word, but I cannot understand what you are trying to say.
Perhaps that is just because you like talking without actually saying anything.
If you answered my question, I missed it.
O2 brightness is a measure of atmospheric temperature.
Just because CO2 is a GHG does nor mean that more CO2, causes planetary warming.
End of points, reinforcement info follows.
These clouds … have a larger greenhouse effect.
As far as I know the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere have remained pretty stable.
So what is there to study?
Levels of CO2have changed.
Inquiring minds want to know why and what the effect of that change might be.
Nothing … NOTHING but computer models.
Would you care to discuss the flaws in the computer models???
I do not enjoy being sarcastic.
I do not enjoy making fun of grammatical irregularities.
I do so because it is often the only way to draw attention to really stupid posts.
Melting ice, raising sea level, ocean-heat content, are all related to the first, temperature.
Warming is, for certain, concrete evidence of … well, warming.
It does not implicate a cause of the warming.
All these global indicators are physically linked in a direct way to the first on the list, surface temperature,….
Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation.
Melting Arctic sea ice is another.
It is the one and only point of evidence, and it is used to fortify the argument of AGW.
Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation.
Melting Arctic sea ice is another.
However, evidence of warming says nothing about the cause of the warming.
That is just conjecture, fortified by computer models.
No evidence, just the fantasy imaginings of computer models.
Oh, and the warming.
To the limited question I posed.
Usually, alarmists speak of temperature rise rate, or the atmospheric CO2 rise rate.
Both are flawed concepts, as the modern instrumentation period cannot be compared to the non-instrumentation period, because … well, there were no instruments, then.
You have to switch to proxy representations of temperature.
Even if the proxy item could be considered as absolutely flawless in its ability to record temperature, the ability we have of determining the temporal resolution … what year it was, for example … is really poor.
The temporal resolution of the instrumentation period is measured in minutes, perhaps a few hours.
The ice core records have a temporal error amounting to dozens and dozens of years, even plus or minus a hundred years.
The imprecise dating of the sample, introduces a skew of the time, temperature data point.
Subsequent averaging of time, temperature data points with dating errors causes the obliteration of short-term temperature excursions, even though the peaks of the excursions might have been accurately recorded with individual proxies.
July 10, 2018 City Council Meeting
Sat 3 Oct 1953 - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) Page 25 - Advertising
For more information, visit Aspers' website at www.
This review is part of the Cannonball Read series.
Online casino wms slotsWill it be free spins.
He approaches a V.
Programm-Analizator calculation algorithms for slot gaming machines Gaminator, Cobra, Megakatok, Games4You, Hot Spot Platinum All players dream of winning the jackpot.
Live auction will be held at the event.
However, he added that if there's one place that should worry about the impending opening of MGM National Harbor, it's the Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races in West Virginia.
Slots - Zeus's Wrath bring you the secrets and treasure from the legendary father of God and men!
It retains some of that character today, but since the 1950s, its economy has been dominated by the casino gaming industry.
Save more with user submitted comfort you.
Minors under the age of 21 will be allowed in the Spice Bay Buffet when accompanied by an adult 21 years of age or older.
SANDS CD AND PINSOLD!