Global warming, my ass!

[Billy_Bob]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

And you didn't even address any relevant scientific point.. Just a bunch of left wing tripe...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is a good place to start.

I'd like to see someone try to refute this. Could be entertaining.

My favorite part of this presentation is the Up-welling LWIR and how the satellites prove energy release at the same increase rate as input without any 'holding' by the atmosphere. This showing no positive forcing capabilities of CO2 and enhancement of water vapor.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Between this and the OP we find the difference between science and the Cult of Ignorance. Respectively.

It appears we are heading for a period of global COOLING. The sun is not very active....you know? ...that big ball of fire in the sky...do you think man has more power over our climate than it?

WISHING FOR GLOBAL WARMING
The below chart shows solar activity crashing down. With the lowest sunspot count in a hundred years, with agricultural sectors hit hard and food prices continuing to spiral up, what USA Today said is not funny. The weekend of June 11, 2017 saw more snow in California and thoughtful people are starting to think of using more than tar and feathers to put certain individuals from NOAA and NASA in their place.

I know it is not easy to think with facts in this world of climate lies but solar cycle 24 has seen very low solar activity thus far meaning the last thing we need to be afraid of is global warming. Dr. L.E. Kaiser writes, “It’s already the month of June and both air and water temperatures are well behind the seasonally adjusted “global warming = climate change = frying planet” conditions that were proclaimed by so many climate doomsters.”

Regarding the sun, my post was not discussing that issue. It is simply about the jet stream, what drives the system, and why it is weakening.

I understand that solar output this cycle is low, but this could be a disaster. Imagine that the planet cools because of the lack of solar output, and the world decides it is just fine to continue with business as usual regarding burning fossil fuels.

This will lead to a disastrous outcome when the sun returns to the output of previous cycles. We are already so deep into climate change that both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will likely disintegrate to a large degree resulting in meters of sea level rise in the distant future.

As Wallace Broecker, from Columbia University, says "Climate is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks”

Greenland used to grow crops where those glaciers are right now. You are making the mistake of believing that the current state of affairs regarding glacier coverage is normal. It is not.

I almost did not respond to this, because it is so bad. The comment, "Greenland used to grow crops where those glaciers are right now."

As Greenland becomes better for growing crops, sea level will rise. As sea level increases, you could see hundreds of millions of people forced to migrate - even if it is inside there own country - and you would see trillions of dollars in lost infrastructure.

It is time to do some clear thinking about the future!

What's really bad is that you believe that we can control the climate. What hubris. Remember that volcano that caused the little ice age? There was a year without a Summer. Few crops were grown because it was just too damn cold. This is also why we have seen temperatures rising in the past. They were returning to NORMAL. No matter what you think, nature always has the last laugh.

Okay, start with this comment, "What's really bad is that you believe that we can control the climate." This is not about "believing!" This is about science! Start studying up!

Then this, "Remember that volcano that caused the little ice age? There was a year without a Summer." That is about sulfur compounds - usually sulfuric acid - in the stratosphere. Such particles are gone in less than a decade. Excess carbon dioxide can take hundreds of year to totally clear.

And last, no ice age was ever caused by a volcano. Volcanoes add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but not on the scale humans do. We add near 3 ppm/year to the atmosphere. All volcanoes add about 0.1 ppm/year.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

[

Regarding the sun, my post was not discussing that issue. It is simply about the jet stream, what drives the system, and why it is weakening.

I understand that solar output this cycle is low, but this could be a disaster. Imagine that the planet cools because of the lack of solar output, and the world decides it is just fine to continue with business as usual regarding burning fossil fuels.

This will lead to a disastrous outcome when the sun returns to the output of previous cycles. We are already so deep into climate change that both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will likely disintegrate to a large degree resulting in meters of sea level rise in the distant future.

As Wallace Broecker, from Columbia University, says "Climate is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks”

1. Every jet is zonal.
2. The power of each jet is directly related to solar output.
3. It is the energy imbalance and routes of energy loss which determine what the planet is doing.

What are you basing your assumptions on?

In cooling world where the sun is giving less energy the release portion of the system will gain power ie: polar jet. In a warming world the equatorial jets gain power causing tightly constrained polar jets.

Where is your magical boogie man that is going to make the planet burn?

suggested reading: Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

About the comment, "The power of each jet is directly related to solar output." To say directly is wrong! If you go to Scientific American.com and find the article "What causes the high-speed winds, or 'jet stream,' in the stratosphere? And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference. The article says:

(Quote)

During the winter months, when the equator-to-pole temperature disparity is at its greatest, the jet stream reaches its maximum velocity. During the summer months, when the temperature gradient between the equator and the pole is considerably less (only about half the winter value), the jet stream reaches its minimum velocity.

(End quote)

"And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference."

Tell me, where does the earth obtain its energy from?

I'll wait...

I think you are having problems with the terms "directly" and "indirectly."

Funny

I understand that solar output this cycle is low, but this could be a disaster. Imagine that the planet cools because of the lack of solar output, and the world decides it is just fine to continue with business as usual regarding burning fossil fuels.

This is total horse manure... CO2's forcing ability has now been shown less than 0.2 deg per doubling due the the NEGATIVE forcings of earths atmosphere. With recent satellite corrections even this is now closer to 0.0 deg C..

Well, I do not know where this poster got this idea, "CO2's forcing ability has now been shown less than 0.2 deg per doubling. Forcing per doubling of concentration is called the "climate sensitivity" to carbon dioxide.

Over at Skeptical Science, I found this quote. The poster isn't even close.

(Quote)

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

(End quote)

Now the poster needs to find a source better than the IPCC.

Your first foolish point was to take anything over at SKS as having an iota of truth to it. You really should get away from left wing hack sites for your data.

As for the current "forcing" that the IPCC is using one needs only go to current sites disusing the math and process to find out that the forcing number is now 0.0 to 0.2 deg C per doubling. And with the current change UAH is having to make in the satellite systems and their drift failure, the potential CO2 forcing is now 0.0-0.2 deg C. When you place the current numbers into the SB equation it is almost 0.013.

I see you are still referencing nothing. However, if you did not like my last reference, here is a quote from the "Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Frankly, if you follow what is in the peer reviewed journals this number has not changed significantly in decades. Plus, this view is the "current thinking" in climatology, whether you like it or not!

(Quote)

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence). The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.

(End quote)

I am done taking your word for crap science. You need to start citing your sources!!!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About the comment, "The power of each jet is directly related to solar output." To say directly is wrong! If you go to Scientific American.com and find the article "What causes the high-speed winds, or 'jet stream,' in the stratosphere? And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference. The article says:

(Quote)

During the winter months, when the equator-to-pole temperature disparity is at its greatest, the jet stream reaches its maximum velocity. During the summer months, when the temperature gradient between the equator and the pole is considerably less (only about half the winter value), the jet stream reaches its minimum velocity.

(End quote)

"And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference."

Tell me, where does the earth obtain its energy from?

I'll wait...

I think you are having problems with the terms "directly" and "indirectly."

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

Yes, References to a wholly discredited IPCC 4th assessment report.. Just like SKS uses and based on modeling that has been shown falsified. Not much of a base for an argument IMHO..

Discredited by whom! Without references, your comment is so much horse crap!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

"And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference."

Tell me, where does the earth obtain its energy from?

I'll wait...

I think you are having problems with the terms "directly" and "indirectly."

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

Yes, References to a wholly discredited IPCC 4th assessment report.. Just like SKS uses and based on modeling that has been shown falsified. Not much of a base for an argument IMHO..

Global warming proponents have been caught red-handed falsifying data. How can any rational person believe anything they say? They even altered the record of temperatures, collected over the past century or so, to make it look warmer today. They are a bunch of dishonest f*cks with an agenda. That agenda is to control us by any means available. Wake the f*ck up before it's too late.

About "any rational person believe anything they say?" Well, it seems you have ignoredthat fact that the arctic ice is disappearing, so something is going on! Yet, it seems you hold the view put forth by the fossil fuel industry and do so with no evidence.

Carbon dioxide in increase and its spectral absorption characteristics have not changed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Meanwhile, the last 3 years have been the hottest ever according to thousands of readings worldwide. Everyone outside the GOP bubble of idiocy knows it.

See, this is why I know you have no viable science literacy skills, because you fell for the dumbest trick of misleading data claims. So dumb because the AGW conjecture doesn't talk about a warmest year claim at all, they talk about the RATE of warming that the AGW conjecture says is supposed to happen.

From 1990 the IPCC reports onward says that it is supposed to warm at least .30C PER DECADE (which newspapers never talk about in their propaganda drive to reel in suckers like you) Which are derived from emission scenarios based ON the AGW conjecture.

But in reality it has warmed at HALF the predicted/projected rate, which also happens to be similar to the other TWO 20-30 years warming periods rates since the 1850's. This means no clear evidence of any CO2 based warming effect is visible.

DR. Jones in the BBC interview stated that ALL short warming periods since the 1860's have very similar per decade warming rate of .16C:

From BBC News,

Saturday, 13 February 2010

Roger Harrabin

Excerpt:

"Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

LINK

YOU are the one who is in the bubble of ignorant idiocy!

 

[Sunsettommy]

I understand that solar output this cycle is low, but this could be a disaster. Imagine that the planet cools because of the lack of solar output, and the world decides it is just fine to continue with business as usual regarding burning fossil fuels.

This is total horse manure... CO2's forcing ability has now been shown less than 0.2 deg per doubling due the the NEGATIVE forcings of earths atmosphere. With recent satellite corrections even this is now closer to 0.0 deg C..

Well, I do not know where this poster got this idea, "CO2's forcing ability has now been shown less than 0.2 deg per doubling. Forcing per doubling of concentration is called the "climate sensitivity" to carbon dioxide.

Over at Skeptical Science, I found this quote. The poster isn't even close.

(Quote)

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

(End quote)

Now the poster needs to find a source better than the IPCC.

There are current temperature data sets that show MUCH lower temperature warming rates than the IPCC's predicted/projected.

 

[Sunsettommy]

[
1. Every jet is zonal.
2. The power of each jet is directly related to solar output.
3. It is the energy imbalance and routes of energy loss which determine what the planet is doing.

What are you basing your assumptions on?

In cooling world where the sun is giving less energy the release portion of the system will gain power ie: polar jet. In a warming world the equatorial jets gain power causing tightly constrained polar jets.

Where is your magical boogie man that is going to make the planet burn?

suggested reading: Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

About the comment, "The power of each jet is directly related to solar output." To say directly is wrong! If you go to Scientific American.com and find the article "What causes the high-speed winds, or 'jet stream,' in the stratosphere? And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference. The article says:

(Quote)

During the winter months, when the equator-to-pole temperature disparity is at its greatest, the jet stream reaches its maximum velocity. During the summer months, when the temperature gradient between the equator and the pole is considerably less (only about half the winter value), the jet stream reaches its minimum velocity.

(End quote)

"And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference."

Tell me, where does the earth obtain its energy from?

I'll wait...

I think you are having problems with the terms "directly" and "indirectly."

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

But you manage to fail to provide clear evidence............

Carry on with your ugly partisanship.......

 

[francoHFW]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

But you manage to fail to provide clear evidence............

Carry on with your ugly partisanship.......

The only scientists and climatologists who who disagree with global warming are bought off tools of Big Oil or right wing propaganda.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

I understand that solar output this cycle is low, but this could be a disaster. Imagine that the planet cools because of the lack of solar output, and the world decides it is just fine to continue with business as usual regarding burning fossil fuels.

This is total horse manure... CO2's forcing ability has now been shown less than 0.2 deg per doubling due the the NEGATIVE forcings of earths atmosphere. With recent satellite corrections even this is now closer to 0.0 deg C..

Well, I do not know where this poster got this idea, "CO2's forcing ability has now been shown less than 0.2 deg per doubling. Forcing per doubling of concentration is called the "climate sensitivity" to carbon dioxide.

Over at Skeptical Science, I found this quote. The poster isn't even close.

(Quote)

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

(End quote)

Now the poster needs to find a source better than the IPCC.

There are current temperature data sets that show MUCH lower temperature warming rates than the IPCC's predicted/projected.

Well, tell us about it! Short of that, you are blowing in the wind!

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About the comment, "The power of each jet is directly related to solar output." To say directly is wrong! If you go to Scientific American.com and find the article "What causes the high-speed winds, or 'jet stream,' in the stratosphere? And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference. The article says:

(Quote)

During the winter months, when the equator-to-pole temperature disparity is at its greatest, the jet stream reaches its maximum velocity. During the summer months, when the temperature gradient between the equator and the pole is considerably less (only about half the winter value), the jet stream reaches its minimum velocity.

(End quote)

"And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference."

Tell me, where does the earth obtain its energy from?

I'll wait...

I think you are having problems with the terms "directly" and "indirectly."

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

 

[Sunsettommy]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

But you manage to fail to provide clear evidence............

Carry on with your ugly partisanship.......

The only scientists and climatologists who who disagree with global warming are bought off tools of Big Oil or right wing propaganda.

Ha ha ha......,

It is clear you have NOTHING to counter me with. You don't show curiosity in what I said about the .30C per Decade rate (by the IPCC) or what DR. Jones, a noted warmist have to say either. You just post more useless funding fallacies which doesn't work in rational debate.

You offer nothing in the way of science or evidence. Your replies are utter garbage, that I have seen for 20 years, it is BORING!

 

[francoHFW]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

But you manage to fail to provide clear evidence............

Carry on with your ugly partisanship.......

The only scientists and climatologists who who disagree with global warming are bought off tools of Big Oil or right wing propaganda.

Ha ha ha......,

It is clear you have NOTHING to counter me with. You don't show curiosity in what I said about the .30C per Decade rate (by the IPCC) or what DR. Jones, a noted warmist have to say either. You just post more useless funding fallacies which doesn't work in rational debate.

You offer nothing in the way of science or evidence. Your replies are utter garbage, that I have seen for 20 years, it is BORING!

I don't care about your stupid science. It gives me a headache LOL! I will go with obviously honest scientists and journalists.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"And why does the path of the jet stream wander?", you find the stream is more directly related to the temperature difference."

Tell me, where does the earth obtain its energy from?

I'll wait...

I think you are having problems with the terms "directly" and "indirectly."

Funny..

I think your having problems with facts and fantasy...

I am the one offering references!

You are the one who doesn't really know what the AGW conjecture really is about and what the IPCC says about it.

You saying so does not make it true. Support you argument if you can. I still see no references.

Little boy, I see that you joined just a few days ago.

I posted it several times in the forum already, but your reply make clear you DON'T know about the IPCC Per Decade warming rate prediction/Projection that has been in every report since 1990.

You even show that you DIDN'T know that ALL of the temperature data sets fall below the projected .30C per decade warming rate, especially the best of the data sets, the Satellite data.

If you were really a good researcher, you would have learned this elementary stuff already.

 

[Sunsettommy]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

But you manage to fail to provide clear evidence............

Carry on with your ugly partisanship.......

The only scientists and climatologists who who disagree with global warming are bought off tools of Big Oil or right wing propaganda.

Ha ha ha......,

It is clear you have NOTHING to counter me with. You don't show curiosity in what I said about the .30C per Decade rate (by the IPCC) or what DR. Jones, a noted warmist have to say either. You just post more useless funding fallacies which doesn't work in rational debate.

You offer nothing in the way of science or evidence. Your replies are utter garbage, that I have seen for 20 years, it is BORING!

I don't care about your stupid science. It gives me a headache LOL! I will go with obviously honest scientists and journalists.

What I posted is FROM DR. Jones and the IPCC. Both noted AGW supporters at post 88

You that dumb?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The 1990 IPCC Policymakers summary report states:

"Based on current model results, we predict:

• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)..."

LINK

bolding mine

.30C PER DECADE rate

Reality UAH:

LINK

It is actually far worse than it seems because the "business as usual emission scenario" was based on 1990 emissions, when actually it has been over 25% higher than expected by 2015. which means it should have warmed even more than the predicted .30C per decade rate.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

More evidence GOP have a whole other planet and are conspiracy nut jobs...

But you manage to fail to provide clear evidence............

Carry on with your ugly partisanship.......

The only scientists and climatologists who who disagree with global warming are bought off tools of Big Oil or right wing propaganda.

Ha ha ha......,

It is clear you have NOTHING to counter me with. You don't show curiosity in what I said about the .30C per Decade rate (by the IPCC) or what DR. Jones, a noted warmist have to say either. You just post more useless funding fallacies which doesn't work in rational debate.

You offer nothing in the way of science or evidence. Your replies are utter garbage, that I have seen for 20 years, it is BORING!

I am the one posting quotes and references. You are the one posting nothing, that is zero, nada, zilch! Simply put, you do not back up what you say!