Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

[RollingThunder]

It's gotten cold enough to drop the snow level down to 2500 feet in the Antelope Valley about 50 miles north of LA. That's cold baby. Hasn't been that low since 1962 when the AGW crowd were predicting a new ice age.

Thanks for the weather report, but can we get back to discussing climate?

Why bother. Every rain drop or storm is a "weather event" supporting your particular delusion.

Spoken like a truly clueless retard who has no idea what is going on. As usual for you.

Oh did you hear??? Seeee ya!

"TORONTO (AP) — Canada's environment minister said Monday his country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Peter Kent said that Canada is invoking the legal right to withdraw and said Kyoto doesn't represent the way forward for Canada or the world.
Canada, joined by Japan and Russia, said last year it will not accept new Kyoto commitments, but renouncing the accord is another setback to the treaty concluded with much fanfare in 1997. No nation has formally renounced the protocol until now."
Canada pulls out of Kyoto - Yahoo! News

LOLOL....I guess that seems significant to you because you have your head jammed so far up your ass. Meanwhile, in the real world.....

Global climate change treaty in sight after Durban breakthrough

Climate conference ends in agreement after two weeks of talks

The Guardian
11 December 2011
(excerpts)

The world is on track for a comprehensive global treaty on climate change for the first time after agreement was reached at talks in Durban, South Africa in the early hours of Sunday morning. Negotiators agreed to start work on a new climate deal that would have legal force and, crucially, require both developed and developing countries to cut their carbon emissions. The terms now need to be agreed by 2015 and come into effect from 2020.

The agreement – dubbed the "Durban platform" – is different from the other partial deals that have been struck during the past two decades, with developing countries, including China, the world's biggest emitter, agreeing to be legally bound to curb their greenhouse gases. Previously, poorer nations have insisted that they should not bear any legal obligations for tackling climate change, whereas rich nations – which over more than a century have produced most of the carbon currently in the atmosphere – should.

Another first is that the US, the second biggest emitter, also agreed that the new pact would have "legal force" – a step it flirted with in 1997 with the Kyoto protocol, but abandoned as Congress made clear it would never ratify that agreement.

All of the world's biggest economies and emitters already have targets to cut emissions between now and 2020, when the new deal would come into force.

 

[westwall]

Sure thing blunder. Here I present you two maps. The 1st one is post temp adjustments. The 2nd one is actual temp readings.

Nice pictures, but when is one of the "non-sheeple" going to explain that old Conservation of Energy bugaboo?!?!

As soon as you can show us you actually understand the 2nd Law. So far your interpretation is the exact opposite of what it says.

 

[westwall]

Thanks for the weather report, but can we get back to discussing climate?

Why bother. Every rain drop or storm is a "weather event" supporting your particular delusion.

Spoken like a truly clueless retard who has no idea what is going on. As usual for you.

Oh did you hear??? Seeee ya!

"TORONTO (AP) — Canada's environment minister said Monday his country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Peter Kent said that Canada is invoking the legal right to withdraw and said Kyoto doesn't represent the way forward for Canada or the world.
Canada, joined by Japan and Russia, said last year it will not accept new Kyoto commitments, but renouncing the accord is another setback to the treaty concluded with much fanfare in 1997. No nation has formally renounced the protocol until now."
Canada pulls out of Kyoto - Yahoo! News

LOLOL....I guess that seems significant to you because you have your head jammed so far up your ass. Meanwhile, in the real world.....

Global climate change treaty in sight after Durban breakthrough

Climate conference ends in agreement after two weeks of talks

The Guardian
11 December 2011
(excerpts)

The world is on track for a comprehensive global treaty on climate change for the first time after agreement was reached at talks in Durban, South Africa in the early hours of Sunday morning. Negotiators agreed to start work on a new climate deal that would have legal force and, crucially, require both developed and developing countries to cut their carbon emissions. The terms now need to be agreed by 2015 and come into effect from 2020.

The agreement – dubbed the "Durban platform" – is different from the other partial deals that have been struck during the past two decades, with developing countries, including China, the world's biggest emitter, agreeing to be legally bound to curb their greenhouse gases. Previously, poorer nations have insisted that they should not bear any legal obligations for tackling climate change, whereas rich nations – which over more than a century have produced most of the carbon currently in the atmosphere – should.

Another first is that the US, the second biggest emitter, also agreed that the new pact would have "legal force" – a step it flirted with in 1997 with the Kyoto protocol, but abandoned as Congress made clear it would never ratify that agreement.

All of the world's biggest economies and emitters already have targets to cut emissions between now and 2020, when the new deal would come into force.

Oh yes! It's such a BIG deal....they've agreed to...wait for it.....START NEGOTIATIONS FOR A NEW AGREEMENT! Wow, what a HUGE deal! I bet that they can meet next year in some other remote resort location, at great expense and exhorbitant CO2 expenditure (not that that matters) to tell us yet again that they are doing something!


"The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest."

Climate conference approves landmark deal - BusinessWeek

 

[code1211]

All part of the same thing, isn't it? Deforestation decreases the effectiveness of an important carbon sink, leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2.

An increase in CO2 is just that.

Deforestation can cause a number of other things like specie extinction or erosion or habitat destruction.

He was talking about deforestation and in the USA, we have addressed this and have reversed it. By setting up the straw man of international deforestation, he is imploring our government to increase the number of trees we enjoy when that is already happening.

Deforestation is almost always detrimental to the local ecology. The increase in CO2 is not always detrimental to the local or even the global ecology.

Right now, we are at the all time high of CO2 and the temperature is cooling over the last ten years. If CO2 was the primary or even and important driver of our climate, this would be impossible regardless of the other factors.

If CO2 was a weak or even impotent driver of climate this would be expected.

You tell me. Is CO2 the strongest driver of climate or impotent?

You tell me. Couldn't it be even colder? Warming is relative. If as you say the extra CO2 is a good thing, you still have to explain what happens to the extra trapped IR radiation in light of the principle of Conservation of Energy.

Did I say that "the Extra CO2" was a good thing? I don't recall. I don't know that I've ever referred to CO2 as being "extra".

And I don't have to explain anything. All I have to do is observe that there are various factors affecting climate and wonder which of them in combination with the others is doing the most forcing.

You are saying that the extra CO2 is the cause of warming. I say that first, the warming taken over time is not very unusual at all and second that the there so many factors affecting climate that singling one out as the primary one, assuming that factor is not the Sun, requires a whole lot oF proving.

If anyone were to say that the Sun is the primary driver of Global Warming, I would whole heartedly agree.

You are the one saying that you have the answer. All I'm asking of you is proof. You are welocm to present it at your leisure.

 

[code1211]

What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "the heroes in this". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.

You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.

That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.

We are at the all time high in CO2 and yet the temperature has dropped over the last ten years.

That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.

How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?

Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.

So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.

 

[code1211]

That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.


That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.



Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.

Only because of proven shenanigans. Remove the alterations and all of a sudden they ain't so warm anymore. Tsk, tsk.

LOLOLOL.......you are such a funny, funny retard, walleyed....just hilarious.....but your delusions are still insane. No "alterations", no "proven shenanigans" except maybe in your crazy little denier cult bizarro-world hallucinations. There are so many observed signs and indications of rising temperatures all around the world, the fact that you imagine that the thermometer records are the only evidence is just another indication of how extremely ignorant you are about this whole subject. But then, denying reality is what you're all about.

Is there one particular cause that you cite as the prime driver of Global Climate change?

 

[code1211]

Sure thing blunder. Here I present you two maps. The 1st one is post temp adjustments. The 2nd one is actual temp readings.

Nice pictures, but when is one of the "non-sheeple" going to explain that old Conservation of Energy bugaboo?!?!

How about if you explain exactly how it works and how much the climate has risen using the formulas that predicted the increase. Feel free to compare the formulated results with the actual. Feel free also to apply this to the ocean temperatures and the increases both expected and actual.

Why not use some predictions from, oh, 1988?

 

[RollingThunder]

You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.

That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.

That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.

How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?

Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.

So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

As far as the current abrupt warming trend goes, scientists are very clear that it is the extra 40% of fossil carbon that mankind has added to the atmosphere that is causing it.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.

It seems that you are incapable of comprehending simple English 'cause, dude, that is not at all what I said. There are other factors, such as El Nino/La Nina, that drive the year to year variability and that variability can cause world average temperatures to vary slightly within the overall trend of rising temperatures. So some years wind up being cooler than some of the immediately preceding years but still hotter than the previous averages spanning 40 years or so.

 

[westwall]

That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.

That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.


Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.

So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

As far as the current abrupt warming trend goes, scientists are very clear that it is the extra 40% of fossil carbon that mankind has added to the atmosphere that is causing it.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.

It seems that you are incapable of comprehending simple English 'cause, dude, that is not at all what I said. There are other factors, such as El Nino/La Nina, that drive the year to year variability and that variability can cause world average temperatures to vary slightly withing the overall trend of rising temperatures. So some years wind up being cooler than some of the immediately preceding years but still hotter than the previous averages spanning 40 years or so.

What abrupt warming? Last I saw the temps have stalled for the last decade and are possibly going to be dropping. So, if the temps do indeed drop, what does that say about CO2 as a driver?

 

[Meister]

An interesting find...

Ever since the first Climategate e-mail release, the public has become increasingly aware that scientists are not unbiased. Of course, most scientists with a long enough history in their fields already knew this (I discussed the issue at length in my first book Climate Confusion), but it took the first round of Climategate e-mails to demonstrate it to the world.

The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCC’s policy goals. Yet, the IPCC’s “cause” (Michael Mann’s term) appears to trump all else.

So, when the science doesn’t support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCC’s findings. After considerable reflection, I’m going to avoid using the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias.
Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[RollingThunder]

So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

As far as the current abrupt warming trend goes, scientists are very clear that it is the extra 40% of fossil carbon that mankind has added to the atmosphere that is causing it.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.

It seems that you are incapable of comprehending simple English 'cause, dude, that is not at all what I said. There are other factors, such as El Nino/La Nina, that drive the year to year variability and that variability can cause world average temperatures to vary slightly withing the overall trend of rising temperatures. So some years wind up being cooler than some of the immediately preceding years but still hotter than the previous averages spanning 40 years or so.

What abrupt warming? Last I saw the temps have stalled for the last decade and are possibly going to be dropping. So, if the temps do indeed drop, what does that say about CO2 as a driver?

Oh, walleyed, your denier cult delusions are occasionally humorous but mostly just sad. You are such a confused and demented little retard, it just hurts to watch you continually make such a fool out of yourself.

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
NOAA
July 28, 2010
(government publication - free to reproduce)

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”

Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at NOAA Climate Services. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: BAMS Annual State of the Climate.

 

[wirebender]

[
The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps. The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs. If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy. Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat? I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.

Konradv, you really don't have a clue do you? You claim that the law of conservation of energy supports the greenhouse effect as described by warmists then you make a statement like the one highlighted in red. You are claiming that heat already within the system is somehow adding heat to the system. That statement is precisely the opposite of what the law of conservation of energy states. For energy within a system to be adding energy to the system, energy must be being created somewhere and the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created.

It is you who needs to actually learn some science Polly. Want a cracker?

 

[wirebender]

Is IR photons the same thing as IR radiation? I Google IR photons and find nothing.

konradv doesn't exactly get photons. He, like some others on the board believe that photons are these tiny little free agents zipping around the universe somehow unconstrained by the laws of physics and not merely the smallest possible bit of energy in a given EM field which is tightly bound by the laws of physics.

 

[wirebender]

Is konny secretly a Flat Earhter?

Since the energy budgets are based on literal flat earth models, it stands to reason that anyone who buys into them is a flat earther.

 

[konradv]

An increase in CO2 is just that.

Deforestation can cause a number of other things like specie extinction or erosion or habitat destruction.

He was talking about deforestation and in the USA, we have addressed this and have reversed it. By setting up the straw man of international deforestation, he is imploring our government to increase the number of trees we enjoy when that is already happening.

Deforestation is almost always detrimental to the local ecology. The increase in CO2 is not always detrimental to the local or even the global ecology.

Right now, we are at the all time high of CO2 and the temperature is cooling over the last ten years. If CO2 was the primary or even and important driver of our climate, this would be impossible regardless of the other factors.

If CO2 was a weak or even impotent driver of climate this would be expected.

You tell me. Is CO2 the strongest driver of climate or impotent?

You tell me. Couldn't it be even colder? Warming is relative. If as you say the extra CO2 is a good thing, you still have to explain what happens to the extra trapped IR radiation in light of the principle of Conservation of Energy.

Did I say that "the Extra CO2" was a good thing? I don't recall. I don't know that I've ever referred to CO2 as being "extra".

And I don't have to explain anything. All I have to do is observe that there are various factors affecting climate and wonder which of them in combination with the others is doing the most forcing.

You are saying that the extra CO2 is the cause of warming. I say that first, the warming taken over time is not very unusual at all and second that the there so many factors affecting climate that singling one out as the primary one, assuming that factor is not the Sun, requires a whole lot oF proving.

If anyone were to say that the Sun is the primary driver of Global Warming, I would whole heartedly agree.

You are the one saying that you have the answer. All I'm asking of you is proof. You are welocm to present it at your leisure.

You mentioned an increase in CO2. That's the "extra" I'm talking about. Extra CO2 leads to extra trapped IR, leads to an increased amount of re-emitedd IR heading towards earth. That's what I'm talking about when I say the skeptics/deniers ignore the Conservation of Energy question.

 

[konradv]

So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

As far as the current abrupt warming trend goes, scientists are very clear that it is the extra 40% of fossil carbon that mankind has added to the atmosphere that is causing it.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.

It seems that you are incapable of comprehending simple English 'cause, dude, that is not at all what I said. There are other factors, such as El Nino/La Nina, that drive the year to year variability and that variability can cause world average temperatures to vary slightly withing the overall trend of rising temperatures. So some years wind up being cooler than some of the immediately preceding years but still hotter than the previous averages spanning 40 years or so.

What abrupt warming? Last I saw the temps have stalled for the last decade and are possibly going to be dropping. So, if the temps do indeed drop, what does that say about CO2 as a driver?

It doesn't say anything about CO2. It just shows that you only adhere to "natural fluctuation" when it's convenient.

 

[konradv]

Sure thing blunder. Here I present you two maps. The 1st one is post temp adjustments. The 2nd one is actual temp readings.

Nice pictures, but when is one of the "non-sheeple" going to explain that old Conservation of Energy bugaboo?!?!

As soon as you can show us you actually understand the 2nd Law. So far your interpretation is the exact opposite of what it says.

All I get out of this is YOU CAN'T reconcile your theory with Conservation of Energy. I'm not going to jump through you hops. Whoever asserts must also prove!

 

[konradv]

You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.

That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.

That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.

How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?

Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.

So is CO2 a weak constituent factor or the primary driver of climate.

It seems you are saying that the impact of CO2 is nullified by almost anything else.

CO2 is one of the factors. Calling anything "primary" except the sun, is a red-herring. CO2 isn't nullified OR a primary driver. It's just one constituent, but one that we have an influence on.

 

[konradv]

[
The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps. The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs. If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy. Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat? I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.

You claim that the law of conservation of energy supports the greenhouse effect as described by warmists then you make a statement like the one highlighted in red. You are claiming that heat already within the system is somehow adding heat to the system. That statement is precisely the opposite of what the law of conservation of energy states. For energy within a system to be adding energy to the system, energy must be being created somewhere and the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created.

I'm not stating that energy can be created. I'm saying that IR photons heading towards space are absorbed by CO2 then re-mitted back towards earth. You seem to think that photons and heat are the same thing, when 99.99999999% of all physicists KNOW you don't get heat until a photon causes molecular movment in the matter it strikes, like EARTH!!!

 

[wirebender]

I'm not stating that energy can be created. I'm saying that IR photons heading towards space are absorbed by CO2 then re-mitted back towards earth. You seem to think that photons and heat are the same thing, when 99.99999999% of all physicists KNOW you don't get heat until a photon causes molecular movment in the matter it strikes, like EARTH!!!

If you are claiming that energy that is already within a system can somehow add energy to the system or that heat that is already within a system can somehow add additional heat to the system, then you are most certainly claiming the creation of energy somewhere.

You need to understand that a photon, as it applies to IR is nothing more than the smallest possible bit of IR. It is just the tiniest possible amount of IR. There is nothing magical about photons. For the photon to be carrying energy, that energy had to come from somewhere. It came from energy that was already within the system. Moving that energy from one place to another does not increase or descrease the energy within the systerm. The photon, being massless, and not matter at all can't make it to the surface of the earth against the greater EM field propagated from the surface of the earth anyway, but it can not add energy or heat to the system because the energy or heat was already within the system.