AGW causes .... yup

[Abraham3]

Boom, you're an idiot.

The AR are not "political summaries". Government's chartered the IPCC and control its output; I have never denied such a thing. The impact of that government influence since the IPCC was formed, has been to tone down the warning, to back away from the conclusions. They have made the reports more conservative than the science warranted or the scientists desired. And in just about every instance, the IPCC forecasts fell short of the actual warming or the magnitude of its effects.

So, yes, BOOM, you're an idiot.

 

[percysunshine]

It wasn't a try, it was a "do". The IPCC analysis reports are objective analyses, not political summaries. That you would say such a thing clearly indicates you've never read a single one of them.

I take it from your response that, as I suspected, you had no specific "objective analysis" in mind (because none exists which comes to such a conclusion) but were just bullshitting.

And, if you don't like the IPCC reports, we can use just about any of the 11-12,000 peer reviewed studies on which those reports are based. Ninety-seven percent of those support AGW. What a surprise.

"But in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP, several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. In fact, every year after 2000 has been warmer than the year 2000.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics."

Climate Report Struggles With Temperature Quirks | RealClearPolitics




Sure...there is no political influence in IPCC reports. It is just a bunch of objective scientists pointing out facts.


The challenge stands.

.

 

[Abraham3]

For the third time, the reports are not - as you contended - political summaries. In this context I don't even know what that term's supposed to mean.

And, as I said before, if you don't like the IPCC reports, you can feel free to review the THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed and published scientific studies on which they've been based. They OVERWHELMINGLY support AGW.

Boom, you're wrong. You can put your "challenge" where the sun don't shine.

 

[percysunshine]

For the third time, the reports are not - as you contended - political summaries. In this context I don't even know what that term's supposed to mean.

And, as I said before, if you don't like the IPCC reports, you can feel free to review the THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed and published scientific studies on which they've been based. They OVERWHELMINGLY support AGW.

Boom, you're wrong.

Then surely you can point to one.

The challenge stands.

.

 

[Abraham3]

You and your "challenge" can have a nice night. The wife and I are going out.

But, just as a closing rejoinder: mainstream science accepts AGW. That makes your claim the extraordinary one. It is YOUR responsibility to not only provide evidence, but to provide extraordinary evidence.

And having suggested you read the IPCC reports, I have provided more than enough support for my contention. You, on the other hand, have provided ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA. Your claim that an objective analysis shows no causal relationship between CO2 and global warming is beginning to look more and more like a complete fabrication (and you know I'm being polite here).

Show us the objective analysis or admit you know of none. There's a challenge Percy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Boom, you're an idiot.

The AR are not "political summaries". Government's chartered the IPCC and control its output; I have never denied such a thing. The impact of that government influence since the IPCC was formed, has been to tone down the warning, to back away from the conclusions. They have made the reports more conservative than the science warranted or the scientists desired. And in just about every instance, the IPCC forecasts fell short of the actual warming or the magnitude of its effects.

So, yes, BOOM, you're an idiot.

You really crack me up.. That goes into the archives as abeisduped213.txt ..
More conservative than the sccientists desired ......? Tone down the concluusions?

Tell ya what.. If theres a RATIONAL sane board member that believes this crap, I will start a thread to discuss..

 

[Abraham3]

Haven't got shit, do you.

I'd have thought you might have found that objective analysis Percy claims to know of, showing no causal relationship between CO2 and warming. Do you know which one he's talking about?

 

[flacaltenn]

Haven't got shit, do you.

I'd have thought you might have found that objective analysis Percy claims to know of, showing no causal relationship between CO2 and warming. Do you know which one he's talking about?

Oh,, ill always have your off the rail misstatements like the gem at post 21 to warm my heart.

Whyndont you just tell Percy the truth.. That a doubling of CO2 BY ITSELF causes about 1degC of warming IN THEORY --- less because of competition with the DOMINANT GHG.. And then all that other mysticism and magical masturbation is your problem to get that to 4 or 8 degC.

 

[Abraham3]

Percy wasn't arguing the value of climate sensitivity. So why do you bring it up? Gee, I wonder.

Why don't YOU tell Percy what you KNOW to be the truth: that multiple objective analyses HAVE shown a causal connection between CO2 and warming? You know he is completely wrong but not only do you fail to tell him so, you make him think he's correct without committing yourself to the ignorant falsehood that would actually require.

He said "Your premis that people cause the earths climate to get warmer in any measurable way has never been established as fact. Quite the opposite, objective data analysis tends to indicate that there is no causal relationship."

Now you know I know what a theory is and I'm not going to waste my time correcting the man on the use of "fact", but DO YOU AGREE with that second sentence? He's rejecting the Greenhouse Effect. Do you reject the Greenhouse Effect? Be a good boy and tell us what the Earth's temperature would be were there no CO2 in the atmosphere.

And why are you here? Where is Mr Percy? Why isn't he defending his own statements.

Gee, I wonder.

 

[Abraham3]

GREENHOUSE EFFECT (Wikipedia)

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]
Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]
If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[11]
*****************************

And I know you wanted references - studies that indicate the Greenhouse Effect to be true. So here. Do check them out. What you're going to find Percy, is that not only do many studies clearly indicate a casual relationship, among almost EVERYone doing climate science, it is an absolute given. No one bothers to question it because it would make them look like a fool.


References

1 "Annex II Glossary". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
2 to: a b A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessme
3 Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.
4 E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.
5 A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.
6 Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse". Philosophical Magazine 17: 319–320. "When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 °C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other because it transmitted the l
7 Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. "... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namel
8 "NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
9 "Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, "The Greenhouse Effect"". Acmg.seas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
10 "Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97
12 The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion
13 Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.
14 IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Pa
15 Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden (Nov 2000). "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (Annual Reviews) 25: 441–475. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441.
16 John Tyndall, Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (500 pages; year 1863, 1873).
17 Bell, Alexander Graham, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1921–1930 (Volume XV), University of Toronto and Université Laval, 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2013.
18 Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Morgan Wesson. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997, p. 274, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1.
19 Grosvenor and Wesson, 1997, p. 269.
20 "The HITRAN Database". Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Retrieved August 8, 2012. "HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and
21 "Hitran on the Web Information System". Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA; V.E. Zuev Insitute of Atmosperic Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia. Retrieved August 11, 2012.
22 to: a b c Mitchell, John F. B. (1989). "THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE". Reviews of Geophysics (American Geophysical Union) 27 (1): 115–139. Bibcode:1989RvGeo..27..115M. doi:10.1029/RG027i001p00115. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
23 "Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SOURCE)". NASA.Gov. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
24 "Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. 6 April 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-01.
25 to: a b Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197&#8211;208. Bibcode:1997BAMS...78..197K. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0197:EAGMEB>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-047
26 "Enhanced greenhouse effect &#8212; Glossary". Nova. Australian Academy of Scihuman impact on the environment. 2006.
27 "Enhanced Greenhouse Effect". Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
28 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (p. 5)
29 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" Chapter 7
30 "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Mauna Loa". NOAA.
31 Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm
32 Hansen J. (February 2005). "A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference"?". Climatic Change 68 (333): 269&#8211;279. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0.
33 "Deep ice tells long climate story". BBC News. 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
34 Hileman B (2005-11-28). "Ice Core Record Extended". Chemical & Engineering News 83 (48): 7.
35 Bowen, Mark; Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains; Owl Books, 2005.
36 Temperature change and carbon dioxide change, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
37 Brian Shmaefsky (2004). Favorite demonstrations for college science: an NSTA Press journals collection. NSTA Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-87355-242-4.
38 Oort, Abraham H.; Peixoto, José Pinto (1992). Physics of climate. New York: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-88318-711-6. "...the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection
39 McKay, C.; Pollack, J.; Courtin, R. (1991). "The greenhouse and antigreenhouse effects on Titan". Science 253 (5024): 1118&#8211;1121. doi:10.1126/science.11538492. PMID 11538492. edit
40 "Titan: Greenhouse and Anti-greenhouse :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth". Astrobio.net. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
41 "Pluto Colder Than Expected". SPACE.com. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
42 Kasting, James F. (1991). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus.". Planetary Sciences: American and Soviet Research/Proceedings from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Workshop on Planetary Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Syst
43 Rasool, I.; De Bergh, C.; De Bergh, C. (Jun 1970). "The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere". Nature 226 (5250): 1037&#8211;1039. Bibcode:1970Natur.226.1037R. doi:10.1038/2261037a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16057644. Retrieved 02/25/2009. edit

 

[gallantwarrior]

Prostitution. The evils of the internal combustion engine know no bounds.


"Dem resolution warns climate change could push women to ‘transactional sex’

Dem resolution warns climate change could push women to ?transactional sex? - The Hill's Floor Action


Note the new phraseology

"balanced participation of men and women" in climate change adaption efforts


"the number
of people living in extreme poverty could increase by up
to 3,000,000,000 by 2050 unless environmental disasters
are averted by coordinated global action"


http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2013/hconres36.pdf

Why don't we just boil this down to what the fellow was actually saying rather than your creative cherry pick-cut-n-paste.

Global warming is going to make things tougher on everyone. In tough times, women tend to have it worse than men. Tough economic times drive some women into prostitution.

Now why don't the lot of you get together and decide with which of those facts you disagree.[/]

No amount of praying will miraculously transform the myth of global warming to fact.

 

[Abraham3]

Why don't we just boil this down to what the fellow was actually saying rather than your creative cherry pick-cut-n-paste.

Global warming is going to make things tougher on everyone. In tough times, women tend to have it worse than men. Tough economic times drive some women into prostitution.

Now why don't the lot of you get together and decide with which of those facts you disagree.

No amount of praying will miraculously transform the myth of global warming to fact.

Who the fuck needs prayer? I've got science. Science says AGW is valid. Global warming is a fact. Do you not believe the temperature record of the last 150 years?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why don't we just boil this down to what the fellow was actually saying rather than your creative cherry pick-cut-n-paste.

Global warming is going to make things tougher on everyone. In tough times, women tend to have it worse than men. Tough economic times drive some women into prostitution.

Now why don't the lot of you get together and decide with which of those facts you disagree.

No amount of praying will miraculously transform the myth of global warming to fact.

Who the fuck needs prayer? I've got science. Science says AGW is valid. Global warming is a fact. Do you not believe the temperature record of the last 150 years?

The climate changes, always has, always will. You and your fellow AGW acolytes are pretty damned arrogant to believe your puny skank asses can have such a profound effect on the climate of an entire planet. But then, don't most religious zealots consider themselves and their ideas more important than they really are?

 

[Abraham3]

No amount of praying will miraculously transform the myth of global warming to fact.

Who the fuck needs prayer? I've got science. Science says AGW is valid. Global warming is a fact. Do you not believe the temperature record of the last 150 years?

The climate changes, always has, always will. You and your fellow AGW acolytes are pretty damned arrogant to believe your puny skank asses can have such a profound effect on the climate of an entire planet. But then, don't most religious zealots consider themselves and their ideas more important than they really are?

If the climate changes and always has, why did you just describe global warming as a myth"? Perhaps you ought to get that straight in your own head before you venture out again.

I and my fellow "AGW acolytes" do not believe it is our "puny skank asses" that are affecting the climate. We believe it is the entire puny skank ass world and all its cars and trucks and coal-fired power plants working full time for the last 150 years that has done it.

Does that help?

 

[flacaltenn]

Why don't we just boil this down to what the fellow was actually saying rather than your creative cherry pick-cut-n-paste.

Global warming is going to make things tougher on everyone. In tough times, women tend to have it worse than men. Tough economic times drive some women into prostitution.

Now why don't the lot of you get together and decide with which of those facts you disagree.

No amount of praying will miraculously transform the myth of global warming to fact.

Who the fuck needs prayer? I've got science. Science says AGW is valid. Global warming is a fact. Do you not believe the temperature record of the last 150 years?

What you got is a bunch of mights, mays, and coulds, which you PROMOTE to fact solely thru your beliefs.. AGW is COMPLETELY about fortune telling.. Without fearful predictions that SCARE you to believe, there would be no attention paid to the "science.

So belief, fear, prognostications, ?? Better pray all that is validated... Otherwise history will unkindly mock you in perpetuity.

 

[Abraham3]

Unsubstantiated assertions. Try a little evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

Unsubstantiated assertions. Try a little evidence.

Really?? Whats the temperature in 2050? Substantiate your claim if its a scary number..

 

[Abraham3]

Do you not understand the terms?

You've made a number of statements with no supporting evidence or rationale. If you want to convince anyone that any of them might actually be correct, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you not understand the terms?

You've made a number of statements with no supporting evidence or rationale. If you want to convince anyone that any of them might actually be correct, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE.

Ive told you you do not have anything but maybes coulds and possiblies.. If that was not the case, you could tell me with great certainty what the temp will be in 2050..

Btw from now on, if you dont forward the quote --- im not gonna reply......

 

[Abraham3]

Btw from now on, if you dont forward the quote --- im not gonna reply......

Oh god, would THAT break my heart.

I could speak in certainties. But that would violate one of the most basic premises of the scientific method; the same scientific method that many deniers have been complaining was at great risk from the behavior of the vast majority of climate scientists (the ones who accept AGW) acting like a vast majority of climate scientists.

The consensus accepting AGW exists and is growing no weaker - whether or not you all insist on carrying on with your play-acting.