Greenhouse gases overpowering natural cooling

[Intense]

As a pure science, Climatology falls squarely between phrenology and palmistry

As pure fact, your statement falls squarely between horseshit and bullshit.

Did you know that the basic laws of physics fall into question in our own solar system? Did you know that?

Look up "Pioneer Anomaly" and then tell me if you still have faith that climatologists have a better grasp on thermodynamics and the laws of our physical universe than our physicists

That's why I put little stock in CO2 as a harbinger of Death and Destruction on Gaia

thermodynamics Ha that one word is why I left College.

 

[Chris]

As a pure science, Climatology falls squarely between phrenology and palmistry

As pure fact, your statement falls squarely between horseshit and bullshit.

Did you know that the basic laws of physics fall into question in our own solar system? Did you know that?

Look up "Pioneer Anomaly" and then tell me if you still have faith that climatologists have a better grasp on thermodynamics and the laws of our physical universe than our physicists

That's why I put little stock in CO2 as a harbinger of Death and Destruction on Gaia

I put little stock in your attempt to change the subject.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is millions of miles closer to the Sun?

 

[Intense]

Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. The surface temperature there averages 460° C–that’s hot enough to melt lead! Even though Mercury is closer to the Sun, Venus has something that guarantees it this hot-spot billing: a dense, yellow layer of clouds that acts like an insulating blanket. The clouds reflect a lot of the Sun’s rays, but the rays that do get through are trapped. In this way, the clouds act a bit like the glass of a greenhouse and prevent the Sun’s heat from escaping. This "greenhouse effect" causes surface temperatures to rise. Brain Bumpers

 

[Liability]

Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. The surface temperature there averages 460° C–that’s hot enough to melt lead! Even though Mercury is closer to the Sun, Venus has something that guarantees it this hot-spot billing: a dense, yellow layer of clouds that acts like an insulating blanket. The clouds reflect a lot of the Sun’s rays, but the rays that do get through are trapped. In this way, the clouds act a bit like the glass of a greenhouse and prevent the Sun’s heat from escaping. This "greenhouse effect" causes surface temperatures to rise. Brain Bumpers

And Earth has an atmosphere too and it serves to trap some heat over time.

Adding infintesimal amounts of CO2 gasses to our atmosphere will NEVER make our atmosphere serve as a blanket akin to Venus' cloud cover.

Care to try again?

 

[Intense]

What can we do with all that CO2. Contain it and freeze it. Would be useful Commercial and industrial refrigeration. Alot less toxic than the current refrigerants used today.

 

[Oddball]

Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. The surface temperature there averages 460° C–that’s hot enough to melt lead! Even though Mercury is closer to the Sun, Venus has something that guarantees it this hot-spot billing: a dense, yellow layer of clouds that acts like an insulating blanket. The clouds reflect a lot of the Sun’s rays, but the rays that do get through are trapped. In this way, the clouds act a bit like the glass of a greenhouse and prevent the Sun’s heat from escaping. This "greenhouse effect" causes surface temperatures to rise. Brain Bumpers

That Venus is hotter than Mercury is because it has an atmosphere.....The gasses are largely irrelevant to the fact.

 

[code1211]

CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com

The part highlighted in red above is simply disingeuous. I hesitate to use the word lie, but it is untrue and if these folks are expert, they know that it is untrue.

The cratering temperature of the Little Ice Age was an anomaly itself as it broke a progresion of warming that had lasted for about 3000 years. The warming that marked the end of the Little Ice Age pre-dates the Industrial Revolution by about 100 years. Maybe 50.

This is a political agenda piece bereft of any factual underpinning.

 

[Chris]

Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. The surface temperature there averages 460° C–that’s hot enough to melt lead! Even though Mercury is closer to the Sun, Venus has something that guarantees it this hot-spot billing: a dense, yellow layer of clouds that acts like an insulating blanket. The clouds reflect a lot of the Sun’s rays, but the rays that do get through are trapped. In this way, the clouds act a bit like the glass of a greenhouse and prevent the Sun’s heat from escaping. This "greenhouse effect" causes surface temperatures to rise. Brain Bumpers

And Earth has an atmosphere too and it serves to trap some heat over time.

Adding infintesimal amounts of CO2 gasses to our atmosphere will NEVER make our atmosphere serve as a blanket akin to Venus' cloud cover.

Care to try again?

Infintesimal amounts!

 

[Chris]

The greenhouse effect is the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation.[1] Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.[2][3][4][5] This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[6]

Carbon dioxide is the human-produced greenhouse gas that contributes most of radiative forcing from human activity. CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other human activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation.[15] Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm [16] in 1960 to about 383 ppm in 2009. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data.[17] The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will contribute to additional absorption and emission of thermal infrared in the atmosphere, which could contribute to net warming. In fact, according to Assessment Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".[18]

Over the past 800,000 years,[19] ice core data shows unambiguously that carbon dioxide has varied from values as low as 180 parts per million (ppm) to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm.[20] Certain paleoclimatologists consider variations in carbon dioxide to be a fundamental factor in controlling climate variations over this time scale.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

 

[Liability]

Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. The surface temperature there averages 460° C–that’s hot enough to melt lead! Even though Mercury is closer to the Sun, Venus has something that guarantees it this hot-spot billing: a dense, yellow layer of clouds that acts like an insulating blanket. The clouds reflect a lot of the Sun’s rays, but the rays that do get through are trapped. In this way, the clouds act a bit like the glass of a greenhouse and prevent the Sun’s heat from escaping. This "greenhouse effect" causes surface temperatures to rise. Brain Bumpers

And Earth has an atmosphere too and it serves to trap some heat over time.

Adding infintesimal amounts of CO2 gasses to our atmosphere will NEVER make our atmosphere serve as a blanket akin to Venus' cloud cover.

Care to try again?

Infintesimal amounts!

Yep. As .036% of the volume of gasses composing our atmosphere is Infinitesimal compared to Oxygen or Nitrogen or even water vapor.

Your ignorance is amusing.

POINT zero three six percent.

 

[Oddball]

CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com

The part highlighted in red above is simply disingeuous. I hesitate to use the word lie, but it is untrue and if these folks are expert, they know that it is untrue.

The cratering temperature of the Little Ice Age was an anomaly itself as it broke a progresion of warming that had lasted for about 3000 years. The warming that marked the end of the Little Ice Age pre-dates the Industrial Revolution by about 100 years. Maybe 50.

This is a political agenda piece bereft of any factual underpinning.

That's our little Chrissy.....Dishonest to the core.

 

[code1211]

More than half the scientists disagree with the point that the globe is warming. Only a third think it's actually warming, a third think it's cooling, and a third say it's as it should be. Of those who do think it's warming, a third think it's CO2, a third think it's the ozone, and a third are just twiddling their thumbs waiting to see who pays more. Chris, stop ignore two thirds of the scientists, partisan hackery is just plain stupid.

KK, you need to stop watching Glenn Beck, and get out of your house, you little shut in you....

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

As a pure science, Climatology falls squarely between phrenology and palmistry

I think it might be a bit of an overstatement in terms of the data collection and so forth, but in terms of actual results, it seems pretty spot on.

I tried out a Phrenology Helmet kind of a thing at a County Fair once. It looked like something from the set of "The Fly" with Vincent Price. The equipment was kind of interesting, but the Carnival guy was pretty scary for a kid of about 12 to deal with. A little scroll of paper printed out and my future was assured.

I have no remembrance of what it predicted for me. The helmet was made of heavy wire, the Carnival guy smoked and had dirty fingernails. It's funny what sticks in your mind after the fact.

 

[KittenKoder]

I am still wondering something ... yes, it's a different wonder this time since I can't get an honest or even attempt at my other wonder.

Do the environuts stop to think that maybe we are suppose to be warmer than we have been?

 

[code1211]

As pure fact, your statement falls squarely between horseshit and bullshit.

Did you know that the basic laws of physics fall into question in our own solar system? Did you know that?

Look up "Pioneer Anomaly" and then tell me if you still have faith that climatologists have a better grasp on thermodynamics and the laws of our physical universe than our physicists

That's why I put little stock in CO2 as a harbinger of Death and Destruction on Gaia

I put little stock in your attempt to change the subject.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is millions of miles closer to the Sun?

It has to do with a couple things. Primarily, Mercury has no atmosphere. The side that faces the sun is hotter than the dark side and also is hotter than Venus. The cooler temperature for Mercury is the result of averaging the hot side and the dark side. Mercury rotates very slowly so the dark side has plenty of time to cool and becomes about the temperature of empty space by the time it rotates back into the light.

Mercury has no atmosphere because the Solar Wind has "blown" it away.

 

[DiveCon]

Did you know that the basic laws of physics fall into question in our own solar system? Did you know that?

Look up "Pioneer Anomaly" and then tell me if you still have faith that climatologists have a better grasp on thermodynamics and the laws of our physical universe than our physicists

That's why I put little stock in CO2 as a harbinger of Death and Destruction on Gaia

I put little stock in your attempt to change the subject.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is millions of miles closer to the Sun?

It has to do with a couple things. Primarily, Mercury has no atmosphere. The side that faces the sun is hotter than the dark side and also is hotter than Venus. The cooler temperature for Mercury is the result of averaging the hot side and the dark side. Mercury rotates very slowly so the dark side has plenty of time to cool and becomes about the temperature of empty space by the time it rotates back into the light.

Mercury has no atmosphere because the Solar Wind has "blown" it away.

if chris knew half of what he thinks he knows, he would have known that

 

[code1211]

I am still wondering something ... yes, it's a different wonder this time since I can't get an honest or even attempt at my other wonder.

Do the environuts stop to think that maybe we are suppose to be warmer than we have been?

That's something that I've asked in various forms. The orbit of the Earth about the Sun will be most circular in about 10,000 years and so the optimum for warming from that forcing will continue to increase for that period.

Actually, I've read sources that place the circular optimum from 6000 to 10,000 years away, but it shouldn't make much difference to me in any event.

This little factoid relating to orbital eccentricity, the thing that actually starts and ends Ice Ages, is left out of most discussions by those who tout the effect of CO2. Why do you suppose it is left out?

 

[Chris]

CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com

The part highlighted in red above is simply disingeuous. I hesitate to use the word lie, but it is untrue and if these folks are expert, they know that it is untrue.

The cratering temperature of the Little Ice Age was an anomaly itself as it broke a progresion of warming that had lasted for about 3000 years. The warming that marked the end of the Little Ice Age pre-dates the Industrial Revolution by about 100 years. Maybe 50.

This is a political agenda piece bereft of any factual underpinning.

That's our little Chrissy.....Dishonest to the core.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

The earth's orbit is in a positon that the earth should have been cooling for the last 100 years, but instead it is heating up.

Those are the facts.

You are the liar.

 

[Liability]

The part highlighted in red above is simply disingeuous. I hesitate to use the word lie, but it is untrue and if these folks are expert, they know that it is untrue.

The cratering temperature of the Little Ice Age was an anomaly itself as it broke a progresion of warming that had lasted for about 3000 years. The warming that marked the end of the Little Ice Age pre-dates the Industrial Revolution by about 100 years. Maybe 50.

This is a political agenda piece bereft of any factual underpinning.

That's our little Chrissy.....Dishonest to the core.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

The earth's orbit is in a positon that the earth should have been cooling for the last 100 years, but instead it is heating up.

Those are the facts.

You are the liar.

Vapidly repeating your dopey mantra does not suffice to overcome the stark lack of support you have for that stupid theory you embrace.


You can CALL them facts, but they still aren't. And you remain the liar.

 

[DiveCon]

The part highlighted in red above is simply disingeuous. I hesitate to use the word lie, but it is untrue and if these folks are expert, they know that it is untrue.

The cratering temperature of the Little Ice Age was an anomaly itself as it broke a progresion of warming that had lasted for about 3000 years. The warming that marked the end of the Little Ice Age pre-dates the Industrial Revolution by about 100 years. Maybe 50.

This is a political agenda piece bereft of any factual underpinning.

That's our little Chrissy.....Dishonest to the core.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

The earth's orbit is in a positon that the earth should have been cooling for the last 100 years, but instead it is heating up.

Those are the facts.

You are the liar.

then get rid of your car
turn off your computer, and turn off all your lights

 

[Chris]

That's our little Chrissy.....Dishonest to the core.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

The earth's orbit is in a positon that the earth should have been cooling for the last 100 years, but instead it is heating up.

Those are the facts.

You are the liar.

Vapidly repeating your dopey mantra does not suffice to overcome the stark lack of support you have for that stupid theory you embrace.


You can CALL them facts, but they still aren't. And you remain the liar.

Which of these facts can you disprove?

And please provide links, not just your opinion.