13 agency report says humans are the dominant cause for climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.

We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.

If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.

Our current crop of alarmists do not like the word "CONTEXT"...

All temperature variations need to be looked at in context. One of the biggest problems is the spatial resolution of long term records (one data point for 500 years. this averages the whole record to one point and all of the trends within are lost). Most people who are not trained in science do not understand this. This is how Michael Mann created his infamous Hockey Stick. 99% of his record was made from 250-500 year data point plots and then he tacked the yearly plots on the end of it. The data on the end would be gone if it were properly placed in an averaged point. IT was pure deception.

Again we need the context they are unwilling to provide to easily duped people.

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies, using different proxies, in different localities, by different researchers. You may not like the results, but they have stood up very well to independent research.

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies

Of course. Why else would they give Michael Mann a Nobel Prize?

 

[Old Rocks]

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

You can, by cooling it.

It is heat that keeps the nucleus together? Energy is only, simply, heat? All energy is removed by cooling something?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By damn, someone finally beat Silly Billy for nonsensical statements. Goddamn but you are ignorant of basic physics and chemistry.

 

[Old Rocks]

Judging from that graph I should not discount the 4.3 micron CO2 band of absorption, as it has it all to itself.

Methane does not appear to be a strong GHG. Perhaps the results reflect the tiny amount available for absorption.

How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?
The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated
How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?

CH4 was about 700 to 800 ppb. at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Today is is over 1800 ppb. With a life in the atmosphere of about 15 years, it's danger as a GHG depend on the length of time in which the measurement is taken. For a century, it is about 25 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. For a decade, 80 to 100 times as effective. So a major clathrate burp would have immediate effects.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Judging from that graph I should not discount the 4.3 micron CO2 band of absorption, as it has it all to itself.

Methane does not appear to be a strong GHG. Perhaps the results reflect the tiny amount available for absorption.

How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?
The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated
How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?

CH4 was about 700 to 800 ppb. at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Today is is over 1800 ppb. With a life in the atmosphere of about 15 years, it's danger as a GHG depend on the length of time in which the measurement is taken. For a century, it is about 25 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. For a decade, 80 to 100 times as effective. So a major clathrate burp would have immediate effects.

Pardon me while I fart to that.

Don't worry, the grass in my yard will more than make up for it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has a warming influence, as shown by simple radiative physics. Some experts believe interactions with the other factors will multiply the amount, some think it will divide it.

I am unaware of the simple physics that shows CO2 creates heat. I know we use CO2 to keep things cold, I have never heard of us using CO2 to keep things warm. What simple physics shows this as fact?

You are unaware of much of anything, stupid ass. CO2 does not create heat, it absorbs outgoing radiative heat from the Earth. Demonstrated by Tyndall in 1859. Absorption spectra of CO2.

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?
Contents

• CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue
• CO2 sticks around
• What about water vapor?
• Too much of a good thing: the carbon overload
• Long-term perspective

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?

This article violates Known Physics of the gas.... Tell me old Crock what is the residency time of the energy in a CO2 molecule? Further, What is the real residency time of this trace gas in our atmosphere? What fraction of the atmosphere is capable of making the earths atmosphere "run away"?

Please provide the links to your work or their quantifiable, repeatable science...

Very stupid, Silly Billy, as usual. The residency of CO2 in the atmosphere was addressed at the links in the post. As for the known laws of physics, take it up with a physicist, for you certainly are unaware of those laws.

Average residency is 3-7 years not 100 you idiot..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.

We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.

If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.

Our current crop of alarmists do not like the word "CONTEXT"...

All temperature variations need to be looked at in context. One of the biggest problems is the spatial resolution of long term records (one data point for 500 years. this averages the whole record to one point and all of the trends within are lost). Most people who are not trained in science do not understand this. This is how Michael Mann created his infamous Hockey Stick. 99% of his record was made from 250-500 year data point plots and then he tacked the yearly plots on the end of it. The data on the end would be gone if it were properly placed in an averaged point. IT was pure deception.

Again we need the context they are unwilling to provide to easily duped people.

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies, using different proxies, in different localities, by different researchers. You may not like the results, but they have stood up very well to independent research.

LOL ITS UTTER BULL SHIT!

You have been shown why its a lie and a deception over and over again... dupe

 

[Billy_Bob]

Judging from that graph I should not discount the 4.3 micron CO2 band of absorption, as it has it all to itself.

Methane does not appear to be a strong GHG. Perhaps the results reflect the tiny amount available for absorption.

Your basing your whole hypothesis on a pin prick.. What you have pointed out, when you apply the mass to it, is the equivalence of a 32 gauge needle in a 3 foot bandwidth. Your trying to make a point when we put it in context is absurd and can not result in what you want it to be.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This, or a similar graph, is where Billy Bob is drawing information to make his conclusion that water overlaps CO2 in the 14-16 micron band. It does, poorly. Water could absorb roughly half of all that specific radiation during the WHOLE crossing of the atmosphere. CO2 absorbs half during the first two metres.

You keep posting this and forgetting MASS/MASS... oy!

 

[Markle]

Exactly! If it's not worth the paper it's printed on how do claim it's an Obama accomplishment?

It was an Obama accomplishment because it was WORKING (as many good faith agreements do)!

More than a few fries short of a Happy Meal aren't you?

 

[Markle]

Nuclear weapons are way off the topic. Nice job of derailing the thread.

There is no other source for the majority of the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, other than human activity. We know from geological history what the Earth's climate was the last time the GHG's were this high. And we know that times of very rapid increases in GHG's and temperature were times of extinctions from the same record. All of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities have policy statements stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So what the deniers here are claiming is that there is a grand conspiracy involving almost all the scientists in the world, from all the different nations and cultures, as well as political backgrounds. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Judging from that graph I should not discount the 4.3 micron CO2 band of absorption, as it has it all to itself.

Methane does not appear to be a strong GHG. Perhaps the results reflect the tiny amount available for absorption.

How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?
The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated
How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?

CH4 was about 700 to 800 ppb. at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Today is is over 1800 ppb. With a life in the atmosphere of about 15 years, it's danger as a GHG depend on the length of time in which the measurement is taken. For a century, it is about 25 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. For a decade, 80 to 100 times as effective. So a major clathrate burp would have immediate effects.

Pardon me while I fart to that.

Don't worry, the grass in my yard will more than make up for it.

You do that every time you open your silly mouth. You are surely proud of your willful ignorance, for you have nurtured that very successfully. But then, science is alien to fools like you, and your opinion counts for no more than that of any other idiot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Judging from that graph I should not discount the 4.3 micron CO2 band of absorption, as it has it all to itself.

Methane does not appear to be a strong GHG. Perhaps the results reflect the tiny amount available for absorption.

How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?
The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated
How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas Is Methane?

CH4 was about 700 to 800 ppb. at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Today is is over 1800 ppb. With a life in the atmosphere of about 15 years, it's danger as a GHG depend on the length of time in which the measurement is taken. For a century, it is about 25 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. For a decade, 80 to 100 times as effective. So a major clathrate burp would have immediate effects.

Pardon me while I fart to that.

Don't worry, the grass in my yard will more than make up for it.

You do that every time you open your silly mouth. You are surely proud of your willful ignorance, for you have nurtured that very successfully. But then, science is alien to fools like you, and your opinion counts for no more than that of any other idiot.