Global Warming is legit

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Born 1953

Seattle area used to getheaqvy snowfalls up through the 60s

always wentsledding

now they geta pitufull traces of snowfalls

Are you trying to have a flame war or something?

 

[ginscpy]

Born 1953

Seattle area used to getheaqvy snowfalls up through the 60s

always wentsledding

now they geta pitufull traces of snowfalls

Are you trying to have a flame war or something?

trying to get pepole to grow up - like not do childrens activities like skateboarding or ridibg bikes

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Born 1953

Seattle area used to getheaqvy snowfalls up through the 60s

always wentsledding

now they geta pitufull traces of snowfalls

Are you trying to have a flame war or something?

trying to get pepole to grow up - like not do childrens activities like skateboarding or ridibg bikes

Well then you should present your "proof" with some actual, linkable, data for people to read and evaluate on their own which relates to Seattle instead of putting out a troll bait opening post.

 

[konradv]

What a person recalls in his own life isn't even a drop in the geological bucket. Sure the planet is warming, and cooling but we didn't cause it. Look at ice core samples if you want perspective on weather history. There was once a glacier covering New York. We didn't do it. You can find evidence of tropical sea shells on east coast mountains. We didn't do it. To paraphrase a Clinton campaign slogan, "it's the sun stupid".

You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?

 

[skookerasbil]

What a person recalls in his own life isn't even a drop in the geological bucket. Sure the planet is warming, and cooling but we didn't cause it. Look at ice core samples if you want perspective on weather history. There was once a glacier covering New York. We didn't do it. You can find evidence of tropical sea shells on east coast mountains. We didn't do it. To paraphrase a Clinton campaign slogan, "it's the sun stupid".

You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?

Astute point indeed..............

Since we'll never know, we dont go and blow up the whole economy, send the nation to the poor house and put 2 million+ people out of work.

That sure would be the stupedist thing I ever heard of.

 

[wirebender]

You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?

It is always the sun + something else be it alterations in the jet stream due to alterations in ocean currents or any number of other combinations. What it isn't is CO2 + or - anything.

 

[konradv]

You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?

It is always the sun + something else be it alterations in the jet stream due to alterations in ocean currents or any number of other combinations. What it isn't is CO2 + or - anything.

That's because you're under the delusion that CO2 is an inert molecule.

 

[wirebender]

You're begging the question. It isn't about the cycles. They're a given. It's about the time course and cause of this one. Is it just the sun or is it Sun+?

It is always the sun + something else be it alterations in the jet stream due to alterations in ocean currents or any number of other combinations. What it isn't is CO2 + or - anything.

That's because you're under the delusion that CO2 is an inert molecule.

Describe, in detail, the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 causes warming. And do try to give an explanation that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For your viewing pleasure, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Keep in mind that simple absorption and emission do not constitue work. Have fun.

 

[konradv]

It is always the sun + something else be it alterations in the jet stream due to alterations in ocean currents or any number of other combinations. What it isn't is CO2 + or - anything.

That's because you're under the delusion that CO2 is an inert molecule.

Describe, in detail, the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 causes warming. And do try to give an explanation that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For your viewing pleasure, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Keep in mind that simple absorption and emission do not constitue work. Have fun.

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

 

[wirebender]

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

As has been explained to you over and over konradv, a photon is a packet of energy. It is the smallest possible bit of energy in the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. Energy can not flow in two directions along any given vector. Claiming that radiation from the atmosphere can reach the earth is like claiming that if you run a wire from a car battery to a AAA battery, power from the AAA battery will reach the car battery.

I am not making a mistake and have done the math right here on this board for everyone to see. While several of you didn't care for the results, no one on this board, or any other board for that matter has pointed to any error on my part. Radiation from the atmosphere can not reach the surface of the earth. Period.

 

[Saigon]

Yeah the planet is beginning to crack up again. Don't let it trouble you though, it's not the fault of humans. It's cyclic. We'll be transiting through the galactic equatorial plane soon. The Dark Rift. All the geological evidence proves it's cyclic. .

It's interesting that "all" of the geological suggests this to you, and yet the US Geological Society say completely the opposite.

I wonder who understand geology better?

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

 

[konradv]

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

As has been explained to you over and over konradv, a photon is a packet of energy. It is the smallest possible bit of energy in the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. Energy can not flow in two directions along any given vector. Claiming that radiation from the atmosphere can reach the earth is like claiming that if you run a wire from a car battery to a AAA battery, power from the AAA battery will reach the car battery.

I am not making a mistake and have done the math right here on this board for everyone to see. While several of you didn't care for the results, no one on this board, or any other board for that matter has pointed to any error on my part. Radiation from the atmosphere can not reach the surface of the earth. Period.

If that were true, I shouldn't be able to see the moon during the day. Why is the sky blue? Because blue wavelength photons are "scattered" back to my eye! Of course a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere can reach earth. Anyone that agrees with you is as delusional as you are.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Global Warming is True, every 4 years we gain a few degrees when all the Politicians start yapping


.

 

[code1211]

That's because you're under the delusion that CO2 is an inert molecule.

Describe, in detail, the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 causes warming. And do try to give an explanation that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For your viewing pleasure, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Keep in mind that simple absorption and emission do not constitue work. Have fun.

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

If the remedy for warming is the reduction of CO2, then CO2 must be the prime driver of the rise of temperature. Is this a valid conclusion or not?

If it is valid or not, why does the temperature rise and fall while the CO2 rises with consistency. It seems that if it is valid, then temperature would mirror the rises and falls of CO2. Since there have been nothing but rises in CO2, how to you explain the falls in the temperature?

So what I need to have explained is this:

When Temperature both rises and falls while CO2 only rises, why should we accept that CO2 is the primary driver of climate and changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate?

If there are other drivers of climate that apparently supersede the effects of CO2, why waste our time on a weak driver of climate that apparently has no real impact on the climate in any real sense?

 

[code1211]

Yeah the planet is beginning to crack up again. Don't let it trouble you though, it's not the fault of humans. It's cyclic. We'll be transiting through the galactic equatorial plane soon. The Dark Rift. All the geological evidence proves it's cyclic. .

It's interesting that "all" of the geological suggests this to you, and yet the US Geological Society say completely the opposite.

I wonder who understand geology better?

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

And yet the climate has stalled or cooled for the last decade while the rise of CO2 continues apace.

What up with that?

Is the climate just too stupid to follow natural law?

 

[konradv]

Describe, in detail, the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 causes warming. And do try to give an explanation that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For your viewing pleasure, here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Keep in mind that simple absorption and emission do not constitue work. Have fun.

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

If the remedy for warming is the reduction of CO2, then CO2 must be the prime driver of the rise of temperature. Is this a valid conclusion or not?

If it is valid or not, why does the temperature rise and fall while the CO2 rises with consistency. It seems that if it is valid, then temperature would mirror the rises and falls of CO2. Since there have been nothing but rises in CO2, how to you explain the falls in the temperature?

So what I need to have explained is this:

When Temperature both rises and falls while CO2 only rises, why should we accept that CO2 is the primary driver of climate and changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate?

If there are other drivers of climate that apparently supersede the effects of CO2, why waste our time on a weak driver of climate that apparently has no real impact on the climate in any real sense?

No one has said CO2 is the primary driver of climate. It's just the one over which we have control and has gone up at the same time as temps have been going up. It isn't obliterating natural cycles, just raising the average over time. Saying CO2 is "weak" or that it has no impact is merely your characterization and contradicts what's known about its properties and rising concentration.

 

[konradv]

Yeah the planet is beginning to crack up again. Don't let it trouble you though, it's not the fault of humans. It's cyclic. We'll be transiting through the galactic equatorial plane soon. The Dark Rift. All the geological evidence proves it's cyclic. .

It's interesting that "all" of the geological suggests this to you, and yet the US Geological Society say completely the opposite.

I wonder who understand geology better?

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

And yet the climate has stalled or cooled for the last decade while the rise of CO2 continues apace.

What up with that?

Is the climate just too stupid to follow natural law?

Why do reminders about natural cycles have to be made to the skeptics?

 

[code1211]

Scattering of IR radiation back towards earth. You seem to be making the mistake that I'm talking about heat transfer, hence the "cold body-warm body" comment. I'm talking about IR photons. I don't really see how a photon would be prevented from heading back towards earth, disregarding the highly unlikely event of meeting another photon of the same wavelength head-to-head!

If the remedy for warming is the reduction of CO2, then CO2 must be the prime driver of the rise of temperature. Is this a valid conclusion or not?

If it is valid or not, why does the temperature rise and fall while the CO2 rises with consistency. It seems that if it is valid, then temperature would mirror the rises and falls of CO2. Since there have been nothing but rises in CO2, how to you explain the falls in the temperature?

So what I need to have explained is this:

When Temperature both rises and falls while CO2 only rises, why should we accept that CO2 is the primary driver of climate and changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate?

If there are other drivers of climate that apparently supersede the effects of CO2, why waste our time on a weak driver of climate that apparently has no real impact on the climate in any real sense?

No one has said CO2 is the primary driver of climate. It's just the one over which we have control and has gone up at the same time as temps have been going up. It isn't obliterating natural cycles, just raising the average over time. Saying CO2 is "weak" or that it has no impact is merely your characterization and contradicts what's known about its properties and rising concentration.

The temperature of the globe has risen by 0.7 degrees across 2000 years.

0.4 of that increase occurred during the 1000 years to 1000 ad. The other 0.3 degrees has occurred during the 1000 years that followed and these are the years afflicted with the Anthropogenic CO2 that you claim is the cause of increasing temperatures. A reduced rate of increase does nothing to support your case.

The Little Ice Age was a period of reducing temperatures that coincided with the Maunder Minimum. The cooling in this period ended and warming started in about 1600 ad, perhaps earlier, but the warming had certainly started by that point.

It is generally accepted that the Increased CO2 brought about by the Industrial Revolution is the first real impact that Man had on the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. That started, depending on how you define it, sometime between 1800 and 1870.

Claiming that CO2 has caused the warming trend following the Little Ice age is claiming that the future can cause the past. This also does nothing to support your case.

There is no instrumental proof to show that warming goes up or down as a result of the concentration of CO2. There is proof to show that warming both starts and ends absent the influence of changing CO2. There is also proof to show that CO2 rises and falls as a result of the changes in the temperature.

If you have proof to support your case, you are welcome to present it. Nobody else has.

 

[code1211]

It's interesting that "all" of the geological suggests this to you, and yet the US Geological Society say completely the opposite.

I wonder who understand geology better?

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

And yet the climate has stalled or cooled for the last decade while the rise of CO2 continues apace.

What up with that?

Is the climate just too stupid to follow natural law?

Why do reminders about natural cycles have to be made to the skeptics?

No need. It your contention that changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate. You have yet to prove this contention. You are welcome to do so.

My observation is that your case makes an assertion and this is not supported by the reality of the natural world. Your response should have been to show that in truth the temperature always follows the rise of CO2.

Since this simply does not happen, I understand your inability to do so. However, what I don't understand is why you bitterly cling to your assertion when there is no proof to support it.

 

[wirebender]

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

Actually the political head of the GSA concurs. Of course what they really concur with is getting in on some of those billions upon billions of research dollars flowing into the hoax. You would have a hard time finding a scientist who doesn't depend on grant money for his daily bread who rides the agw bandwagon.