Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Ol' G-string doesn't read anything above the level of 'Conservative' one liners, and doesn't believe anything that someone with more than an eighth grade education tells him.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did not happen. For gods sake, look up the data.
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
Just for clarification, does the whole 97% agree that human beings are causing 100% of the warming? Is there a lesser % claiming that 100% is caused by human beings? Do any of these scientists think that human beings are causing warming in part, but that part is small? Partial? Fractional?
Do any of the 97% think that there might be other factors like, oh, the Sun that might have any impact at all on the Climate.
If the 97% monolithically support the notion that 100% of the warming is caused by human beings, as you imply, they are worthy of our scorn and derision, not our respect.
No one said humans cause 100% of warming. Where is that implied? I'd think you'd want to point that out BEFORE talking about derision. THAT can easily be turned around by sloppy posting.
You're missing the point. Of course there are other stronger determinants of climate, that's a given, NOT something that's being over-looked, particularly by climate scientists. The concern is over the effect of ADDED pressure towards higher tempeartues from man-made sources. There's been 30-40% rise in CO2 over the last ~200 years. Since additional CO2 adds to the "Greenhouse Effect" on a log scale, that's still a 11-15% rise. Hardly what I would call minor.
Another factor to consider is the impact of the increase in the CO2. I've read in this long investigation that as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the magnitude of the impact decreases.
It's along the order of for every degree of additional warming caused by CO2 the icremental increase of CO2 must double compared to the previous increment.
By this calcualtion, before we can add enough CO2 to the air to create the increase in temperatures predicted by those who are calling for panicked reaction, the air would become poisenous to breathe.
We asphysciate and the problem is solved.
More seriously, though, even within the normal ebb and flow of annual temperature, CO2 seems to be a very weak driver of climate. Why did the fairly predictable rise of temperatures since 1980 dip in the middle of the time span and stall out lately? CO2 has risen relentlessly until the Big 0 decided to remedy the economic problems of the country. The "Big 0 Effect" has been to stop everything, including CO2 Production, that has anything to do with manufacturing.
He said that he would stop the rise of the oceans which was arguably not happening. Apparently, he was referring to the rise that Kennedy predicted would lift all boats.
That's a lot of rhetoric with nothing to back it up. If you're going to make those kinds of blanket statements, give us some links or show us your math!
Let's leave it up to the scientists. What do they say? Oops.
Given that the TSI is lower than it has been for a while, that we just had a major La Nina, yet the global temperature continues to go up, and the Arctic Ice to decline, what other factor would cause this?
Less energy coming in, yet we have increasing temps. But we have increased CO2 by 40% and CH4 by over 150%, both GHGs, as well as NOx's and industrial chemicals for which there is no natural analog, so it seems reasonable that we might be affecting the temperature balance of the planet.
Now those that claim CO2 has no effect need to explain where the extra energy is coming from. You up to that Code?
In the meantime, we have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities stating that AGW is real, and a threat to all of us. Some grand conspiracy? Would you care to explain how that is arranged?
But CO2 is not the only affect. As Arrhenius point out in 1896, a small increase in heat from CO2 draws more H2O into the atmosphere, which is a much more effective GHG. Of course that rains out in ten days or less, just ask anyone living along the Missouri and Mississippi this year about that, but the CO2 is still there, as it takes geological processes to remove that in any significant amount.
Code, I know you know this, and are playing to the ignorant audience here. Here's hoping Karma for you.
Freeper. LOL. And that is not what that article states.
What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...
CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
"The new [CERN] findings point to cosmic rays and the sun not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth...CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science" [Lawrence Solomon]
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."
CERN scientist Jasper Kirby, about his recent cosmic ray experiment:
"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"
At CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, scientists created an experiment to test how clouds are formed. The experiment ties in with a climate "skeptic" hypothesis that cosmic rays (charged particles from space) are causing global warming. As the hypothesis goes:
Solar magnetic field gets stronger => More cosmic rays are blocked from reaching Earth => Clouds, which are hypothetically seeded by cosmic rays, are less likely to form => Fewer clouds means more sunlight reaches Earth's surface => More sunlight means warmer temperatures => global warming!
Many climate "skeptic" bloggers and commenters have claimed that the CERN experiment has proven that cosmic rays are causing global warming, and that the experiment is "the final nail in the man-made global warming coffin" (i.e. here and here and here and here).
In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:
Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining
In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).
But CO2 is not the only affect. As Arrhenius point out in 1896, a small increase in heat from CO2 draws more H2O into the atmosphere, which is a much more effective GHG. Of course that rains out in ten days or less, just ask anyone living along the Missouri and Mississippi this year about that, but the CO2 is still there, as it takes geological processes to remove that in any significant amount.
Code, I know you know this, and are playing to the ignorant audience here. Here's hoping Karma for you.
We've run around this bush before. I'm usually the one saying that water vapor, due to it being 95% of the total GHG's in the air, has a far greater impact than does CO2 and cannot be affected by man due to its short "shelf life".
Due to the way the air works, water vapor gets shed pretty quick when there is too much of it. Natural cycle. When the Sun sets, it rains. Pretty simple.
Freeper. LOL. And that is not what that article states.
What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...
CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
"The new [CERN] findings point to cosmic rays and the sun not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth...CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science" [Lawrence Solomon]
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."
CERN scientist Jasper Kirby, about his recent cosmic ray experiment:
"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"
At CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, scientists created an experiment to test how clouds are formed. The experiment ties in with a climate "skeptic" hypothesis that cosmic rays (charged particles from space) are causing global warming. As the hypothesis goes:
Solar magnetic field gets stronger => More cosmic rays are blocked from reaching Earth => Clouds, which are hypothetically seeded by cosmic rays, are less likely to form => Fewer clouds means more sunlight reaches Earth's surface => More sunlight means warmer temperatures => global warming!
Many climate "skeptic" bloggers and commenters have claimed that the CERN experiment has proven that cosmic rays are causing global warming, and that the experiment is "the final nail in the man-made global warming coffin" (i.e. here and here and here and here).
In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:
Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining
In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).
Are we gauging the possiblitiy of a conspiracy in the responses to the CERN conclusions?
But CO2 is not the only affect. As Arrhenius point out in 1896, a small increase in heat from CO2 draws more H2O into the atmosphere, which is a much more effective GHG. Of course that rains out in ten days or less, just ask anyone living along the Missouri and Mississippi this year about that, but the CO2 is still there, as it takes geological processes to remove that in any significant amount.
Code, I know you know this, and are playing to the ignorant audience here. Here's hoping Karma for you.
We've run around this bush before. I'm usually the one saying that water vapor, due to it being 95% of the total GHG's in the air, has a far greater impact than does CO2 and cannot be affected by man due to its short "shelf life".
Due to the way the air works, water vapor gets shed pretty quick when there is too much of it. Natural cycle. When the Sun sets, it rains. Pretty simple.
Yep. So when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, such as the 40% increase we have created, the additional heat that is trapped evaporates more H2O, which traps even more heat. And draws more water up. Then night comes, from day one to day ten, and the water falls out. Saw major examples of that this summer in the Dakotas and Montana.
Now, Code, maybe a two digit IQ would fall for that little gambit of water vapor cannot be affected by man, but anyone with the slightest logic realizes that the initiating factor is the CO2. So when we put that into the air with the massive burning of fossil fuels, we absolutely affect the amount of H2O in the air.
The primary effect predicted by global warming is weather swings that are wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend. Didn't expect to see as much as we have seen in just the last 14 months in that period in my lifetime.
Now look at the graphs here, showing cosmic rays, CO2, and surface temperatures. Care to comment how the Cosmic rays in any way match the surface temperatures?
Cosmic rays again