Increased Sun Spot, Solar Activity proves Gloabal warming is caused by Sun,Not humans

[daveman]

How dare you question Science by Consensus!! Everyone knows that once a roomful of paid shills agree, that's it!! The Science is SETTLED!!! Al Gore said so. Settled. Done. Over. Globull Warming is caused by humans.
PS - make your check payable to "Al Gore", or "the Goremons".........

 

[daveman]

Conservative Science:

Snow comes up out of the ground. The wind blows it around so it looks like it's coming down, but it comes up! Snow comes up!

Liberal Science:
You mean we can get paid if we lie about the results? Ok. We'll lie. We need the money.

The lying has been done by people like you, Zander. You have yet to post a peer reviewed article to support your nonsense. You do know what a peer reviewed article is?

In the case of AGW, it's an article that's been rubber-stamped by fellow cultists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do most of you treat science as fact? I only know two hard facts in science. 1. Somehow, somewhen this universe began. 2. Somehow, somewhen it will cease to exist. Everything else in science is theory or a working hypothesis. The "laws" of science are determined by observation and speculation and are always subject to change when new data reveals a fallacy. Even if everyone agrees (consensus) that this science is settled and understood, it will always be subject to change. Just ask a Newtonian physicist about quantum physics. Pappadave.

Dang, you are grossly misinformed!!!

For example, the First Law of Thermodynamics was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule. You probably have a surge protector on your computer or stereo rated in Joules, a unit of energy named after him in honor of this great accomplishment.

Indeed. What experiment has proven AGW?

That was performed by John Tyndal in 1858.

 

[Old Rocks]

Liberal Science:
You mean we can get paid if we lie about the results? Ok. We'll lie. We need the money.

The lying has been done by people like you, Zander. You have yet to post a peer reviewed article to support your nonsense. You do know what a peer reviewed article is?

In the case of AGW, it's an article that's been rubber-stamped by fellow cultists.

So, Daveboy, all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities are populated by cultists. Pretty dumb statement there, halfwit.

 

[westwall]

Here is a simple experiment for you to run.

CO2 reflects IR in the 14.5 micron band. So does water vapor. Water vapor reflects IR in many bands other than the 14.5 micron band as well but CO2 ONLY reflects it in the 14.5 micron band.

If water vapor makes up 95% of the total GHG's in the atmosphere. How can you differentiate the supposed effect of CO2? Water vapor reflects IR accross the spectrum, but CO2 does it ONLY in the 14.5 micron band. So please show how it will have an effect that is not allready accounted for by the water vapor.

 

[Old Rocks]

American Institute of Physics.

Basic Radiation Calculations

Most experts stuck by the old objection to the greenhouse theory of climate change — in the parts of the spectrum where infrared absorption took place, the CO2 plus the water vapor that were already in the atmosphere sufficed to block all the radiation that could be blocked. In this "saturated" condition, raising the level of the gas could not change anything. But this argument was falling into doubt. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920s had opened the way to an accurate theory for the details of how absorption took place, developed by Walter Elsasser during the Second World War. Precise laboratory measurements studies during the war and after confirmed a new outlook. In the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements.

Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened considerably. With the primitive infrared instruments available earlier in the 20th century, scientists saw the absorption smeared out into wide bands. And they had no theory to suggest anything else.

A modern spectrograph shows a set of peaks and valleys superimposed on each band, even at sea-level pressure. In cold air at low pressure, each band resolves into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence. There are gaps between the H2O lines where radiation can get through unless blocked by CO2 lines. That showed up clearly in data compiled for the U.S. Air Force, drawing the attention of researchers to the details of the absorption, especially at high altitudes. Moreover, researchers working for the Air Force had become acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes—indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all. By contrast, CO2 is fairly well mixed all through the atmosphere, so as you look higher it becomes relatively more significant.(9a)

 

[Old Rocks]

How dare you question Science by Consensus!! Everyone knows that once a roomful of paid shills agree, that's it!! The Science is SETTLED!!! Al Gore said so. Settled. Done. Over. Globull Warming is caused by humans.
PS - make your check payable to "Al Gore", or "the Goremons".........

For brainless people like yourself, your silly cartoons work very well. For those that engage in serious research, articles from peer reviewed sources, Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysics, and even the Publications of the National Academies of Science are a bit more impressive. Of course, those require a bit of time and some background science above the level of the third grade. Better stick with the cartoons, Daveboy

 

[westwall]

American Institute of Physics.

Basic Radiation Calculations

Most experts stuck by the old objection to the greenhouse theory of climate change — in the parts of the spectrum where infrared absorption took place, the CO2 plus the water vapor that were already in the atmosphere sufficed to block all the radiation that could be blocked. In this "saturated" condition, raising the level of the gas could not change anything. But this argument was falling into doubt. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920s had opened the way to an accurate theory for the details of how absorption took place, developed by Walter Elsasser during the Second World War. Precise laboratory measurements studies during the war and after confirmed a new outlook. In the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements.

Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened considerably. With the primitive infrared instruments available earlier in the 20th century, scientists saw the absorption smeared out into wide bands. And they had no theory to suggest anything else.

A modern spectrograph shows a set of peaks and valleys superimposed on each band, even at sea-level pressure. In cold air at low pressure, each band resolves into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence. There are gaps between the H2O lines where radiation can get through unless blocked by CO2 lines. That showed up clearly in data compiled for the U.S. Air Force, drawing the attention of researchers to the details of the absorption, especially at high altitudes. Moreover, researchers working for the Air Force had become acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes—indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all. By contrast, CO2 is fairly well mixed all through the atmosphere, so as you look higher it becomes relatively more significant.(9a)

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change11.17.08 The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land.
Credit: NASA
> Watch video
Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.
Credit: Andrew Dessler
> Larger image
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

Related Links:

> Will Runaway Water Warm the World?
> Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) Web page Kathryn Hansen
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

 

[daveman]

Dang, you are grossly misinformed!!!

For example, the First Law of Thermodynamics was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule. You probably have a surge protector on your computer or stereo rated in Joules, a unit of energy named after him in honor of this great accomplishment.

Indeed. What experiment has proven AGW?

That was performed by John Tyndal in 1858.

No, he proved CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He didn't prove AGW.

 

[daveman]

The lying has been done by people like you, Zander. You have yet to post a peer reviewed article to support your nonsense. You do know what a peer reviewed article is?

In the case of AGW, it's an article that's been rubber-stamped by fellow cultists.

So, Daveboy, all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities are populated by cultists. Pretty dumb statement there, halfwit.

Not as dumb as insisting that .038% of the atmosphere has a greater effect on the planet's temperature than the variable-output heater in the neighborhood.

 

[daveman]

For brainless people like yourself, your silly cartoons work very well. For those that engage in serious research, articles from peer reviewed sources, Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysics, and even the Publications of the National Academies of Science are a bit more impressive. Of course, those require a bit of time and some background science above the level of the third grade. Better stick with the cartoons, Daveboy

Sorry. Didn't mean to denigrate your faith.

 

[daveman]

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change11.17.08

The AGW cult ignores water vapor because there is no way to regulate and tax human production of it.

The goal is not to "save the planet". The goal is greater control over individual lives.

 

[konradv]

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change11.17.08

The AGW cult ignores water vapor because there is no way to regulate and tax human production of it.

The goal is not to "save the planet". The goal is greater control over individual lives.

No one ignores water vapor. That's just another denier LIE. Continue to raise GHGs and temps will eventually rise, a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics, causing more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, causing temps to rise. It's part of EVERY calculation and computer model out there. So, apparently, not only do the deniers not trust the models, they don't even believe they exist!!! Any wonder they can only get traction on a political basis? They either misrepresent or ignore the science, a stance guaranteed to get them laughed off any scientific stage! Here's a clue for you politico-deniers, the Laws of Chemistry and Physics aren't up for a vote.

 

[daveman]

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change11.17.08

The AGW cult ignores water vapor because there is no way to regulate and tax human production of it.

The goal is not to "save the planet". The goal is greater control over individual lives.

No one ignores water vapor. That's just another denier LIE. Continue to raise GHGs and temps will eventually rise, a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics, causing more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, causing temps to rise. It's part of EVERY calculation and computer model out there. So, apparently, not only do the deniers not trust the models, they don't even believe they exist!!! Any wonder they can only get traction on a political basis? They either misrepresent or ignore the science, a stance guaranteed to get them laughed off any scientific stage! Here's a clue for you politico-deniers, the Laws of Chemistry and Physics aren't up for a vote.

That's true. So why do you keep ignoring them? Please note it wasn't the deniers who came up with "sensitive CO2".

 

[konradv]

The AGW cult ignores water vapor because there is no way to regulate and tax human production of it.

The goal is not to "save the planet". The goal is greater control over individual lives.

No one ignores water vapor. That's just another denier LIE. Continue to raise GHGs and temps will eventually rise, a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics, causing more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, causing temps to rise. It's part of EVERY calculation and computer model out there. So, apparently, not only do the deniers not trust the models, they don't even believe they exist!!! Any wonder they can only get traction on a political basis? They either misrepresent or ignore the science, a stance guaranteed to get them laughed off any scientific stage! Here's a clue for you politico-deniers, the Laws of Chemistry and Physics aren't up for a vote.

That's true. So why do you keep ignoring them? Please note it wasn't the deniers who came up with "sensitive CO2".

Keep ignoring what? You maybe, but the REAL science, never. What does "sensitive CO2" have to do with anything? How about explaining something once in a while? Insults and C&Ps just don't cut it all the time.

 

[daveman]

No one ignores water vapor. That's just another denier LIE. Continue to raise GHGs and temps will eventually rise, a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics, causing more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, causing temps to rise. It's part of EVERY calculation and computer model out there. So, apparently, not only do the deniers not trust the models, they don't even believe they exist!!! Any wonder they can only get traction on a political basis? They either misrepresent or ignore the science, a stance guaranteed to get them laughed off any scientific stage! Here's a clue for you politico-deniers, the Laws of Chemistry and Physics aren't up for a vote.

That's true. So why do you keep ignoring them? Please note it wasn't the deniers who came up with "sensitive CO2".

Keep ignoring what? You maybe, but the REAL science, never. What does "sensitive CO2" have to do with anything? How about explaining something once in a while? Insults and C&Ps just don't cut it all the time.

You ignore chemistry and physics.

It's probably no coincidence that the AGW cult and the 9/11 "Troof" movement share a lot of members.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, is the Pacific Northwest being blocked somehow, because our summer has been cooler than normal.

Yah, no kidding!

Obviously you don't understand the AGW point of view. Any weather, hot cold or indifferent, is proof of global warming. Oops I mean climate change.

So, all the skeptics were telling us that the climate was cooling, there was no warming after 1998. Where are these people now?

No, I do not state that every event is related to global warming. However, when you get enough events, the totality does indicate a change.

For a number of years, the people that have been studying the climate, have been warning us that it is the food supply in a world of about 7 billion people that is in danger. Depending on the source of information, 20% to 33% of the Russian grain crop is gone. Pakistan's bread basket is devastated. And there are many smaller areas where the crops have been ruined by floods or heat, from Iowa and Mississippi to China.

And then there is the little matter of about 40% of the oceans phytoplankton gone missing. Nothing to worry about, just the base of the ocean's food chain, and the largest single source for converting CO2 into O2 and food.

Here's one:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Indeed. What experiment has proven AGW?

That was performed by John Tyndal in 1858.

No, he proved CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He didn't prove AGW.

Amen, brother.

Old Rocks can't tell the difference between 200PPM and 990,000PPM.

 

[edthecynic]

Yah, no kidding!

Obviously you don't understand the AGW point of view. Any weather, hot cold or indifferent, is proof of global warming. Oops I mean climate change.

So, all the skeptics were telling us that the climate was cooling, there was no warming after 1998. Where are these people now?

No, I do not state that every event is related to global warming. However, when you get enough events, the totality does indicate a change.

For a number of years, the people that have been studying the climate, have been warning us that it is the food supply in a world of about 7 billion people that is in danger. Depending on the source of information, 20% to 33% of the Russian grain crop is gone. Pakistan's bread basket is devastated. And there are many smaller areas where the crops have been ruined by floods or heat, from Iowa and Mississippi to China.

And then there is the little matter of about 40% of the oceans phytoplankton gone missing. Nothing to worry about, just the base of the ocean's food chain, and the largest single source for converting CO2 into O2 and food.

Here's one:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

I've lost track of how many times you posted this lie and I've nailed you on this lie only for you to post this lie again. If you were even remotely honest you would have put an ellipses after the yes.

The complete answer was:
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, all the skeptics were telling us that the climate was cooling, there was no warming after 1998. Where are these people now?

No, I do not state that every event is related to global warming. However, when you get enough events, the totality does indicate a change.

For a number of years, the people that have been studying the climate, have been warning us that it is the food supply in a world of about 7 billion people that is in danger. Depending on the source of information, 20% to 33% of the Russian grain crop is gone. Pakistan's bread basket is devastated. And there are many smaller areas where the crops have been ruined by floods or heat, from Iowa and Mississippi to China.

And then there is the little matter of about 40% of the oceans phytoplankton gone missing. Nothing to worry about, just the base of the ocean's food chain, and the largest single source for converting CO2 into O2 and food.

Here's one:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

I've lost track of how many times you posted this lie and I've nailed you on this lie only for you to post this lie again. If you were even remotely honest you would have put an ellipses after the yes.

The complete answer was:
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

And you blow yourself up everytime