Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Honestly don't know what the hell to think...
On one hand I understand that the sun reached its peak in 1955 for TSI. So we really shouldn't of been warming in the 1980s-2000s at all...Look at any tsi chart and you will find that we should of slowly been cooling. A net negative forcing on the system from our star. So we have to explain the warming of the past few decades somehow...Co2 makes some sense as there surely isn't any internal "cycle" within the climate record that can force .4c of warming or cooling on a decadal scale on the global scale. Maybe the PDO within North America or the AMO within the Atlantic surface temperatures, but this surely isn't global. The sun solar cycles make the grand mins and max's, but that is already explained for. External forcing it is.
If co2 is against the laws of physics--- then I'm stumped on what it could be. If it is co2 then you have to ask your self's a shit load of questions. 1# Why did the warming slow in the 2000's, if not stop? Hansen believes Aerosols and grand minimum that led to the negative forcing countering over half of the co2 forcing(-1.6 watts/meter^2 negative forcing for aerosols). Works with the oceans too as that has surely slowed its upward climb for the same reason..... 2# How is this negative forcing going to react in the future? 3# When are we going to start warming again at a noticeable rate? 4# What effects will it have.
In my opinion it's a far more complex climate system then the science gives off. I believe that most of the advances within the science within the next decade will be understanding the negatives...As we will need to understand them to understand how our climate system would work within the pro warming side of things.
If co2 truly doesn't have any effect then we still have the red hiring of why it warmed in the 1980s-2000's. We have to ask our selfs why? Then if you care enough to went to figure out the climate "then" we have to get a better understand of it through studying the sun and internal workings of the system...With the cosmic process too. We still have to understand the drivers of it.
We will know who is right by 2025.
Honestly don't know what the hell to think...
On one hand I understand that the sun reached its peak in 1955 for TSI. So we really shouldn't of been warming in the 1980s-2000s at all...Look at any tsi chart and you will find that we should of slowly been cooling. A net negative forcing on the system from our star. So we have to explain the warming of the past few decades somehow...Co2 makes some sense as there surely isn't any internal "cycle" within the climate record that can force .4c of warming or cooling on a decadal scale on the global scale. Maybe the PDO within North America or the AMO within the Atlantic surface temperatures, but this surely isn't global. The sun solar cycles make the grand mins and max's, but that is already explained for. External forcing it is.
If co2 is against the laws of physics--- then I'm stumped on what it could be. If it is co2 then you have to ask your self's a shit load of questions. 1# Why did the warming slow in the 2000's, if not stop? Hansen believes Aerosols and grand minimum that led to the negative forcing countering over half of the co2 forcing(-1.6 watts/meter^2 negative forcing for aerosols). Works with the oceans too as that has surely slowed its upward climb for the same reason..... 2# How is this negative forcing going to react in the future? 3# When are we going to start warming again at a noticeable rate? 4# What effects will it have.
In my opinion it's a far more complex climate system then the science gives off. I believe that most of the advances within the science within the next decade will be understanding the negatives...As we will need to understand them to understand how our climate system would work within the pro warming side of things.
If co2 truly doesn't have any effect then we still have the red hiring of why it warmed in the 1980s-2000's. We have to ask our selfs why? Then if you care enough to went to figure out the climate "then" we have to get a better understand of it through studying the sun and internal workings of the system...With the cosmic process too. We still have to understand the drivers of it.
We will know who is right by 2025.
Honestly don't know what the hell to think...
On one hand I understand that the sun reached its peak in 1955 for TSI. So we really shouldn't of been warming in the 1980s-2000s at all...Look at any tsi chart and you will find that we should of slowly been cooling. A net negative forcing on the system from our star. So we have to explain the warming of the past few decades somehow...Co2 makes some sense as there surely isn't any internal "cycle" within the climate record that can force .4c of warming or cooling on a decadal scale on the global scale. Maybe the PDO within North America or the AMO within the Atlantic surface temperatures, but this surely isn't global. The sun solar cycles make the grand mins and max's, but that is already explained for. External forcing it is.
If co2 is against the laws of physics--- then I'm stumped on what it could be. If it is co2 then you have to ask your self's a shit load of questions. 1# Why did the warming slow in the 2000's, if not stop? Hansen believes Aerosols and grand minimum that led to the negative forcing countering over half of the co2 forcing(-1.6 watts/meter^2 negative forcing for aerosols). Works with the oceans too as that has surely slowed its upward climb for the same reason..... 2# How is this negative forcing going to react in the future? 3# When are we going to start warming again at a noticeable rate? 4# What effects will it have.
In my opinion it's a far more complex climate system then the science gives off. I believe that most of the advances within the science within the next decade will be understanding the negatives...As we will need to understand them to understand how our climate system would work within the pro warming side of things.
If co2 truly doesn't have any effect then we still have the red hiring of why it warmed in the 1980s-2000's. We have to ask our selfs why? Then if you care enough to went to figure out the climate "then" we have to get a better understand of it through studying the sun and internal workings of the system...With the cosmic process too. We still have to understand the drivers of it.
We will know who is right by 2025.
If correlation equaled causation then the continued increase in CO2 would result in more warming yes? We aren't seeing that. Also the CO2 level has been as high as 450ppm within the last 200 years and oh my gosh, the world didn't end.
The scammers promoting CO2 as a evil gas have a lot of explaining to do.
Honestly don't know what the hell to think...
On one hand I understand that the sun reached its peak in 1955 for TSI. So we really shouldn't of been warming in the 1980s-2000s at all...Look at any tsi chart and you will find that we should of slowly been cooling. A net negative forcing on the system from our star. So we have to explain the warming of the past few decades somehow...Co2 makes some sense as there surely isn't any internal "cycle" within the climate record that can force .4c of warming or cooling on a decadal scale on the global scale. Maybe the PDO within North America or the AMO within the Atlantic surface temperatures, but this surely isn't global. The sun solar cycles make the grand mins and max's, but that is already explained for. External forcing it is.
If co2 is against the laws of physics--- then I'm stumped on what it could be. If it is co2 then you have to ask your self's a shit load of questions. 1# Why did the warming slow in the 2000's, if not stop? Hansen believes Aerosols and grand minimum that led to the negative forcing countering over half of the co2 forcing(-1.6 watts/meter^2 negative forcing for aerosols). Works with the oceans too as that has surely slowed its upward climb for the same reason..... 2# How is this negative forcing going to react in the future? 3# When are we going to start warming again at a noticeable rate? 4# What effects will it have.
In my opinion it's a far more complex climate system then the science gives off. I believe that most of the advances within the science within the next decade will be understanding the negatives...As we will need to understand them to understand how our climate system would work within the pro warming side of things.
If co2 truly doesn't have any effect then we still have the red hiring of why it warmed in the 1980s-2000's. We have to ask our selfs why? Then if you care enough to went to figure out the climate "then" we have to get a better understand of it through studying the sun and internal workings of the system...With the cosmic process too. We still have to understand the drivers of it.
We will know who is right by 2025.
Look at the big picture Matthew.
After looking at that, what, if anything, do you find surprising about the fact that the earth is warming? We are coming out of a deep ice age. The time period for those cycles are on a scale far larger than any cycle that we currently even suspect, much less understand. If history tells us anything, it should tell us that the warming cycle is going to continue for a very long time. Of course there will be cold periods thrown in occasionally but the overall trend will continue warm until no ice exists anywhere just as has happened back to the dimmest recesses of time.
Because the interglacial(warm period) last about 10-12 thousand years just to go back into a new glacial the current one(climate large scale regime) has done for 800,000 years. The peak of this event was the HCO around 4-7 thousand years ago and we have been slowly moving downwards since...So we should be entering a new ice age within the next few thousands years...Unless of course you believe I'm witnessing a new climate regime, which may be the start of us pulling out of the ICE AGE. Is that what you're saying? As when you post the long term climate regime map like that, I'd expect that is what you're talking about.
So say a bunch of internet idiots, while almost all of the world's scientists are stating just the opposite.
Sorry rocks, your "consensus" is as big a hoax as AGW.
The challenge is still out there. One Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even on major University that states that AGW is not a fact.
There is a difference between the political head of a society and the actual membership. The vast bulk of members in all scientific societies are not on board with AGW.
GHGs absorb energy that would otherwise be radiated into space. That energy stays here on earth in the atmosphere and ocean. Refute that, dumb asses.
Yep, but then they immediately emit that energy in all directions effectively scattering it. You don't create warming by scattering IR but hey, if you want to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 holds in heat, by all means, describe it. While you are at it, name the law(s) of physics that support and predict it as well.
If we're seeing that then how warm are we going to get? Back into the Pliocene or further and how fast can we climb out of the ice age. I just like to say if this is so then I'm honored to be a live to see it,
last summer there was an interesting thread on how the president of the AGU used his perogative to add two members to the executive, one was an outspoken proponent of AGW and the other wasnt even a scientist just an expert on public relations. when you stack the executive with cronies and yes-men you can publicly state anything you want.
You're behind the times. If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that the ability of GHGs to absorb IR has been proved in the lab a long time ago. The expt. OR is talking about is the expt. the deniers want to do, i.e. what happens, if we do nothing. Anyone that's been paying attention though, knows that means more heat trapped on earth.
What you aren't mentioning konradv, either through ignorance or dishonesty is the fact that whatever they absorb, they immediately emit; effectively scattering IR thus dissipating it rather than concentrating it.
Al Gore in 24-hour broadcast to convert climate skeptics
(Reuters) - Former President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.
"24 Hours of Reality" will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.
"There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from."
Sounds good.
Al Gore in 24-hour broadcast to convert climate skeptics
(Reuters) - Former President Al Gore ......
Former President??????
Good catch. They fixed it.
Al Gore in 24-hour broadcast to convert climate skeptics
(Reuters) - Former President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.
"24 Hours of Reality" will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.
"There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from."
My funding comes from Budweiser and NASCAR -- 2 giants in the CO2 industry..
"There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from."
My funding comes from Budweiser and NASCAR -- 2 giants in the CO2 industry..
Indeed.................
ANd how ironic is this video? As the green energy movement collapses more and more by the day. NOT winning.....................
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNKfFKVzPBU]Sunoco "Victory Wave w/Jimmie Johnson" Big Science Music - YouTube[/ame]
Wrong. It's up to you to prove how your cute little experiment applies to the entire planet.Right. Your experiment in a small box with two variables is going to accurately predict what an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans will do when subjected to millions of variables.
Have you ever even heard of science?
If GHGs trap IR in the lab, they'll trap it in the atmosphere. That's the principle of "uniformitarianism". If you knew anything about science, you'd realize that in order to support your skepticism, you have to explain what happens to the added heat trapped by added GHGS, if not to heat the earth.
So far, no one's done that.
You're behind the times. If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that the ability of GHGs to absorb IR has been proved in the lab a long time ago. The expt. OR is talking about is the expt. the deniers want to do, i.e. what happens, if we do nothing. Anyone that's been paying attention though, knows that means more heat trapped on earth.
What you aren't mentioning konradv, either through ignorance or dishonesty is the fact that whatever they absorb, they immediately emit; effectively scattering IR thus dissipating it rather than concentrating it.
you are oversimplifying the situation. IR is absorbed by CO2 mostly as vibrational energy and is not immediately re-emitted, certainly not compared to the photon directly escaping at the speed of light. it is also emitted in a random direction and in a wavelength that is capable of interacting with other molecules of CO2 water methane etc. there is no contradiction with thermodynamic laws because those involve NET transport of heat. for example even a boiling pot of water still has water molecules entering from the atmosphere.
last summer there was an interesting thread on how the president of the AGU used his perogative to add two members to the executive, one was an outspoken proponent of AGW and the other wasnt even a scientist just an expert on public relations. when you stack the executive with cronies and yes-men you can publicly state anything you want.
I guess in rock's mind that falls under the heading of "move along, nothing to see here".
If we're seeing that then how warm are we going to get? Back into the Pliocene or further and how fast can we climb out of the ice age. I just like to say if this is so then I'm honored to be a live to see it,
For the most part Matthew, no matter when you lived, even if you could have lived millions of years ago, you would have been living either in a time of major change or one of several very long very warm periods in which no ice existed anywhere.
The land masses have always been moving into different configurations but the warm cold cycles just keep on chugging. Different lengths of time of course that may or may not have had anything to do with where the land masses were.
Just for fun here are a few graphics indicating where the land masses were at various times in the past.
It is pretty hard to correlate the climate (warm/cold) cycles with the moving continents in a way that makes any real sense if you apply what we think we know about ocean currents etc. to what actually was.
Oh, you mean the little box with two variables that's supposed to simulate an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables?Wrong. It's up to you to prove how your cute little experiment applies to the entire planet.If GHGs trap IR in the lab, they'll trap it in the atmosphere. That's the principle of "uniformitarianism". If you knew anything about science, you'd realize that in order to support your skepticism, you have to explain what happens to the added heat trapped by added GHGS, if not to heat the earth.
So far, no one's done that.
It was done in 1896, dumbass.
you are oversimplifying the situation.
IR is absorbed by CO2 mostly as vibrational energy and is not immediately re-emitted, certainly not compared to the photon directly escaping at the speed of light.
it is also emitted in a random direction and in a wavelength that is capable of interacting with other molecules of CO2 water methane etc.
there is no contradiction with thermodynamic laws because those involve NET transport of heat. for example even a boiling pot of water still has water molecules entering from the atmosphere.
Oh, you mean the little box with two variables that's supposed to simulate an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables?Wrong. It's up to you to prove how your cute little experiment applies to the entire planet.
So far, no one's done that.
It was done in 1896, dumbass.
Yeah. Wrong.
